MediaBloodhound

Special Report: NYT Iraq War Timeline Whitewashes History (Part III: Burying News of Iraqi Dead)

To mark the recent fifth anniversary of the Iraq War, The New York Times published an interactive timeline. This is the third in a series of posts exploring the most misleading statements and glaring omissions from its Iraq War history. (If you missed either of the first two parts, you can read them here and here).

Timeline Entry: W.H.O.'s Iraqi Civilian Death Toll

This entry reads in full: "January 9, 2008, W.H.O. Estimates Deaths: The World Health Organization publishes a study estimating the number of Iraqi civilian deaths from the start of the war through June 2006 as between 104,000 and 223,000. It estimated that the actual total was 151,000."

In the accompanying article filed on Jan. 10, 2008 (linked under the timeline), The Times does note the John Hopkins study, which estimated "about 600,000 [Iraqi civilian] dead between the war’s start, in March 2003, and July 2006." So why, then, isn't this acknowledged in the timeline? Moreover, nine paragraphs into that same companion article, The Times mentions in passing:

In any case, the study [W.H.O.'s] ended four months after the bombing of a revered Shiite shrine in Samarra helped set off a wave of killings throughout Baghdad and other mixed Sunni-Shiite areas. So because of its timing, the study missed the period of what is believed to be the worst sectarian killings, during the latter half of 2006 and the first eight months of 2007.

FACT: This not only undercuts W.H.O.'s count but, considering the John Hopkins study only covered through the following month (July 2006), it also illuminates the shockingly high number of Iraqi civilian deaths by John Hopkin's estimate, which was counted before the "worst sectarian killings, during the latter half of 2006 and the first eight months of 2007."

The Times' omission of the John Hopkin's study is not surprising, considering it's framed in the accompanying article as having "come under criticism for its methodology." In reality, its methodology was almost solely criticized by the White House (President Bush falsely claimed that "the methodology has been pretty well discredited"), the Pentagon, and partisan pro-war supporters in the media.

Special Report: NYT Iraq War Timeline Whitewashes History (Part II: Record Day of Global Protest Disappeared)

To mark the recent fifth anniversary of the Iraq War, The New York Times published an interactive timeline. This is the second in a series of posts exploring the most misleading statements and glaring omissions from its Iraq War history (read Part I here).

Timeline Entry: DC Antiwar Protest

This entry reads in full: "Jan. 18, 2003, Antiwar Demonstration: Tens of thousands of demonstrators converge on Washington to protest the threatened use of force in Iraq."

FACT: First of all, a demonstration of equal or greater size (according to varying estimates) occurred in San Francisco on the same day. The Times did report the San Francisco protest in its corresponding 2003 article (a link is provided beneath the timeline). So, to put it mildly, it's a peculiar omission. Additionally, employing terminology such as "tens of thousands" rather than, say, 200,000 - the estimated number of participants in both DC and San Francisco on Jan. 18, 2003 - is patently misleading. (The San Francisco police department's original calculations, by the way, were 40,000 before it altered its count several times, from 55,000 to 100,000-125,000 a few days later, to then stating 150,000 a "safe estimate," while also conceding it could've been closer to 200,000.) The mainstream media, led by The Times, has regularly used such language to describe the number of Iraq War protesters. Such statistically blunting nomenclature has been a gift to the Bush White House and an assault on the most American of activities: peaceful dissent.

As the Jan. 26, 2003 editorial in the Santa Rosa Press Democrat noted: "A demonstration of 40,000 is newsworthy. A protest of 150,000 to 200,000 is historic."

Yet even more egregious than this entry was the timeline's failure to mention what was arguably the single largest day of protest in recorded human history: February 15, 2003, in which up to 30 million people in over 600 towns and cities across the globe protested the imminent invasion of Iraq. Roughly half a million people gathered in New York City alone. The 3 million who protested in Rome entered the Guinness World Records as the "Largest Anti-War Rally" ever.

What's more, in a February 17, 2003 front-page news analysis by reporter Patrick Tyler, The Times itself printed:

The fracturing of the Western alliance over Iraq and the huge antiwar demonstrations around the world this weekend are reminders that there may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion.

In his campaign to disarm Iraq, by war if necessary, President Bush appears to be eyeball to eyeball with a tenacious new adversary: millions of people who flooded the streets of New York and dozens of other world cities to say they are against war based on the evidence at hand.

[...]

For the moment, an exceptional phenomenon has appeared on the streets of world cities. It may not be as profound as the people's revolutions across Eastern Europe in 1989 or in Europe's class struggles of 1848, but politicians and leaders are unlikely to ignore it.

Of course our politicians and leaders - the ones with the power to prevent this war - did ignore this. Five years later, so has The New York Times.

In other words, our paper of record presents an Iraq War timeline in which it includes one mention of one protest in one city, yet fails to record the largest coordinated global protest in the history of the human race.

Not Fox News. Not the Bush administration up on its White House website. The New York Times. This is ineptitude or censorship on a truly staggering level.

Special Report: President Bush Mourns Every Loss?

In the last line of "The Unfeeling President," novelist E.L. Doctorow’s masterful 2004 essay on President Bush, he wrote: "He cannot mourn but is a figure of such moral vacancy as to make us mourn for ourselves."

Many Americans would have agreed with Doctorow's assessment four years ago. Today, far more have accepted this reality about the man who sends our sons and daughters off to die in his never-ending war of choice. Yet, by and large, our national press corps still covers President Bush as if he were a king, treating him with a deference and submissiveness equal to the contempt and belligerence he affords its members, the American people, world opinion and the rule of law. 

In a telling prelude to the grim milestone of 4,000 American dead in Iraq (of which 97% were killed after the president, with his "Mission Accomplished" banner aloft, declared major combat operations over), Mr. Bush, less than two weeks ago, gushed about how "romantic" it would be to fight right now on the "front lines" in Afghanistan. You know, trudging through clouds of depleted uranium while sniper bullets whiz by your head, wondering if the next roadside bomb has your name on it. On March 13, in a videoconference with U.S. military and civilian personnel stationed in Afghanistan, our president spoke of war as if it were a videogame (to date, roughly 482 US troops have died in Afghanistan):

"I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said. "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed.

"It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks," Bush said.

Adding insult to injury, on that very same day, March 13, the Pentagon released an exhaustive study confirming that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

Meanwhile, our uber chickenhawk of a president - who, along with his multiple draft-deferring vice president, avoided serving in Vietnam - had expressed a similar callous, G.I. Joe vision of warfare in September 2007. Writing for the Washington Post, Dan Froomkin reported on Bush's "misguided sense of bravado":

President Bush wishes that he could be alongside the troops in Iraq -- except that he's too old. At least that's what he reportedly told a blogger embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq...."N.Z. Bear," one of the eight guests sitting around a table with Bush at the White House, reported: "Responding to one of the bloggers in Iraq he expressed envy that they could be there, and said he'd like to be there but 'One, I'm too old to be out there, and two, they would notice me.'"

Froomkin also noted that since declaring an end to major combat missions operations on May 1, 2003, Bush, through September 2007, had only visited Iraq three times, for a total of fewer than 15 hours. Here's the courageous breakdown:

Bush's first trip was a two-and-a-half-hour visit to the Baghdad airport on Thanksgiving 2003, where he teared up at the sight of the soldiers and was famously photographed posing with a prop turkey.

In June 2006, Bush spent five hours visiting Iraqi political leaders in Baghdad, although he didn't let the prime minister know he was coming.

During his most recent trip, two weeks ago, Bush was on the ground for seven hours, never leaving the confines of a military base known as Camp Cupcake, a heavily fortified American outpost for 10,000 troops with a 13-mile perimeter.

And how does Bush's vice president soften the oncoming blow of 4,000 American dead? In response to ABC's Martha Raddich pointing out that two-thirds of Americans think the war was a mistake, Dick Cheney replied, "So?"

And so, now this: 4,000 Americans have fallen in Iraq but nothing changes. President Bush and Vice President Cheney can say and do anything with seeming impunity. The blood of 4,000 American men and women is spilled and the press corps' questions - in context to this administration's seven-and-a-half years of death, destruction and brazen criminality - still aren't much tougher than they were on the eve of the invasion, when one of their sharpest inquiries was: "Mr. President, as the nation is at odds over war, with many organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus pushing for continued diplomacy through the U.N., how is your faith guiding you?" During that same press conference, President Bush himself, in a bizarre and now forgotten meta-gaffe, admitted the question and answer session was a farce. The White House press corps reacted by chuckling along in complicity:

PRESIDENT BUSH: The risk of doing nothing, the risk of hoping that Saddam Hussein changes his mind and becomes a gentle soul, the risk that somehow -- that inaction will make the world safer, is a risk I'm not willing to take for the American people. We'll be there in a minute. King, John King. This is a scripted -- (laughter.)

Flash forward five years later from that press conference and here's how the Associated Press frames Mr. Bush's handling of the 4,000 American soldiers, in an article titled "Bush Sympathetic As War Toll Hits 4,000":

Grim milestones such as new death toll often go unremarked by Bush. But he chose on this occasion to note the losses, albeit briefly and without taking questions from reporters.

As always, his message was determination.

Special Report: NYT Iraq War Timeline Whitewashes History (Part I: Hans Blix Security Council Presentation)

To mark the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War yesterday, The New York Times published an interactive timeline. Yet even after the paper's mea culpa about its deficient reporting leading up to the invasion, The Times repeats similar journalistic malpractice in this stroll down memory lane.

This is the first in a series of posts exploring the most misleading statements and glaring omissions from its Iraq War history:

Timeline Entry: Hans Blix's Report to Security Council

This entry reads in full: "Jan. 27, 2003, Weapons Inspector Reports: Hans Blix, a chief U.N. weapons inspector, reports that Iraq has not cooperated during two months of inspections."

The corresponding Times report filed back in 2003 (to which there's a link beneath the timeline) is titled "Inspector Says Iraq Falls Short," with the lede, "Hans Blix, one of the chief United Nations weapons inspectors, gave a broadly negative report today on Iraq's cooperation with two months of inspections, providing support to the Bush administration's campaign to disarm Iraq by force if necessary."

FACT: First, the statement in the timeline that Blix "reports that Iraq has not cooperated during two months of inspections" fails miserably to encompass not only the complexity of what Blix related to the Security Council but the intended purpose of his report.

Hans Blix saw his presentation before the Security Council as a report card with which to force Iraq's hand to be more forthcoming with his team of weapons inspectors. In the end, his dedication to the facts, of painting an exhaustive view of Iraq's cooperation up to that point, over a mere two-month period, left his findings vulnerable to cherry-picking by those, in the Bush administration and the media, who were beating the war drums. Blix related that Iraq had, as of Jan. 27, 2003, not cooperated as fully as he would have liked, but not that it had refused to cooperate altogether, as the timeline deceptively implies.

In fact, this timeline entry is even more misleading than that Times report filed on Blix's presentation. That report's framing certainly bolstered the Bush administration's argument for invasion, claiming, foremost, that Blix's findings "support the Bush administration's campaign to disarm Iraq by force if necessary" while wholly omitting Blix's points that progress had been made and his weapons inspectors needed more time to do their jobs. As opposed to this timeline entry, however, even the report refrained from implying Iraq had totally failed to cooperate. (Yet the article does give the false impression that Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the chief inspector for atomic weapons, held an extremely divergent view from Blix: "[ElBaradei] was less critical of Iraq today, reporting that his team had found no evidence so far that Iraq had tried to revive its nuclear arms program and appealing to the Security Council for a 'few months' more to complete his work." ElBaradei - who the Bush administration fought to remove from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), going so far as to tap his phone, and who, along with the IAEA, was later awarded the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize - would soon be roundly criticized by Vice President Dick Cheney, US United Nations ambassador John Bolton and other administration surrogates.)

Contrary to the 2003 administration narrative that is repeated in this 2008 timeline, years after it was first echoed by The Times and the mainstream media at large, Blix also told the Security Council that day:

HANS BLIX: While the inspection is not built on the premise of confidence, but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection. Iraq has, on the whole, cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC [U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission] in this field.

The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect. And with one exception, it has been [without] problems.

What's more, in closing his presentation, Blix painstakingly detailed how the weapons inspectors' capacity to perform their jobs was growing more effective by the day, progress had been made and much work remained:

HANS BLIX: Mr. President, I must not conclude this update without some notes on the growing capability of UNMOVIC. In the past two months, UNMOVIC has built up its capabilities in Iraq from nothing to 260 staff members from 60 countries. This includes approximately 100 UNMOVIC inspectors, 60 air operations staff, as well as security personnel, communication, translation and interpretation staff, medical support and other services at our Baghdad office and also Mosul field office.

All serve the United Nations and report to no one else.

Furthermore, our roster of inspectors will continue to grow as our training program continues. Even at this moment, we have a training course in session in Vienna. At the end of that course, we should have a roster of about 350 qualified experts from which to draw inspectors.

The team supplied by the Swiss government is refurbishing our office in Baghdad which had been empty for four years. The government in New Zealand has contributed both a medical team and a communications team. The German government will contribute unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance and a group of specialists to operate them for us within Iraq. And the government of Cyprus has kindly allowed us to set up a field office in Larnaca.

All of these contributions have an assistance in quickly starting up our inspections and enhancing our capabilities, so has help from the U.N. in New York and from sister organizations in Baghdad.

In the past two months, during which we have built up our presence in Iraq, we have conducted about 300 inspections to more than 230 different sites. Of these, more than 20 were sites that had not been inspected before.

By the end of December, UNMOVIC began using helicopters, both for the transport of inspectors and for actual inspection work. We now have eight helicopters. They have already proved invaluable in helping to freeze large sites by observing the movement of traffic in and around the area.

Setting up the field office in Mosul has facilitated rapid inspections of sites in northern Iraq. We plan to establish soon a second field office in the Basra area where we have already inspected a number of sites.

Mr. President, we now have an inspection apparatus that permits us to send multiple inspections teams every day all over Iraq by road or by air. Let me end by simply noting that that capability, which has been built up in a short time and which is now operating, is at the disposal of the Security Council.

Following Blix's Jan. 27 presentation before the Security Council, Iraq became more compliant to inspections while, simultaneously, the inspectors were expanding the coverage and effectiveness of their searches. But it didn't matter. The Bush administration had already made up its mind and began an effort to discredit Blix.

Blix revealed in an April 2003 interview: "When on January 27, I denounced Iraq in the Security Council of the UN for not cooperating in an immediate, complete and unconditional way to fulfill the terms of resolution 1441, the American Government, including the hawks, applauded me. However, it was a great paradox, because from then on, the Government of Iraq began to cooperate actively. And then the Americans began to criticize me." He also disclosed, "There is evidence that this war was planned well in advance. Sometimes this raises doubts about their attitude to the (weapons) inspections," adding, "I now believe that finding weapons of mass destruction has been relegated, I would say, to fourth place, which is why the United States and Britain are now waging war on Iraq."

And just today in The Guardian, Blix writes:

The elimination of weapons of mass destruction was the declared main aim of the war. It is improbable that the governments of the alliance could have sold the war to their parliaments on any other grounds. That they believed in the weapons' existence in the autumn of 2002 is understandable. Why had the Iraqis stopped UN inspectors during the 90s if they had nothing to hide? Responsibility for the war must rest, though, on what those launching it knew by March 2003.

By then, Unmovic inspectors had carried out some 700 inspections at 500 sites without finding prohibited weapons. The contract that George Bush held up before Congress to show that Iraq was purchasing uranium oxide was proved to be a forgery. The allied powers were on thin ice, but they preferred to replace question marks with exclamation marks.

They could not succeed in eliminating WMDs because they did not exist.

This timeline entry on Blix's Jan. 27 presentation to the Security Council is a sharp reminder of how the media, led by our paper of record, helped to sell the war in Iraq by almost invariably shaping information to fit the Bush administration's narrative. 

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.

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?":

Special Report: NPR Plays Fair-and-Balanced Game on Waterboarding

A recent segment on WNYC, New York’s flagship National Public Radio (NPR) station, underscored not only the level to which public broadcasting standards have degraded during the Bush years, increasingly adopting the same intellectually dishonest frames and “fair and balanced” debate as those aired on commercial media networks, but also how, simultaneously, public broadcasting deceptively benefits from, and is protected by, its vaunted and entrenched reputation for providing quality information.

WNYC’s The Brian Lehrer Show hosted the segment “Is Waterboarding Torture?” preceding Judge Michael Mukasey’s controversial confirmation for U.S. Attorney General. On its face, of course, this frame is straight out of the worst of network news and commercial talk radio. In fact, host Brian Lehrer introduces the segment with a replay of MSNBC conservative host Joe Scarborough’s words:

JOE SCARBOROUGH: You know, other people say torture doesn’t work, torture doesn’t work. And I’m not saying we need to torture. I’m just saying for the record, it is a matter of historical record that when we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, he started talking.

Lehrer jokingly chimes in, “Well, that pretty much sums up that debate, doesn’t it?” Yet he then uses Scarborough’s views as the launch pad for the segment:

LEHRER: Joe Scarborough on MSNBC talking about the controversial interrogation technique known as waterboarding. Lots of questions abound. Just what is waterboarding? Does it work? Is it torture? And waterboarding figures heavily in today’s news. The nomination of Michael Mukasey to the attorney general may well rest on his assessment of whether the technique does count as torture.

Contrary to an straightforward, informed assessment of this issue and absent a “balanced” right-wing talking head, Lehrer not only uses Scarborough as a surrogate partisan chatterer, but he himself intermittently assumes the role of foil to facts, history and common sense throughout the segment.

In introducing Malcolm Nance, a counterterrorism analyst, author of the New York Daily News op-ed “I Know Waterboarding Is Torture - Because I Did It Myself” and genuine authority on waterboarding, Lehrer lends further credence to Scarborough’s ill-informed, intellectually dishonest and unconstitutional rhetoric:

LEHRER: So first on that clip of Joe Scarborough on MSNBC. I don’t know if you were able to hear it. But that conservative talk show host claimed that waterboarding is precisely what got Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, al Qaeda’s number two, to talk after 9/11. Do you know that to be true or false?

NANCE: I personally don’t that to be true or false. And as a matter of fact, it hasn’t really been confirmed by anyone. When the Washington Post sourced that article some time ago, one of the comments that was made was, anonymously, was that the information was actually, some of it, unreliable. And that’s generally what happens when you torture someone for information.

I would like to pose a similar question to Lehrer: Did you know that to be true or false? If not, why? The answer, what Nance states, was reported long ago. And if you knew the answer to the question before posing it, wouldn’t “Isn’t it true that…” be a more honest, less contrived frame? Why are you playing devil’s advocate when you’re supposed to be a clear conduit of public information?

It is well known that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was waterboarded (among other torture techniques) and confessed to just about everything but the Kennedy assassination and the invention of asbestos.

The next few exchanges between Lehrer and Nance are actually quite informative, and reveal what public broadcasting is capable of when the “fair and balanced” canard is dropped.

LEHRER: What was the situation that led you to learn how to waterboard and teach others?

NANCE: During my last years of military service, I was a, uh, instructor at the U.S. Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School. And this is a school in which we train U.S. service members to resist and be introduced to some of the various techniques that are used around the world in case that they are captured and become prisoners of war or terrorist hostages or hostile governments’ detainees.

LEHRER: So walk us through this a little bit. Your op-ed says that you have led, witnessed or supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people. How do you do that?

NANCE: Well, even though it’s a very, very small fraction of personnel who might be selected for that activity. Over the time that I was there, we processed several thousand students through our school and one of those components is demonstrating a technique, a torture technique, which shows that a hostile government or a totalitarian nation has the ability to make you, to take you beyond your utmost ability to resist. And there are many other torture techniques which are far more brutal, but the waterboarding itself is a historically well-known torture technique. It was used in Vietnam, it was used in Cambodia and other places around the world.

[…]

LEHRER: Were you trained and were you training others to use it on others in actual U.S. government interrogations of detainees?

NANCE: No, absolutely not. As a matter of fact, that’s the thrust of my op-ed. We introduced the technique to students who may be at a high risk of capture. These schools have existed for decades. As a matter of fact, John McCain, Senator John McCain went to our school in Coronado, California, before he was shot down in Vietnam. But it just barely prepares the students who are going through. Now, we do not teach torture. Absolutely not. Now, how this technique came to be selected, if it is in fact selected as an enhanced interrogation technique, and had been used in Guantanamo or in Abu Ghraib and Afghanistan, I’m not privy to how it transferred itself over to that. There are some media reports that it was taken directly from our manuals. However, we demonstrate what a totalitarian nation with a complete disregard for laws and treaties would do to prisoners. And that’s the thrust of my op-ed. Also, my op-ed in the Small Wars Journal, which started this whole ball. And which the comments that were made by Joe Scarborough on the Scarborough show, where they felt that it was a debate, that this was debatable whether this was a torture technique or not. And as somebody who’s gone through it and has had to perform the procedure, I know what it is and there is no debate as to whether it’s a torture technique. And that’s what I wanted to make very clear.

But Lehrer can’t seem to help himself. How does he follow up this momentarily unfiltered, thoughtful and educated discourse?

LEHRER: Let me play you a little more then of what Joe Scarborough said on his MSNBC show. Here it is:

SCARBOROUGH: That’s the debate: Is waterboarding torture? I don’t want the United States to engage in the type of torture that John McCain had to endure. But is waterboarding torture? If it’s in a controlled environment? If you have it done, instead of National Guardsmen from West Virginia like we had it at Abu Ghraib, if people that have been interrogating for twenty years, thirty years? I don’t know…”

Soon thereafter, Lehrer attacks Nance’s primary points – that waterboarding isn’t simulated drowning; the person on whom this technique is applied is drowning, and it is torture.

LEHRER: But since they never actually drown anybody, but just do it to induce the fear of drowning. I mean you said it is drowning.

NANCE: It is drowning.

LEHRER: But if people actually drowned, they would die. So they induce the feeling of drowning, they would say, induce the fear of that, and that coerces people to talk. Truthfully or not is another matter.

NANCE: Well, in fact, it’s not introducing the fear of drowning – because you are in fact drowning. Water is entering your lungs and your breathing process is starting to degrade throughout that period of time. So you in fact are just going through an extremely controlled drowning. And it doesn’t matter whether you’re a professional or an amateur. I’ve seen waterboarding from Cambodia to the articles that were written of the war crimes on Japanese interrogators to Argentineans – it’s almost universal, the technique. It doesn’t matter whether you have a very nice board or whether you have it done on a concrete floor. You are going through a procedure which is debasing and painful. And if you want someone to comply, you’re going to get it. They absolutely will comply. However, this is not something which is, whether it’s a controlled environment or not, determines whether it’s torture or not.

Lehrer continues this nonsense when he’s joined by Karen Greenberg, Executive Director of the Center on Law and Security at NYU Law School, another well-informed guest beholden to the truth and the rule of law. (Incidentally, while I applaud Lehrer for bringing Nance and Greenberg on his show, how much credit does he deserve when he forces both to waste such a large amount of time responding to right-wing talking points? Again, the segment’s title - “Is Waterboarding Torture?” - is no mistake. It guides Lehrer’s decision-making process throughout and, wittingly or not, clearly reveals that debate for debate’s sake, rather than, say, drilling for the layered and complex truth, is what’s driving the proceedings. But imagine the depth of discussion if Lehrer were to drop this brain-dead and corrosive tactic. One that NPR, as does PBS, professes - most notably during the heat of fund-raising drives - is beneath them.) 

LEHRER: And Karen Greenberg from the NYU Law School Center on Law and Security, what about that position? He is not yet the attorney general, and so he has not yet been classified, been briefed on this classified information of what specific interrogation techniques are used, aren’t used, what’s considered legal by the administration, what’s not. Is it unfair of the media, of the Congress, as the president says, to demand a specific answer from him?

GREENBERG: Absolutely not. They didn’t ask him if he knew what the techniques of the program were. They asked him a simple question: Is waterboarding in your opinion torture? That’s all they asked him. It’s not up to him to know the details at this point and that’s not, that wasn’t the line they were pursuing. And what President Bush and Dick Cheney yesterday did in their press conferences, in their speeches, was to basically say, “Look, you can’t hold somebody accountable if they don’t know,” and this has been a persistent theme throughout the Bush administration – this refusal to be accountable on the ground that no one has the facts. And on very many other grounds, but this is just their technique. "How can you accuse us of something if we’ve kept it secret?"

And it only gets worse:

LEHRER: Do you agree that there are degrees of waterboarding? And so, you know, again in Mukasey’s defense, he may not know to what degree this technique is actually used, how close to drowning somebody in the drowning experience, in actually filling their lungs with water, as our previous guest was describing, they actually go. Which also makes it difficult for him to take a position on whether the administration is using a torture technique.

GREENBERG: Waterboarding is designed to simulate drowning. So the degrees of it, whether it’s done well or not done well, that’s the goal of it. And that is why it is torture because torture is defined, in part, as that which simulates near death or the threat of death. And so I wouldn’t buy the degree thing. I want to say on this it doesn’t work thing. You know, to many of us, whether or not torture works is very much beside the point. Even if it does work, it is illegal. And it comprises so much in terms of our ability to effect decency and justice around the world. And our ability to not rely on a last-minute technique, but to get our information ahead of time and years earlier. There are many reasons to oppose torture beyond whether or not it works.

Eventually Greenberg appears to grow impatient with this contrived debate, the endless banality and futility of having to respond to one disingenuous talking point after another, and she finally pulls back the curtain on this farce:

GREENBERG: What’s going here in the debate…we’re losing sight of what the actual debate is about. The actual debate going on right now in Washington is about immunity. And about…and that’s the deeply troubling part of it, is there has been a cry for immunity, partially through the memos [the administration’s “torture memos”] from 2002, ’03, ’04 and ’05, that say, “Look, we would feel we need to implement torture techniques, however, we want to make sure everybody’s immune. However, we don’t want to bring this up for a public vetting.”

Lehrer, seemingly caught off-guard, replies, "Mmm."

Greenberg then shakes the wizard from his perch.

GREENBERG: And so this is really not a discussion about “Does torture work?” or Judge Mukasey. This is a discussion about how much immunity this government wants.

As if compelled to save face, Lehrer immediately responds (in the segment’s last seconds):

LEHRER: So, here, let me read you – we’re just about out of time – but let me read you one sentence from The New York Times editorial on this yesterday, where it says, “The only information Mr. Mukasey can possibly be lacking is whether Mr. Bush broke the law by authorizing the CIA to use waterboarding. A judgment the White House clearly does not want him to render in public because it could expose a host of officials to criminal accountability.” So, legal bottom line, do you think that’s what’s going on here?

Of course, that's how Lehrer should’ve framed the discussion from the start. Instead, he spends thirty minutes burying the actual lede, which Greenberg disinters in the final moments, exposing the inherent charade of the entire segment.   

Greenberg replies, “I absolutely think that is the fear of the Bush administration,” generously omitting that, in essence, it's the point she just made.

Finally, Lehrer not only relies on himself, Joe Scarborough and administration talking points to play foil to his two unimpeachable guests, but also leans on his callers, who, quite dubiously, just happen to be woefully uninformed and/or heavily right-leaning (not an easy task in these parts, mind you):

DALE IN SEAFORD HARBOR: Oh, hi Brian, this is a great segment. I have two quick comments. One, I think there are degrees of waterboarding, so you can get wet or come near drowning. [Dale seems to have confused waterboarding with a bath.] And comment two: it doesn’t work. A better way to interrogate a suspect is to become friends.

[…]

STACEY IN JERSEY CITY: Good morning, Brian. Thank you for taking my call. I am really disturbed at this entire ordeal. To answer the question, I think that this confirmation should be approved. The attorney general, or the prospective attorney general, should not be put in such an unreasonable position to give his opinion about a practice that isn’t new to the Republican Party. [Freudian slip or ironic malaprop?] I resent the implications that the Democrats are doing this, you know, for justice, we are really are going to stick by the law. I would like to know when you are in that position, when you have a bunch of murderers who are out to kill us, what are you supposed to do? Have tea and just please beg them to be forthcoming with the truth. [If that isn’t enough…] This is exactly why, as an African-American, I left the Democratic Party. They’re hypocrites.

[…]

STEVE IN WOODMERE: Good morning. You know, it seems to me that the Democrats, what they’re looking for, is they want to, you know, appoint someone who’s going to answer all the questions just the way they want it done. I thought Mr. Mukasey’s answer was very clear. He said, “Torture is illegal. I don’t know what waterboarding entails so I’m not going to put myself out and tell you that it is illegal.” Now, Mrs. Greenberg, she thinks, uh, that she’s some sort of an expert on how to deal with terrorists and how to get information. [Uh, because she is?] I don’t know what kind of experience does she have. It doesn’t work just the way, you know, just because she says this is what should be done, that’s how it’s going to work. There are a lot more details to getting information from terrorists than what she’s suggesting. 

My question? Why does Brian Lehrer think “Is Waterboarding Torture?” a viable frame for this topic? Needless to say, they happened to run out of time before getting to that one. And certainly, too, the questions of other informed tri-state area residents who objected to Mr. Lehrer’s “fair and balanced” handling of waterboarding. 

Incidentally, under “Statement and Principles” in the NPR News Code of Ethics and Practices, it says:

"Fair" means that we present all important views on a subject. This range of views may be encompassed in a single story on a controversial topic, or it may play out over a body of coverage or series of commentaries. But at all times the commitment to presenting all important views must be conscious and affirmative, and it must be timely if it is being accomplished over the course of more than one story.

The phrase “all important views,” of course, raises more questions than it answers. It’s not clear what constitutes all important views in the eyes of NPR - the legitimacy of what is being said, the prominence of the speaker, both, or either? Rush Limbaugh, for example, is a well-known figure, but he prevaricates for a living, viciously, amorally. Bush administration officials, from the top down, have been caught in serial lies and unconstitutional tactics for years, but what they say must fall under “important views”; yet if their statements are steeped in patent subversions of the truth, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and international law, is it “fair” to present such views to guests and the listening audience as if they should be given equal time and weight? As evidenced in Lehrer’s segment, doesn’t that, rather, often work to obfuscate the truth, mislead listeners and give cover to those who actively promulgate specious information?

Is that fair? Is that even sane? Isn't that the opposite of what a free press - especially via public broadcasting - is charged to provide to its citizens?

Special Report: My Conversation with ABC's Jeffrey Schneider

Editor's Note: This is the third in a series of MediaBloodhound reports covering the Alexis Debat ABC News scandal. The first two are here and here. Glenn Greenwald's exhaustive work back in April proved invaluable to this post.

In late October 2001, Brian Ross and ABC News reported on a major “scoop” for days: a link between Saddam Hussein and the anthrax attacks. The implications and impact of this highly touted story were clear. Some members of the Bush White House and their neocon minions were already seeking to tie Saddam to 9/11 as a pretense for attacking Iraq. In Michael Isikoff and David Corn's Hubris, one administration official recalled the giddy scene among the Iraq hawks in the White House when ABC’s story first broke. Still gripped by acute fear and grief, the American public was primed to embrace this news, and many Beltway pundits, even "liberals," jumped at the chance to stir the hysteria.

The reports, however, turned out to be completely false.

Now, while no news organization or individual journalist can, or should, be held to a standard of infallibility, ABC News, six years later, appeared to have never issued a valid correction to its audience (though it said it had) or retract any of its Saddam-anthrax stories. Moreover, in view of the Alexis Debat scandal, a critical unanswered question surfaced: Was Debat used as a source on these stories?

I contacted ABC News senior vice president and spokesman Jeffrey Schneider, first via email and then by phone, in an effort to get clarification on these two issues. 

First, here’s the meat of our email exchange (though it adds much length, I opted not to summarize these emails because they reveal many things to which I can't do justice in summation):

October 2, 2007

Dear Mr. Schneider,

It's come to my attention that Alexis Debat was already working with, or for, ABC News at the time Brian Ross and his investigative unit broke and began reporting on the Saddam-anthrax story in October/November 2001. Any linkage between Saddam and the anthrax mailed to Senator Daschle, as I'm sure you're aware, later proved to be unfounded. Just a couple of questions I'm hoping you can clear up for me:

1) Can you please confirm whether Alexis Debat was a source for ABC News on the Saddam-anthrax reports?

2) To date, has ABC News issued a correction for this story? If not, why?

FYI, here's one of the earliest of these reports (from your website):
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92276&page=1

Thank you in advance for addressing these questions.

Brad Jacobson
--
MediaBloodhound
http://mediabloodhound.com

October 2, 2007

Thanks for your questions. Debat had nothing whatever to do with the anthrax report you reference. And we did correct that reporting in subsequent stories.
Jeffrey W. Schneider
SVP, ABC News

October 3, 2007

Jeffrey,
Thanks for your answers. But a bit more clarification would be appreciated.

First, on the issue of a correction, I've researched and found no evidence that ABC News ever issued a correction to its audience, or, for that matter, retracted any of its Saddam-anthrax stories. (This seems to be supported by the fact that you still have at least some of those original stories on your website, such as the one I included in my previous email, and that these stories are still being cited by other news outlets to this day.) In your claim to have issued a correction, I'll assume you're not referring to Brian Ross' acknowledgment that the White House "denied any bentonite was found in the anthrax." I'll also assume you're not referring to your admission to Salon's Glenn Greenwald that "our original report was indeed wrong." Of course, the former is not a correction, but merely an acknowledgment of White House disagreement with ABC News' findings; and the latter, though a confirmation of error, was not issued to ABC News' audience, which would be necessary to actually constitute a correction.

For the sake of accuracy, then, if ABC News issued a correction to its audience about its Saddam-anthrax stories, as you maintain, could you please direct me to where I might find this. I'm sure you'd like to clear this up, too, and I would think evidence of this should be easy to locate on your part. So thanks for that.

Second, on the issue of any involvement of Alexis Debat as a source in the Saddam-anthrax stories, I suppose I have no other choice but to, at least on the surface, take your word. Unfortunately, with all due respect to your inside information on this, I don't feel I would be doing due diligence to accept your response on its face. Because a) ABC News never revealed even the smallest detail about those "four separate well-placed sources" used in its Saddam-anthrax stories, such as what their positions, affiliations, or even vocations were (even after the information they supplied proved to be wrong), and b) considering ABC News' use of Debat as a source for just such stories and that such a revelation might be further damaging in the wake of the Debat affair, I'm sure you could understand why I might - and in an effort to cover this responsibly, why I should - question your response.

If there is some way to back up your claim that Debat had, as you say, "nothing whatever to do" with ABC News' Saddam-anthrax stories (i.e., he was not used as a source in them), that would be most helpful in removing any cloud of doubt concerning his involvement. May I suggest that acknowledging either the positions, affiliations or vocations of those "four separate well-placed sources" might go a long way in removing suspicion of Debat's involvement. Though if there is some other evidence you'd like to present, I would be very interested as well.

Please note that my intention here is not to assail your honesty or accuracy in this matter. Rather, considering ABC News' track record over the last six years in light of the Debat affair, I'm merely attempting to do due diligence and get the facts straight.

Thanks again for addressing these questions.

Brad Jacobson
--
MediaBloodhound
http://mediabloodhound.com

October 3, 2007

Mr Jacobson - ABC News corrected our October 26 story on November 1, 2001 when Brian Ross said the following on World News Tonight to Peter Jennings: "today the White House said despite initial test results which we reported suggesting the presence of a chemical called bentonite, a trademark of the Iraqi weapons program, a further chemical analysis has ruled that out." It is important to remember that our initial reporting reflected what numerous sources were telling us about the anthrax investigation at that moment (October 26, 2001) in time. As the story evolved, and it became clear that bentonite was not found, we made that important fact clear to our audience. As for Debat, he had no involvement in that reporting. He was not a source for that report. Thanks.

October 4, 2007

Mr. Schneider - The truth is, Ross not only failed to issue a valid correction with this line - at no time (as you readily admit) did he say ABC News' original reports and sources were wrong about the bentonite being present - but, what's worse, he misled your audience when he suggested the White House had conceded previously that ABC News' original findings were valid. As you know, and as Ross mentioned multiple times prior to his Nov. 1 report, the White House, from the beginning, insisted that ABC News' original reports were wrong, and at no time did it ever waver in its statements.

In fact, as then White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said at the time: "If ABC's sources are so good, perhaps they'd like to come out and identify themselves and share the information they have, just as Gen. Parker [Army Maj. Gen. John Parker, who ran the investigation], and the White House have done. It's easier to be an anonymous source floating allegations than be an on-the-record source sharing information and taking questions."

So, for the record (unless you've yet to divulge information proving otherwise), it's clear that ABC News never issued a valid correction to its audience; moreover, further muddling the facts, Ross misled your viewers on Nov. 1 by implying the White House had at some point given credence to ABC News' initial reports about bentonite being present.

Fleischer's comments lead me to the question you haven't addressed beyond a surface denial: Did ABC News use Alexis Debat as a source in its Saddam-anthrax stories? I requested from you some kind of proof that he wasn't involved. And I suggested that a simple way to remove the cloud of suspicion surrounding Debat's potential involvement would be to at least divulge the most minimal of attributions to your "four separate well-placed sources," such as positions, affiliations, or even vocations. Though I also welcomed any other evidence you might have wanted to present.

So, for the record, it's clear you either have no evidence proving that Debat wasn't involved - i.e. used as a source - for ABC News' Saddam-anthrax reports, or you've chosen to withhold any such evidence. I'd also like to reiterate that requesting proof of this on my part is no reflection on your honesty or accuracy, but rather, considering ABC News' track record for the last six years in light of the Debat affair (not to mention its current refusal to allow for an outside investigation of the matter), it's the only responsible way I can confirm to my readers that Mr. Debat wasn't involved.

I welcome any further clarifications with regard to these two issues. And, once again, thank you for addressing them.

Brad Jacobson
--
MediaBloodhound
http://mediabloodhound.com

Our conversation then continued over the phone.

On the question of issuing a correction, Schneider maintained that Brian Ross’ words to Peter Jennings on Nov. 1, 2001 constituted a correction. I reiterated my point (previously made by Glenn Greenwald back in April) that what Ross said not only shouldn't be considered a valid correction but, making matters worse, actually gave the false impression the White House had concurred at some point with ABC’s initial reports. But Schneider refused to concede this. (Incidentally, to this day, you can still find the story on ABC’s website, sans an accompanying editor’s note or annotation to alert the reader it’s false. It remains there, misinforming those who come across it and enabling others who wish to use it to continue propagating the lie of Saddam/9-11.)

On the question of Debat’s potential involvement in the Saddam-anthrax stories, Schneider remained adamant in his prior position - Debat wasn’t used as a source and wasn’t in any way involved in the investigation. Pressed further, Schneider did confirm that Debat had yet to be hired by ABC News at the time; Debat began officially working for ABC on Nov. 13, 2001. Though it’s important to note Debat did work with ABC News prior to that date, starting in early October of the same year. Schneider was quick to point out, however, that Debat was only called upon as an outside analyst during this period and never used as a source for any story.

But following our conversation, I found an Oct. 4, 2001 story for Primetime titled “How Hijackers May Have Communicated” on ABC News’ website. The report, filed by Brian Ross, appears to have definitely used Debat as source (in this case a fully attributed one; though, of course, we know now that attribution, “former French defense official,” was false):

And French investigators believe that suspects arrested in an alleged plot to blow up the U.S. Embassy in Paris were to get the go-ahead for the attack via a message hidden in a picture posted on the Internet, former French defense official Alexis Debat told ABCNEWS.

One of the men in custody, described by French officials as a computer nerd well-versed in the messaging technique, was captured with a notebook full of secret codes.

"This code book is major breakthrough in the investigation," said Debat.

Clearly, Debat’s role on this story - a report issued prior to his official start date of employment at ABC News – is not as an outside analyst; rather, outside of ABC's 401(k) and Dental, he’s passing on vital inside information to ABC News, apparently as a source close to the French investigation.

In regard to the same topic of Debat’s possible involvement in the Saddam-anthrax stories, Schneider also later said it was “my understanding” that he was not involved. When I asked him to clarify this slight but significant alteration of his prior blanket denials, he said, “The people who worked on that story told me he had nothing to do with it."

I don’t think I’m splitting hairs here to suggest that “Debat had nothing whatever to do with the anthrax report” is not quite the same as this is “my understanding” and "The people who worked on that story told me he had nothing to do with it." The former, if accurate, asserts Schneider is relaying firsthand knowledge; the latter betrays this. So, for example, what Schneider is telling me about Debat's involvement might very well be the truth - to the extent he is aware.

Let me remind you: to date, ABC News has brushed off the notion of an outside investigation into the Alexis Debat affair. Big media being a curious mix of journalism, business, entertainment and politics, a mere internal investigation begs the question: what would ABC News have to gain by revealing anything - or, more specifically, many things - that might portray it in a poor light?

If ever there was an example of why an outside investigation should be occurring over the Alexis Debat scandal, this is it.

And it dovetails with our further conversation about sourcing.

As I noted earlier, even applying minimal attributions to those wholly anonymous sources could largely remove suspicion of Debat’s involvement in the Saddam-anthrax stories (if he, in fact, was not involved). Yet Schneider maintains that any attribution, however minor, would’ve put those sources in jeopardy. But it seems a stretch that this is what's driving ABC to still refuse to further quantify these sources today.

First, especially in light of the Debat affair, why wouldn’t ABC News want to do everything in its power to staunch any doubt as to his potential involvement in the Saddam-anthrax stories? It makes no sense how the most minimal of attributions – say, “an expert in biochemistry” or “a White House source,” just enough to make clear Debat was not among those sources - would jeopardize anyone, specifically at this late date.

Moreover, as Greenwald pointed out, if these source were so wrong, which Schneider admitted then and now - if they were lousy sources, if they passed on highly inaccurate information, potentially with the goal of both misleading ABC News and convincing the American public an attack on Iraq was warranted – shouldn’t that be sufficient to modify, at least within reason (i.e. with the sole intent of getting at the truth), ABC’s prior oath to attribute only full anonymity?

In other words, why does ABC News, as demonstrated with this story and others - you might recall the big “scoop” about Iran having a nuclear bomb by 2009 (another wholly anonymously sourced story later proven to be false, which ABC has neither corrected nor retracted) - seem more beholden in such cases to confirmed bogus sources than it does to revealing the truth to its audience?

In hindsight, one would be foolish not to consider the possibility that one or more of these sources had reason to foist such faulty information onto ABC News. After all, the trumpeting of another set of specious data is, of course, what sold Americans the war in Iraq. The burden in this case, then (and other similar cases at the news network), should be on ABC to responsibly reveal more information about its sources, enough so its audience can better assess why the story went so wrong.

I went round and round with Schneider on this point. And though he listened patiently, he wouldn’t directly or substantively address it beyond stating a) the sources in question would be jeopardized, b) ABC News has a long history of solid reporting and its audience has come to trust it to make such difficult internal decisions (i.e. on sourcing) and c) ABC News’ official approach to sourcing, which is as follows (I requested this from him in writing):

Our default position is to identify sources on the record by name and occupation. In some cases, when identifying a source by name could potentially endanger the source we withhold the name but ID their position and/or rank to give the audience context about where the source is coming from (i.e. a top US Government Official, a senior European intelligence official). In rare cases, we grant anonymity to sources (i.e. a source told ABC News) when identifying the source in any way could be a threat to their actual safety or position. Granting anonymity is a serious decision that we don't make lightly and must be approved by top news executives who know exactly who the source is and what they are saying. In other words, our reporters cannot simply grant blanket anonymity without approval and justification.

Finally, regarding Schneider’s comment about ABC News’ long history of reliable reporting and earned trust among its audience, I argued its penchant (at least over the last six years) for failing to air prominent corrections and granting sources full anonymity on stories of such impact - which influence whether nations go to war (or, rather, are invaded or attacked) – damages ABC News’ credibility and puts into question its entire news organization.

As evidence of other less than stellar reporting by ABC News, I also brought up its recent coverage of the Democratic presidential debate, during which, among other offenses, ABC cropped a presidential candidate out of the default Associated Press photo on its website, lied about it, disappeared it and then acted as if nothing improper ever occurred. Schneider chalked this incident up to ABC News' executive director of media relations, Andrea Jones, making “a mistake.” But even if Jones is granted the benefit of the doubt - that she somehow unwittingly passed on this false information and wasn't involved in an internal effort to cover the network's tracks, to date, ABC News (just as with the aforementioned stories) has never issued a correction to its viewers. None. Not to mention, as is due in this case, a public apology to Congressman Kucinich to go along with that missing correction.

That is a mistake. One ABC News appears comfortable with making over and over again on stories that greatly impact the lives of American citizens and millions of people throughout the world.

Special Report: NPR Goes Easy on ABC News Spokesman in Debat Affair

Editor's Note: This is the second in a series of posts on ABC News' Alexis Debat scandal (all background information is here, which includes some updates to the original post). While this story disappeared in the mainstream media over a week ago and, largely, in the alternative/progressive media as well, MediaBloodhound's coverage will be ongoing. One of the worst breaches of journalistic standards in U.S. history demands much more attention than this surreal but all-too-real tale has received.

Over the weekend, NPR's often excellent program On the Media aired two interviews concerning the Alexis Debat scandal at ABC News. One featured journalist Laura Rozen, who, as national security correspondent for Mother Jones and on warandpiece.com, has led the way on this story in the U.S. (and, personally, has been of great help in confirming aspects of this scandal about which I've written).The other featured ABC News vice president and spokesman Jeffrey Schneider. Bob Garfield hosted both.

If you've been keeping up with this story, Garfield's segment with Rozen sheds no new light, but does a fine job in providing an overview of flim-flam artist Alexis Debat. Its one glaring weakness is Garfield's failure to address ABC News' culpability in both being bamboozled by Debat and having created and sanctioned the shady news-gathering environment in which he operated. Giving Garfield the benefit of the doubt, one might argue he was saving those questions for ABC's Mr. Schneider. Unfortunately, he also fails to substantively challenge the ABC News spokesman on these points.

The following is the full but brief transcript (the segment was only about 5-6 minutes) of the interview with Schneider, along with my responses:

BOB GARFIELD, HOST: When ABC News learned of Debat’s bogus Ph.D. last May, the network swiftly fired him. It also scrutinized the stories in which Debat had served as a source, but did not find any inaccuracies. This week, in response to news that Debat faked not only his credentials but entire interviews, ABC has opened a second, more extensive investigation into all the stories he touched. But unlike The New York Times after Jayson Blair or USA Today after Jack Kelly, ABC is working internally and has no plans for an outside investigation. Jeffrey Schneider is senior vice president and spokesman for ABC News. He says his company is determined to get to the bottom of the Debat problem.

JEFFREY SCHNEIDER, ABC SPOKESMAN: I could understand why people might want a third party to look at these things. And it’s impossible for me at this point to say whether that would be something that could happen. I do, however, have great confidence in our ability to, I think, answer these questions to the satisfaction of ourselves and to our audience.

No follow-up from Garfield.

ABC News relied on someone for six years who’s been proven to be a fraud. In hiring Debat, it failed to even verify the most basic information on his resume, such as his fabricated Ph.D. from the Sorbonne and greatly embellished “French Defense Ministry official” position (which, via the French government, the French news service AFP confirmed was a fiction back in 2002). Moreover, as Laura Rozen reported in Mother Jones, two journalists familiar with Debat’s work portray the leader of ABC News’ investigative unit, Brian Ross, “not only as the victim of Debat's alleged deceptions, but as an enabler, who has promoted sensational stories—including some that Debat brought the network—at the expense at times of rigorous journalism standards.”

I don’t doubt your “great confidence” to answer these questions to ABC News' satisfaction, Mr. Schneider. Quite the opposite. Nor do I doubt your same confidence in answering these questions to the satisfaction of your audience - especially because ABC News has failed to report this scandal on air (more on this below); consequently, having kept your audience almost completely in the dark, quelling their concerns should be a less than formidable task.

Rather, considering ABC’s negligent track record with regard to Alexis Debat, on what basis should anyone else have confidence in your internal investigation?

BOB GARFIELD, HOST: Now, other news organizations when they discover that they have a liar in their ranks, there, at some point, tends to be disclosure to the audience. In what form has your disclosure taken place?

JEFFREY SCHNEIDER, ABC SPOKESMAN: At the time that we demanded his resignation, you know, we did not ring the bell loudly. Obviously against the backdrop of these outright fabrications, you would say, you know, "How could ABC not have stood up and said very loudly, you know, this guy lied on his resume?" All I can tell you is at the time we felt that demanding his resignation and getting it was appropriate.

Again, no follow-up from Garfield.

The answer to his question? ABC News has yet to offer such an official disclosure to its audience. ABC News online, on its investigative unit's The Blotter, has posted two entries pertaining to Debat’s faked interviews, but it provides little to no information on Debat’s prominent and unethical role at ABC News for the prior six years. To date, ABC has not only failed to officially disclose the details of this scandal to its audience, but also to even report the story on its evening news broadcast, World News, on which some of the biggest Debat-contributed scoops aired.

GARFIELD: There’s one particularly sensitive story I want to ask you about in which Debat played a role. And that was the report that Pakistani militants, who had been involved in cross-border skirmishes in Iran, had been “secretly encouraged and advised by American officials.” A story that suggests that, at least by one or two degrees of separation, the United States is involved in trying to overthrow a government.

SCHNEIDER: You know, that is a story that we worked on for several months, five or six months is my understanding. Debat’s information was a piece of that story, but by no means did the story stand on Debat’s information. We have very good sources both in European and U.S. intelligence and governments. You know, at the end of the day, we want to be the first to report that there’s a problem with that story. So far, through the two reviews we’ve done, we don’t find that problem. But we sure are looking hard.

Once more, no follow-up.

Could you please tell us, Mr. Schneider, which piece of that story, then, was Debat’s? Secondly, did it check out?

GARFIELD: You know, in the end, Jeffrey, I suppose it’s hard for any news organization to protect itself against a liar. What will you do in the future in the hiring of consultants, and maybe just, uh, reporters and producers as well, to make sure that their resumes actually hold up and that they are what they claim to be?

That’s quite a softball. I don't blame Mr. Schneider for overswinging.

SCHNEIDER: You’re right, Bob. If somebody is willing to lie to your face, that does create a difficult situation. It’s also complicated by the fact that time and again he had good information. And not only did he have good information, occasionally he would stand in the way of our other reporting, saying, you know, “I know that’s not the case. Don’t report that.” Particularly there was the issue of this terrorist from Amman being taken into custody supposedly, and Debat waved us off the story. And some weeks later, after we had actually reported that this guy was in custody, it became clear that he was not in custody. You know, he clearly did lie, and was a liar about many things, and yet he did provide solid information that other sources we’re happy to confirm. It’s, uh, it’s really appalling and tragic and, you know, at the same time it’s a pretty interesting story that we want to get to the bottom of.

Last but not least, no follow-up.

First, from the beginning, ABC News’ failure to verify Debat's background, coupled with the network's unethical use of his services, has also been "appalling." Most of us have seen better vetting of a resume for, say, a low-level desk job. But to fail so miserably at vetting the CV for such a powerful position at ABC News - one in which Debat would contribute to stories with national security implications that, among other potentialities, might ultimately influence peace or war between nations - is a monumental blunder.

What’s more, Debat’s dubious multifarious role as attributed source, anonymous source, reporter and analyst is such a patent transgression of sacrosanct journalism standards, it’s surprising Garfield never touches on this. (Did he fail to do his homework with regards to this point, or was there some agreement between Garfield/On the Media and Schneider that this topic would not be addressed?)

Moreover, on its face, Schneider's reply is contextually absurd: “If somebody is willing to lie to your face, that does create a difficult situation.” Well, yes. But that’s part of what's supposed to separate a gullible average Joe from an experienced, capable investigative news team. Which is not to say mistakes still won’t be made. ABC News’ handling of Alexis Debat, however, reveals not an honest mistake or two, but widespread institutionalized dysfunction.

Finally, while Schneider provides a portrait of Debat’s once seeming impeccable reliability as a defense for ABC News having been fooled, he unwittingly further exposes the systemic problems of his network's news-gathering process. If ABC News had reason to put so much trust in Debat and his information, then why did it ignore his vehement warning that the Amman story was untrue? Why didn't this compel ABC News to check and recheck the story - which, logically, would include verifying Debat’s separate information - before running it?

Again, that’s not a Debat problem; that’s an ABC News problem.

In some instances, we already have evidence that suggests, at times, ABC News failed to confirm information obtained solely by Debat from his sources (ostensibly, that's why Brian Ross' producer Rhonda Schwartz is currently trekking around tribal areas in Pakistan). But this comment from Schneider appears to suggest that in other cases, as with the Amman story, even when ABC News rejected information acquired by Debat, it still failed to verify his sources' information. Such unethical and sloppy standards and practices would only give more weight to the allegations that ABC News' investigative unit was more concerned with playing the hot hand - the one with the bigger scoop wins - than it was in presenting factually accurate news stories.

Lastly, Schneider either fails to realize, or refuses to acknowledge, something else one might glean from his Amman anecdote: that Debat may have used such moments to trumpet the quality and dependability of his information in order to influence a more lax vetting of his stories in the future. Sort of the reverse tactic employed by a pool shark or ringer: rather than lead with his worst effort to lure gullible amateurs into eventual high-stakes losses, it's possible that Debat fed ABC News some stellar verifiable nuggets (received from high-ranking neocons who played a role in his post-9/11 ascension?) in order to gain their confidence and push through future unchecked, or shoddily vetted, scoops. Maybe this was Debat's game plan before he even walked through the doors at ABC back in 2001.

Whatever the case, the fact of the matter is, ABC News should have verified Debat’s sourced information regardless of his track record – but especially considering the inherent ethically challenged role in which he operated for the network.   

GARFIELD: All right, Jeffrey, thanks again.

SCHNEIDER: Thanks a lot, Bob. Take care.

GARFIELD: Jeffrey Schneider is the senior vice president and spokesman for ABC News.

And he and his network are still getting away with painting Debat as a lone wolf.

Special Report: ABC-Debat Scandal, Unanswered and Unasked Questions

(updates below)

L’Affaire Debat is not a movie. Yet. Though the curious case of Alexis Debat – former longtime ABC News terrorism analyst, contributing journalist and prominent news source - could be someone’s first draft screenplay before all the questions surrounding the story are unraveled (if they ever are).

Before jumping into some of this scandal's many unanswered and unasked questions, here’s a brief recap of the back story (full background is here,here,here and here).

• Alexis Debat, who’s been ABC News’ go-to guy since October 2001 for all things “war on terror”-related, including high-profile stories on Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan, was “discreetly dismissed” in June by ABC News after it couldn’t confirm credentials on his resume, primarily his purported Ph.D. from the Sorbonne.

• The French news site Rue89 reported on September 7 that Debat had fabricated an interview with Senator Barack Obama in the Summer 2007 issue of the French magazine Politique Internationale (in which he quoted Obama as saying the Iraq War was "a defeat for America”). He conducted other alleged interviews for the same publication with Former President Bill Clinton, Senator Hillary Clinton, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Microsoft founder Bill Gates and former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, all of which were subsequently confirmed to have been fabricated as well.

• After Rue89 journalist Pascal Riché broke the story, ABC News made an official announcement it had forced Debat to resign in June, saying it had investigated his reports at the time but would undertake a new investigation, reviewing all stories in which Debat played a hand. Additionally, Riché’s story also revealed that Debat never received a Ph.D. from the Sorbonne, and debunked Debat’s claim that he served as an advisor to the French Ministry of Defense on transatlantic issues – he was an intern for five months in 2000 (since 2001, Debat has often been identified as a former French Defense Ministry official or analyst in U.S. media). 

• Debat’s close association with neocon think-tanks, publications, editors and luminaries rounds out this rough back-story: he served as a Senior Fellow for National Security and Terrorism at the Nixon Center (before resigning last Wednesday) and a regular contributor to the Nixon Center’s foreign policy magazine The National Interest (its honorary chairman is Henry Kissinger) and the aforementioned Politique Internationale (at which prominent neocon Amir Taheri functioned as its longtime editor).

And now for those questions:

The Ethics Behind ABC News’ Use of Debat

1) How could ABC News and Brian Ross, who led the investigative unit under which Debat worked, not realize this was a serious breach of journalistic standards?

In her article for Mother Jones, journalist Laura Rozen (who’s led the way in covering and breaking parts of this story in the U.S.) sums up ABC News’ inherent ethical breach:

But in ABC's use of Debat as a paid “consultant" who also had for the past year and a half an appointment at the Nixon Center, ABC also frequently had him reporting on its blog, the Blotter, and appearing as a "source" inside others' stories, blurring the line between source (and a paid one at that, with outside -- also paid -- affiliations) and a journalist, not clearly identified in the report. ABC also sent Debat frequently abroad, to gather information which he would put on the air and on the investigative unit's website.

While the focus of this scandal has so far been largely on uncovering Debat’s deceptions (pertaining to his credentials and the credibility of the stories in which he played a role), no one duped ABC News and Ross into running their investigative unit in such a dubious, unprofessional manner. In fact, in choosing to do so, they arguably paved the way for someone like Debat to take advantage of the situation.

2) How many people at ABC News are culpable in sanctioning this shady news-gathering process?

Certainly Brian Ross, who, even though he worked very closely with him for years, has made this all about Debat. But what about his longtime producer Rhonda Schwartz? Or ABC World News anchor Charles Gibson, on whose nightly newscast Ross often appeared with a big scoop obtained through these unsound channels? As yet, no one at ABC News has taken responsibility for establishing and maintaining the environment in which Debat operated.

The Right Guy for the Job?

1) How did Alexis Debat, with no prior viable journalism experience of any kind, wind up in a position at ABC News in which he was investigating and reporting on such high-profile stories? Who made the call to hire him, and why?

Forget for a moment that Debat’s most impressive alleged credentials are all bogus (in reality, he’s a short-lived French Defense Ministry intern with no Ph.D. from the Sorbonne, who fabricated interviews with nine world leaders). Even in his fantasy resume, nothing would have prepared him adequately for his investigative role at ABC News - those interviews were his sole link to any viable journalism. Factor in they're fake and his lack of experience is breathtaking, which leads to a logical follow-up…

2) Did Debat fabricate those interviews to bolster his journalism credentials and credibility?

The question keeps coming up: why would Debat take such a risk? Why not just be happy with his plum (if unethical) role at ABC News? But had Debat actually conducted those interviews, it surely would’ve lent more credence to his standing as a national and international journalist, especially in context of his flimsy experience. And, not that ABC knew about the faked interviews (no one has concluded whether it did or not), but, had the interviews occurred, Debat’s employers at ABC might well have welcomed this shot-in-the-arm to his thin journalism portfolio.

In addition to his lack of experience, his deep neocon ties may be another reason behind the make-believe interviews: sit-downs with such high-profile leaders – and not a neocon or even traditional conservative among them – might have been viewed as a deft way to play down his undeniable but below-the-rader neocon partisanship. A buffer, possibly, for both ABC News and Debat against potential future accusations of institutionalized bias. (Saving up for that rainy day that's now come to pass.)

3) Did anybody at ABC News check Debat’s credentials before, first, relying on him as a source and, subsequently, hiring him as an analyst and contributing reporter? If so, who?

As journalist Laura Rozen notes, “In fact, the French news service AFP reported as far back as 2002 that according to the French government, Debat had never been a defense ministry official.”

A former U.S. government officer also told Rozen that he warned "a top ABC producer last year who called him for some reason, that Debat 'is a phony.'" (Incidentally, this producer, Rhonda Schwartz, Brian Ross’ longtime producer, is the same person who is now being dispatched to verify Debat’s sources in Pakistan.) Schwartz explained to Rozen that “she recollects the conversation” but framed her description of it by focusing on the fact that he told her “Debat is not former French intelligence,” ignoring the radioactive term "phony" and all of its implications.

Schwartz went on to say that ABC, at the time of the call, already knew Debat was a “former French Ministry Defense desk officer.” Another frame that misleadingly paints Debat’s, albeit downgraded, role in a more positive light. “Officer” retains the air that Debat, who was nothing more than a lowly intern for five months, held a position of authority at the French Ministry of Defense. Clearly, ABC News would be sensitive on this point (think of the multitude of stories over the last six years in which it's misrepresented Debat to millions of its readers and viewers). Thinking you're getting terrorism analysis from an officer is one thing, but an intern? Schwartz's words appear deliberate.

Putting on the Brakes, Taking off the Blinders

1) When did ABC News put Debat "under review"? And for how long? During this time, was Debat still contributing to ABC News as he had since 2001-2002?

Schwartz also tells Rozen this conversation happened when Debat was “already under review by ABC.” But Debat was still contributing to stories as late as May 14, 2007 and was forced to resign in June. After a conversation with Schwartz, Rozen’s U.S. government source agrees with Rozen's timing of when the conversation took place.

But the timing seems very questionable.

It’s highly unlikely that Rozen's government source, when speaking with Schwartz to confirm their initial conversation, confused one year’s time with that of only four months. So if that’s not the case, then Schwartz, wittingly or unwittingly, seems to imply that ABC News had put Debat “under review” much earlier than it is letting on. If so, why would it continue to rely on him in the same capacity as it had for the previous six years during the review?

2) How could someone who forged something as public as an interview with a world leader (several of them) be expected to operate ethically in the shadowy world of anonymous sources on a national security, counter-terrorism beat?

After Rozen picks apart an ABC News story (one of the most dubious of Debat's tenure) about a Pakistani guerrilla organization called Jundulla, she perfectly encapsulates not only why Debat has lost all credibility but the patently unscrupulous methods at the heart of this scandal:

Are Debat's interviews with tribal sources -- which form the very essence of this report -- any more real than his interviews with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Alan Greenspan, Nancy Pelosi, and Kofi Annan? The evidence says no. History shows no. Knowledgeable regional experts say no. That people who fabricate something as easily, provably deniable as an interview with Senators and presidential candidates and the UN Secretary General cannot be trusted to be telling the truth about what the Pakistani tribal sources are telling them is, of course, obvious. The capacity for an extraordinary degree of mendacity demonstrated by Debat claiming to have conducted such high profile fake interviews speaks for itself.

Notice nowhere in the above report does a US or other official confirm what Debat is providing and the story is asserting. And that ABC used Debat as the channeled reporter on the main substance of the piece, providing the information from the tribal sources, and then featured him as a confirming commenter/analyst in the report. It's a sleight of hand an ordinary viewer might not have noticed, but nevertheless not worthy of a serious news organization that cares about telling its viewers and readers the truth.

In other words, if you remove the information provided by Mr. Debat in this report, and his presence in the report as an expert analyst, there would be nothing there but background information on Jundullah, and U.S. officials denying the report.

In an email I received yesterday, a veteran mainstream journalist with investigative experience on the domestic “war on terror” beat said of the Debat affair:

To say the least, that beat [Debat's] is tailor-made for flimflam artists as sources. An overly credulous reporter can get in a lot of trouble very fast. (What's the definition of an "exclusive"? A story no one else wanted/trusted.)

It's an apt preface to this revelation in Rozen's Mother Jones piece:

Two journalists familiar with Debat's work point to ABC chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross not only as the victim of Debat's alleged deceptions, but as an enabler, who has promoted sensational stories—including some that Debat brought the network—at the expense at times of rigorous journalism standards.

3) Why didn’t ABC News thoroughly investigate Debat’s work directly prior to, or right after, his forced resignation in June?

ABC News says it did. Yet all indications (which include word from sources inside ABC) are that it did little more than uncover Debat’s false Ph.D. claim before letting Debat walk off quietly into the sunset and acting as if their whole shady but mutually beneficial relationship had never existed.

Of course, ABC News had as much, if not more, to lose than did Debat if his questionable work and ABC’s unethical methods met with a full-court press. Debat, back off the radar as he was prior to 9/11, would probably hunker down in another think-tank and, as he’s already done, find work as well as other receptive media outlets searching for a partisan “expert” to quote. But ABC News, if it failed to place all the blame on Debat (as it appears to be trying to do), would suffer a serious blow to its already flagging credibility. 

A Post-9/11 Star Is Born

Is Debat, a self-proclaimed terrorism "expert,” merely a creation of 9/11? And (putting aside his resume's fictions) how did ABC News come to rely on someone so lacking even in his alleged prior terrorism analysis expertise?

A Nexis search (courtesy of Philadelphia Daily News journalist and Attytood blogger Will Bunch) turns up only one citation with Debat’s name prior to 9/11. Yet, suddenly, starting on October 4, 2001, he’s being quoted by ABC News as a “former French defense official,” who’s among “French investigators” and “French officials” that captured a “notebook full of secret codes” through which the 9/11 hijackers “may have communicated over the Internet.” Said Debat in his first ABC News article, "This code book is [sic] major breakthrough in the investigation.” On November 28 that same year, Debat’s quoted again for another sensational ABC News story on a “suspected hijack associate” arrested in Germany.

And on and on it goes until September 5, 2002, when Debat, having been quoted and used as a source for multiple post-9/11-related stories for the rest of 2001 and much of 2002, finally officially earns the title “ABC News consultant” in addition to “former French Defense Ministry official” in a story about how Zacharias Moussaoui, the infamous “20 hijacker” - according to “French intelligence authorities,” which in this case appears to be, well, Debat – was actually “part of a second wave of suicide hijackings planned for early 2002 in Europe and the United States.” From there, Debat’s presence in Ross’ investigative units’ stories grew as he eventually began writing and presenting some of them as well, rounding out the curious role of analyst, source and reporter, that would carry him through the next five years.   

To Remove, Or Not To Remove

What differentiates the few stories ABC News has removed from its website in which Debat played a role from the over 45 remaining stories to which Debat contributed?

As Brian Ross said, Debat's lying about his Ph.D. credentials “called into question, of course, everything he had done.” What’s more, of those nearly 50 stories still remaining on ABC News’ website (at last check), Debat is variously the sole or contributing journalist to a report, an author of news analysis, an attributed source, an anonymous source, or a simultaneous mix of two or more of these roles in the same story. (If only Peter Sellers were alive to play Alexis Debat.)

Debat’s confirmed deceptions, coupled with revelations of his deep neocon ties, would, indeed, seem to call into question everything he's done and said as an investigative reporter, a source, and an analyst. Thus, it would be naive or intellectually dishonest to not think the handful of stories scrubbed from ABC News' website are but the tip of the iceberg here for Debat's gamesmanship. (And forgive me if I’m a bit skeptical that ABC removed them solely on the basis they didn't meet its rigid journalistic standards.)

Moreover, in the cases where Debat is giving an opinion in the role of terrorism analyst, it’s not merely a question of ABC News corroborating evidence. As a think-tank neocon posing as a nonpartisan terrorism expert, his inherent conflict of interest must also be taken into account. Such dressed-up propaganda, which accumulatively can determine whether there is peace or war between nations, has no place in any respectable news organization.

Stay Tuned, Folks...

Again, just some of the many questions that need to be addressed. New ones will, of course, arise as more is revealed. In the coming days, it's vital for those of us following and covering this scandal to not lose sight of ABC News' culpability in creating and sanctioning the environment for Debat's deceptions to