Special Report: WashPo and Time Help ABC Bury Treatment of Kucinich

(updated below)

Following last Sunday's Democratic presidential debate on ABC News' This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Dennis Kucinich's campaign asked ABC News to address issues it had with treatment Rep. Kucinich (D-Ohio) received both during the debate and afterward in ABC's online coverage. In an email sent out to supporters on Wednesday, the campaign said it "submitted objections and inquiries to ABC News representatives on Monday and Tuesday. ABC News representatives have failed to respond - or even acknowledge - those objections and inquiries." I confirmed with the Kucinich campaign yesterday that it has subsequently been forwarded the same response ABC News Executive Director Andrea Jones sent to The Washington Post and Time magazine. 

ABC News representatives felt it necessary to answer the Kucinich campaign's objections when Time magazine's National Political Correspondent Karen Tumulty queried them. Writing on the Time blog Swampland, Tumulty initially says of the Kucinich team's issues with ABC's treatment (which included Kucinich not having a chance to speak until 28 minutes into the debate), "These all seemed like fair complaints to me, so I asked ABC News to respond." Then Tumulty says, "In an e-mail, Executive Director Andrea Jones answered him [Kucinich] point by point."

While I give Tumulty credit for contacting ABC News, her investigative journalism unfortunately ends there. Once she receives the email from Jones, Tumulty slips into stenography mode. Jones' "point by point" response to the Kucinich campaign's complaints does not in itself exculpate or dispel any of ABC's wrongdoing. Tumulty fails to assess the accuracy and logic of Jones' answers.

First, just so we're all up to speed, here are the issues (an aggregate of the thousands of complaints received during and after ABC's debate coverage) that the Kucinich campaign asked ABC News to address:

* Congressman Kucinich was apparently deliberately cropped out of a "Politics Page" photo of the candidates.

* Sometime Monday afternoon, after Congressman Kucinich took a commanding lead in ABC's own on-line "Who won the Democratic debate" survey, the survey was dropped from prominence on the website.

* ABC News has not officially reported the results of its online survey.

* After the results of that survey showed Congressman Kucinich winning handily, ABC News, sometime Monday afternoon, replaced the original survey with a second survey asking "Who is winning the Democratic debate?"

* During the early voting Monday afternoon and evening, U.S. Senator Barack Obama was in the lead. By sometime late Monday or early Tuesday morning, Congressman Kucinich regained the lead by a wide margin in this second survey.

* Sometime Tuesday morning, ABC News apparently dropped the second survey from prominence or killed it entirely.

* AND, as every viewer of the nationally televised Sunday Presidential forum is aware, Congressman Kucinich was not given an opportunity to answer a question from moderator George Stephanopoulos until 28 minutes into the program.

Now back to Tumulty commenting on Jones' response [emphasis below is mine]:

This gist of her answer is this: She denies that Kucinich was cropped out of any photo, noting that "there are 20 photos live on the ABC News website, Mr. Kucinich is in a number of them and there is even one of him and his wife. He is one of 6 candidates who got his own photo in the slide show. As for the images, clearly nothing was cropped, the image in question was shot by Charlie Neibergall of the AP not ABC."

FALSE. Had Tumulty - Time magazine's National Political Correspondent and former member of the White House press corps - simply located the original AP photo (which, at most, should've taken a few minutes online), she would've found Kucinich in it and realized the following version ABC News prominently displayed online after the debate had, indeed, been cropped:

So Jones either lied when she said "clearly nothing was cropped" or was misinformed by someone on her staff. Since Tumulty seems to think her job ends with receiving answers from an ABC News spokesperson, she doesn't question the veracity of Jones' assertion, which is clearly false.

Adding to its duplicity, ABC News has now completely replaced the original photograph in question. If you click on the link in Tumulty's post (which is supposed to bring you to that photo), you are now taken to a wholly different shot that includes Dennis Kucinich and is currently the default debate photo sitting on the ABC News website.

So, in case you're keeping score, first ABC disappears Kucinich from a photo by cropping him out, then denies it, then later disappears the original cropped photo, replacing it with a separate photo that includes Kucinich, making it appear as if nothing improper ever occurred.

Eat your heart out Fox News.

Tumulty does later post an update after she manages (she doesn't say how) to find her way to a page on the site Pinkraygun that shows the original AP photo and the doctored ABC photo side-by-side. This compels Tumulty to gingerly concede "there does in fact appear to have been some cropping." First, it was either cropped or it wasn't. "Some cropping" gives the impression a whole cropping didn't occur, which it did. Second, if there was "some cropping," then logic follows that Jones either did some lying or some misinforming. That, in turn, means Tumulty should be doing some follow up with Jones. She does not. Third, a question for Tumulty and her editors over at Time: How did you fail to bring this simple fact to light yourselves? You had three main points to investigate - whether a photo was cropped, whether a poll was manipulated and whether Kucinich was allotted a fair amount of time. Arguably, the cropped photo was the most simple and quick of the three to verify. Did you attempt to find this on your own? If so, what's your excuse for initially failing to obtain such readily available evidence? If not, what's your excuse for failing to pursue this evidence in the first place?

On to the poll(s):

She notes that the poll was and is live on ABC's website. (When I checked it, Kucinich was still winning, with Barack Obama a distant second.) She also notes the poll's disclaimer that it is "not a scientific survey," which seems like a decent reason for ABC not to treat it as a news story.

MISLEADING. Jones' statement circumvents the facts and the original thrust of the Kucinich campaign's complaint about the poll. Tumulty's unobtrusive reporting gives the impression the poll has always been up on ABC's site in clear view and at no time were changes made to it.

FACT: The original poll, prominently displayed, asked, "Who won the Democratic debate?" Once Kucinich jumped ahead, this poll was scuttled from its prominence on the site. As it became clear Kucinich was trouncing his competition, ABC just happened to decide to post a new poll asking, "Who is winning the Democratic debate?" As the Kucinich campaign (and Tumulty) correctly cited, Barack Obama had an early lead in this second poll; but when Kucinich pulled ahead by a wide margin, ABC then dropped this poll from prominence, too. (Because the Kucinich camp had difficulty finding the poll after ABC moved it, they questioned whether ABC may have buried the poll "or killed it entirely." It appears ABC didn't kill it entirely; they just made it difficult for users work to find - which, as anyone who knows anything about online usability, is nearly tantamount to killing it).

Though of lesser importantance (due to the current unverifiable nature of online polls), Tumulty still manages to mishandle Jones' explanation of why ABC News didn't report the poll results. This issue is about nuance and context. Not exactly Tumulty's and the mainstream media's forte.

Yes, the online poll is "not a scientific survey"* (incidentally, it's verboten to mention in the mainstream media that phone surveys, many of which include leading and misleading questions, are often far from scientific accountings as well). But since news outlets (possibly ABC among them) have certainly noted some online polls in the past but in context of their scientific shortcomings, and considering ABC's shenanigans concerning Kucinich, it seems either intellectually dishonest or misinformed for Tumulty to give Jones the free pass "which seems like a decent reason for ABC not to treat it as a news story."

Does Tumulty honestly believe it's "a decent reason"? Or does she merely believe it's decent enough because the target of the question is ABC News and the questioner is the not-so-"viable" candidate Kucinich?

I should note here that Tumulty frames her post with the opening line: "Should the networks and interest groups that have been sponsoring the seemingly endless series of debates and candidate forums start limiting their invitations to those contenders who seem, by whatever definition, 'viable'?" She then claims to like "the idea of including candidates from the second tier--and beyond--in these settings," saying, "You never know when lightning may strike, and how is an underfinanced long-shot going to get a breakout moment otherwise?" and that "candidates such as Dennis Kucinich often are the only ones giving voice to ideas--like single-payer health care and a quick withdrawal from Iraq--that have not been embraced by the leading candidates, despite having significant support among the party rank and file." Yet Tumulty seems incapable of embracing such basic tenets of a democratic political process; instead, she reverts to entrenched media establishment dogma to round out her post's frame: "Still, having decided to include them, should they be given the same amount of time and attention as the leaders in the race?"

This is the journalist we're going to trust to get to the bottom of whether ABC News treated Dennis Kucinich fairly?

Finally, there's ABC's defense of Kucinich receiving so little airtime during the debate and, once again, Tumulty's stenographic framing and conclusions [emphasis below is mine]:

As for Kucinich's complaint that he was not given a question in the first 28 minutes of the debate, Jones notes: "He may not have been addressed in the first 28 minutes, but he was the only candidate questioned in his own segment on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, two weeks in a row, that appearance is posted online as well. Also. Mr. Kucinich was the only candidate to address healthcare in Sunday's debate, and that response was immediately clipped and posted on the ABC News website." Her bottom line: "After back to back appearances on ABC News' This Week with George Stephanopoulos, clearly their claim is not substantiated by the facts nor by the extensive coverage of his candidacy on the ABCNews.com website."

First, Jones' "bottom line" skirts the issue at hand: she concedes ABC's debate moderators failed to address Kucinich in the first 28 minutes of the forum (though she frames her concession with the words "he may not have been addressed" rather than "he wasn't addressed," incorporating shades of doubt, as if this were somehow open to interpretation), but claims that ABC News has provided Kucinich much airtime overall.

Yet here's the real bottom line: In any equitable debate, no candidate should have to remain silent for the first 28 minutes. Period. This is not only unfair to Congressman Kucinich, but to all American citizens for whom news outlets such as ABC are supposed to be informing their decision-making process instead of acting to unduly manipulate it.

What's more, Jones' claim that Kucinich "was the only candidate questioned in his own segment on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, two weeks in a row" and that he had "back to back appearances" on this program is blatantly misleading. (I must admit this one initially slipped by me until, while fact-checking another element of this story, I stumbled across the truth in a conversation I had yesterday with Kucinich campaign spokesman Andy Juniewicz. More on that below).

FACT: Kucinich has made one appearance on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Jones has the audacity to count Kucinich's appearance at this ABC debate as his second appearance on the show in which - breathing even new life into the word "truthiness" - he's received "his own segment." Can Jones explain how a candidate receives his own segment during a debate? What in the world is she talking about?   

Moreover, in a statistical analysis of the debate performed by USA Election Polls, Kucinich was given less time to speak than any candidate with the exception of former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel. Yet it gets worse: in the critical first half of the debate (the time when viewers tend to be most engaged), Kucinich received just 3.4% of airtime, the least of all the candidates. To put that in context, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama combined to chew up 60.4% of airtime during the first half of the debate.

USA Election Polls also points out:

In fact, even Chris Dodd got more air time than Kucinich which is ridiculous because Kucinich is beating Dodd in the majority of state polls. So if the emphasis was on giving the most time to the leaders in the polls, then what was Dodd doing speaking more than Kucinich?

Nevertheless, Tumulty and Time magazine show no interest in such further incontrovertible proof of the unfair treatment to which ABC News subjected Congressman Kucinich. Instead, Tumulty follows up Jones' "bottom line" by closing her post with these thoughts:

I honestly don't know what the right balance is here when you are dealing with such a large field of candidates, most of whom don't have a prayer of winning. What do you think? Was Kucinich treated unfairly? Or should he be included at all?*

*Not a scientific survey.

Cute. But parting shot at the Kucinich campaign aside, shouldn't Tumulty and Time magazine provide the facts in a piece titled "Dennis Kucinich vs. ABC News"? Instead, we're presented with a slanted, inaccurate, misleading and ill-researched breakdown of events that ends with Tumulty floating the question of whether Kucinich should be allowed to attend these debates in the first place.

And sadly, thanks to The Washington Post, that wasn't the worst coverage of the Kucinich-ABC incident by a major news outlet.

In a post titled "Kucinich Mad at ABC" over at The Washington Post blog The Sleuth (oh the irony), journalist Mary Ann Akers (a former reporter for The Washington Times as well as NPR) doesn't try to hide her contempt for Kucinich while barreling ahead without concern for facts or fact-checking.

She opens her post:

Don't expect to see too many more appearances by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) on ABC News.

An apparently irate Kucinich sent out a letter to supporters Wednesday accusing the network of ignoring him in the Democratic presidential debate on Sunday's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."

So since Kucinich - along with, and spurred on by, thousands of other American citizens - objected to ABC's handling of the debate, should we expect, and accept, that ABC has a right to actively work to further marginalize him?

If that's Akers' frame, you can guess where this is going.

Also, because she fails to cite any source, we must assume her characterization of Kucinich as "apparently irate" hinges not on fact but projection. And as it turns out, that is exactly the case.

Yesterday, when I contacted Kucinich campaign spokesman Andy Juniewicz, he addressed Akers unfounded assertion:

"Congressman Kucinich was not irate. Nothing in the email communication expressed anger," said the soft-spoken Juniewicz. "It was just a delineation of what we were hearing from thousands of people who contacted us, many of whom weren't even Kucinich supporters. We asked ABC to respond to the questions they raised." When I asked if Akers or someone else at The Washington Post had spoken with anyone in his campaign about this purported demonstration of anger, Mr. Juniewicz said, "No. No one."

Note to Akers and The Washington Post: Before the Internets, there was the telephone. Some news outlets, though fewer and fewer these days, still find it handy for checking facts.

Moving right along, Akers then runs through roughly the same terrain on which Tumulty trodded, but her condescension and bias is profligate and shameless.

Among Kucinich's charges: he was "deliberately cropped out" of photos; after he took a "commanding lead" in ABC's online survey, the survey was mysteriously "dropped from prominence on the web site"; and "as every viewer of the nationally televised Sunday presidential forum is aware" Kucinich was not asked a question until 28 minutes into the program. (Everyone clocked that at 28 minutes, right?)

"Among Kucinich's charges" blunts the fact they've all been proven to be true (something Akers apparently has no interest in uncovering or presenting). Use of the word "mysteriously" not only mocks the assertion that the poll was buried but conjures the mainstream media's favorite attack on uncomfortable truths: it must be the work of those crazy conspiracy theorists (Akers also disregards the full story - previously addressed above in this post - behind ABC's bizarre and devious manipulation of the debate's polls). "Everyone clocked that at 28 minutes, right?" is not only disparaging but gives the ludicrous impression the Kucinich campaign is contending everyone noticed the precise number of minutes Kucinich had been shut out of the debate; rather, the campaign was noting a simple fact: everyone watching certainly saw that Kucinich didn't get a chance to speak for an usually long duration of time.

We deserve more than such absurd manufactured nitpicking from Akers and The Washington Post. Rather than chasing their tail to portray Kucinich in a poor light, think of how much easier it would've been to just present the facts. And to search them out.

But hey, according to Akers, "ABC News Executive Director Andrea Jones addressed every charge Kucinich made." Incredibly, Akers not only embraces Jones' answers without question, but also unwittingly contradicts Jones' claim that the photo in question was never cropped by providing the ABC debate photo below her post. In other words, the AP photo that ABC undeniably cropped is sitting below Akers' post in which she contends no cropping occurred. Again, all one needs to do is locate the original AP photo. And presto! Cropping mystery solved.

Again, too, Jones is either lying or misinformed, and Akers and The Washington Post (along with Tumulty and Time magazine) are complicit in perpetuating this falsehood.

Escaping Akers' notice or range of journalistic concern as well is ABC's wholesale swapping out of its cropped photo with an altogether new one in which Kucinich appears alongside the rest of the Democratic candidates. ABC News, in effect, has worked diligently to cover up this despicable act, one worthy of Fox News and Orwell's vision of totalitarian media manipulation.

In their coverage of the Kucinich-ABC incident, Time magazine's Tumulty and The Washington Post's Akers wind up crystallizing the extent to which big media rigs the game against a candidate like Congressman Kucinich. In defense of sound and equitable journalism, it is incumbent upon both Time magazine and The Washington Post to correct the record on ABC's actions, and the rest of the news media to hold ABC News accountable for this disgraceful performance.

No news organization - especially one charged with facilitating part of our electoral process - should be able to so grossly transgress such basic journalistic standards and not be held to account. This isn't a partisan issue. Congressman Kucinich's chances of capturing the Democratic nomination are irrelevant to this matter.

This speaks to the viability of our national press.

At a time when the mainstream media is struggling to retain and rebuild both its credibility and coveted market share among Americans, it ignores ABC's actions at its own peril.

UPDATE: I'll be away until after Labor Day weekend (wedding - not mine), but I first wanted to say thanks for your additional insights, passionate (yet substantive) comments and very kind words. To first-time readers, welcome! To everyone, by all means, keep the conversation going while I'm away. And if you want to do something else to keep (or turn up) the heat on ABC, request that this story does not stop here. Don't just contact ABC or other mainstream news outlets - contact Raw Story, Salon, Think Progress, Media Matters, FAIR.org and Truthout, and respectfully request they cover this story. Along with Crooks and Liars, these major alternative news outlets get the mainstream's attention and greatly increase the chances of forcing the mainstream's hand. More than anything, ABC wants this story to drop right down the memory hole: it's up to you to make sure that doesn't happen.

Comments

[MediaBloodhound]

WashPo and Time Help ABC Bury Treatment of Kucinich

[Duly Diligent]

You are not allowed to like Kucinich. He doesn't make for a compelling story.

[Demosthenes Loizides]

Great story and in-depth report on ABC's attempt to steer the debate to suit their own agenda. I, like most Americans, would like to see Kucinich given equal media exposure to Clinton and Obama. I would like to see your investigative report on more blogs. I mentioned your report on media matters and asked that they consider entering it on their web site.

[MediaBloodhound]

Appreciate that Demosthenes. Thank you. I contacted MM earlier today. Apparently it's being circulated over there so I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Unfortunately everyone is on vacation and short-staffed right now so we'll see. I'm sure ABC wants its actions to drop right down the memory hole. Hopefully that won't be the case.

[Mickey Mouse]

He Won the MSNBC LiveStrong Online Poll on Health Care earlier today. I'm sure MSNBC pulled thisPoll down already, too...

[Mickey Mouse]

He Won the MSNBC LiveStrong Online Poll on Health Care earlier today. I'm sure MSNBC pulled thisPoll down already, too...

[Don Schneider]

These shenanigans are expected from the corporate press. time inc, abc, I'd be shocked if they didn't manufacture the "news" . Don't expect honesty from the likes of these manipulators. Boycott the products and services that shamelessly advertise with these "Rupert" wanna be's

[Bunky]

The powers that be do not want the American people educated enough to make informed choices. If it weren't for this internet connection, we would remain forever ignorant. So the big money will win again, they will own the information and bend it all they want. Kucinich for President, so we will be allowed to speak and think freely again.

[Eric Paulsen]

Want to give the news the finger? Convince as many friends and family members to vote in the primaries and suggest Kucinich as a serious candidate. We will only have Democracy if we tear it from the hands of our news filtering organizations and corporate whores.

If you want them to keep deciding your fate, do nothing.

[Eric Paulsen]

Want to give the news the finger? Convince as many friends and family members to vote in the primaries and suggest Kucinich as a serious candidate. We will only have Democracy if we tear it from the hands of our news filtering organizations and corporate whores.

If you want them to keep deciding your fate, do nothing.

[CK]

And after Repub debates, the major old media apply the same treatment to Ron Paul.
Funny thing that the two candidates most vocal about bringing the troops home are the two candidates who get the "crop, obfuscate and ignore" treatment.

[Maddie In Florida]

I really think the blog entery on Swampland by Tumulty was very good.

Give her some credit for even reporting it.

As a news reporter, Tumulty is not about opinion nor assumption. She is supposed to be non baised and non partisan and I think her report was both. She gave us a break here by even tallking about it and getting the subject out there.

[Maddie In Florida]

I really think the blog entery on Swampland by Tumulty was very good.

Give her some credit for even reporting it.

As a news reporter, Tumulty is not about opinion nor assumption. She is supposed to be non baised and non partisan and I think her report was both. She gave us a break here by even tallking about it and getting the subject out there.

[Maddie In Florida]

I really think the blog entery on Swampland by Tumulty was very good.

Give her some credit for even reporting it.

As a news reporter, Tumulty is not about opinion nor assumption. She is supposed to be non baised and non partisan and I think her report was both. She gave us a break here by even tallking about it and getting the subject out there.

[Another Media Hound]

Good report, but if the items in the story were not bad enough, George spent much of the debate asking candidates to address statements made by/or of Obama and Clinton, which kept the focus on the Obama and Clinton even when they weren't speaking.

For example, "STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Biden, you stepped into this last week. You told Newsweek magazine that Senator Obama is "not yet ready" to be president." Go to the transcript to read many more example and count how many times Stephanopoulos says "Obama" or "Clinton", vs other candidates.

[bjobotts]

Great post. I saw George Stephanopoulos's hit piece on Kucinich before the debate where he tried everything possible to smear him and failed miserably. I wondered then why George obviously tried to make Kucinich look ridiculous. Then the debates (which Kucinich won in spite of every effort to bury him) and the pics and the polls from ABC made it blatantly obvious that this was an all out effort to silence Kucinich. They(George, ABC, GOP, top tier Dems) do not want Dennis heard. He's the best candidate out there and you can find nothing negative to say about him. He says and does everything just right. Compare him to any of the candidates by record, votes, history, issues, dedication, motivation and he just leaves the other candidates in the dust. And since "electability" is not an issue in this presidential election because after the horror of Bush and with the other GOP hopefuls being virtually a joke, whichever viable democrat wins the democratic nomination will be the next president out of necessity. So the real truth ticket is Kucinich/Edwards '08. They are not indebted to any special interests groups like the Ins, co., or Big Pharm, or big oil etc. No wonder big money wants them out, can't control what you can't buy. Not being able to find enough dirt the press would have to settle for height and hair cut.
George S. and ABC asked questions with an agenda at their debate. They are hitmen for the GOP and were trying to get responses that could later be used against the candidates. And in spite of trying to minimize Kucinich's involvement, Dennis still won the debate which just infuriated them.

Kucinich/Edwards '08...the truth ticket.

[Olo]

No doubt: K.'s cool. but that that K. had such an obvious big lead over the other candidates is very suspicious. Thing is: Online polls are easily manipulated, thus when an online poll shows a significant anomaly they are usually pulled. - To be honest, my friends at a particular football forum always hunt for online polls involving our club. Whenever there is an online poll with our club, it gets posted in the forum and we all go and vote for our team. Thus our team wins most online polls by a clear margin (like in K's case). If polls are monitored though that kind of manipulation is easy to spot. As a result polls get pulled or moved.

[matthew]

great post

[S.W. Anderson]

The following, from a 2003 Indymedia post, seems relevant here — as in follow the money trail to see where loyalties really lie:

DISNEY / ABC / CAP (donated 640 thousand to GW's 2000 campaign)

Meanwhile, a really good man like Dennis Kucinich can barely get the time of day from ABC NEws.

It figures.

[TC]

Not only was Mr. Kucinich not addressed in the first 28 minutes, even when he got on ABC's This Week, George Stephanopoulopoulopoulopoulopolous tried to punk him by basically stating that he didn't have a chance. He was trying to punk him and humiliate the guy. Stephanopoulopoulopoulouopoulopoulous wouldn't have the nerve to do that to a big-time candidate. He was trying to humiliate the guy. It's incredibly disingenuous for ABC to claim they are any less beholden to big money than anyone else. This is exactly why we need the elction reform that Feingold and McCain were talking about oh-so-long ago.....

[Avery Moore]

A/ ABC? "WARNING!! Picture Trouble Is Permanent. Give Up. Abandon Your Set."

B/ "What's that godawful rotting smell?" Another New York Slimes journalist pounding then cosmetically massaging the facts to death. Some editor calls this dog shit in a platinum tin, “Journalism”?

C/ If The Times has the slightest regard for standards of honesty and integrity: Tumulty will be fired, 'for Cause."

D/ If not, why would anyone ever again think it worthwhile to subscribe?

[MediaBloodhound]

Avery, just for the record, it's Time, as in Time magazine (on its blog Swampland). Not The New York Times.

[n1K]

MediaBloodhound, my first time visiting your blog, Im a regular at thinkprogress and crooksandliars. Reporting such as this piece, is the reason I have shunned many of the mainstream news sources. It's reporting like yours that cuts through the to the core of whats rotten about the media these days, - they are beholden to those advertising dollars. Kucinich has always seemed like such a far shot candidate and really a "left wing nut", but only because that is how the media portrays him. Now that I think about it, everytime he has said something its been right on the money, and he even understands that its healthier and better to not eat meat (like myself). I will be giving his campaign a much more thoughtful look from now on. Keep up the good work, and will be bookmarking your site.

[RGKahn]

This is another example that the "old world jounalism of Murrow, Cronkite and Rather is dead and buried. In the case of the Time Magazine reporter Ms Tumulty, she seems to think the finding out the who, what, where, when and how have been replaced with a steno pad, which she records what ABC said in rebuttle to the complaint of Congressman Kucinich. There is a great disconnect with what happened and the points made by ABC. She asks little of no questions to ABC. She takes what is handed to her and repeats it vebatim and then calls that reporting. I call is stenography.

I guess real reporting requires "hard work" as a famous politician was heard to say in the not too distant past. Report what was said, what was done, when it happened, by whom and against whom. Being truthful would also be a good idea.

I will now climb down from my soap box if you understand what I mean.

[RGKahn]

This is another example that the "old world jounalism of Murrow, Cronkite and Rather is dead and buried. In the case of the Time Magazine reporter Ms Tumulty, she seems to think the finding out the who, what, where, when and how have been replaced with a steno pad, which she records what ABC said in rebuttle to the complaint of Congressman Kucinich. There is a great disconnect with what happened and the points made by ABC. She asks little of no questions to ABC. She takes what is handed to her and repeats it vebatim and then calls that reporting. I call is stenography.

I guess real reporting requires "hard work" as a famous politician was heard to say in the not too distant past. Report what was said, what was done, when it happened, by whom and against whom. Being truthful would also be a good idea.

I will now climb down from my soap box if you understand what I mean.