Countdown Clocks

Countdown Clocks

Posts tagged "CBS"

h/t: Tara Culp-Ressler at Think Progress Health

Marsha Blackburn defends blocking equal pay law: GOP ‘led the fight for women’s equality’ (via Raw Story )

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) asserted over the weekend that the Republican Party was the party of “women’s equality” days after Senate Republicans blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act. In a party line Senate vote last week, Republicans refused to…



 

justinsentertainmentcorner:

h/t: Jen Hayden at Daily Kos

thepoliticalfreakshow:

Stop whining, you fake “Christian” right-wing nutzo fucks! Get over it!

A group of senators is asking for more broadcast coverage on climate change, following a Media Matters analysis which found that Sunday shows aired only scant coverage on the issue last year.

On Thursday, January 16, a letter spearheaded by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was sent to the top executives of four major television networks, expressing “deep concern” about the lack of coverage on global warming, deeming it a “serious environmental crisis” which “poses a huge threat to our nation and the global community.” The letter cited findings from a recent Media Matters study, which revealed that Sunday news shows dedicated merely 27 minutes of coverage to the issue of climate change throughout all of 2013. They wrote that “this is an absurdly short amount of time for a subject of such importance.”

The senators concluded with a call to action: “We urge you to take action in the near term to correct this oversight and provide your viewers, the American public, with greater discussion of this important issue that impacts everyone on the planet.”

The other senators that signed the letter were Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Christopher Murphy (D-CT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), and Robert Menendez (D-NJ).

H/T: MMFA

(via On CBS’s Face The Nation, Marco Rubio Accuses Obama Of ‘Emboldening The Taliban’)

WASHINGTON — Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on Sunday charged President Barack Obama with “emboldening the Taliban,” citing details from a new book by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates that harshly criticizes the president’s leadership in the war in Afghanistan.

"I don’t think we can ignore what’s in that book, and I think for many of us it confirms our worst fears," Rubio said on CBS’ "Face the Nation." "And that is that this is an administration full of people that either have the wrong convictions or, in the case of former Secretary Clinton, lack the courage of her convictions."

Rubio pointed to parts of Gates’ book that suggest Obama didn’t feel that the war in Afghanistan was his war, and that his decision to pull out troops was political.

"You saw that reflected in the decision that [Obama] made," Rubio continued. "At the same time that he announced the surge, he also announced an exit date and strategy, thereby emboldening the Taliban to believe they could wait us out.”

The Florida senator, whose name has been floated as a 2016 presidential contender, said Obama’s actions on Afghanistan have had international repercussions.

"Our allies see us as unreliable, and our enemies feel emboldened," Rubio said. "I think that this confirms our worst fears, that this is an administration that lacks a strategic foreign policy and, in fact, is largely driven by politics and tactics."

Things continue to get worse for 60 Minutes' already retracted Benghazi report and its discredited “eyewitness” Dylan Davies. Gawker's J.K. Trotter reports that CBS News and Simon & Shuster may have failed to properly vet significant “discrepancies” in Davies’ accounts of his military background.

60 Minutes' October 27, 2013, segment about the 2012 terror attacks in Benghazi, Libya, collapsed after it was revealed that Davies had given conflicting accounts of his actions that night. CBS News eventually pulled the segment and released a “journalistic review” finding that the report was “deficient in several respects” and “did not sufficiently vet Davies’ account of his own actions and whereabouts that night.” Correspondent Lara Logan and producer Max McClellan were put on a leave of absence.          

Two days after the 60 Minutes report aired, Simon & Schuster imprint Threshold Editions — which is owned by CBS Corporation, a blatant conflict of interest — released The Embassy House under the Davies pseudonym Morgan Jones. The book was pulled from shelves shortly after CBS retracted its segment, but a number of inconsistencies in the book have raised questions about whether Davies’ publishers and CBS Newsadequately vetted Davies before promoting his dubious story.

Gawker’s J.K. Trotter has uncovered further discrepancies in Davies’ account, this time related to claims about his military service. Trotter notes that while Simon & Schuster highlight the rank of “Sergeant Morgan Jones,” “there is zero evidence Davies obtained the rank of sergeant in the British Army.” Furthermore, “Davies and his editors seem to disagree about the length of his military service.” During the book Davies claims to have served for fourteen years, but the book’s jacket and website both say he served for only twelve — “So either Davies is lying about his enlistment date, or Threshold Editions is lying about their own author.”

Trotter also revealed that no one at Threshold Editions or 60 Minutes appears to have verified Davies’ claim that he worked on the security detail of U.S. Major General James T. Conway. 

h/t: MMFA


h/t: Queerty

A six-part series by New York Times reporter David Kirkpatrick destroyed several myths about the September 11, 2012, attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, myths often propagated by conservative media and their allies in Congress to politicize the attack against the Obama administration.

Since the September 2012 attacks, right-wing media have seized upon various inaccurate, misleading, or just plain wrong talking points about Benghazi. Some of those talking points made their way into the mainstream, most notably onto CBS’ 60 Minutesearning the network the Media Matters' 2013 "Misinformer of the Year" title for its botched report.

Kirkpatrick’s series, titled "A Deadly Mix In Benghazi," debunks a number of these right-wing talking points based on “months of investigation” and “extensive interviews” with those who had “direct knowledge of the attack.” Among other points, Kirkpatrick deflates the claims that an anti-Islamic YouTube video played no role in motivating the attacks and that Al Qaeda was involved in the attack: 

Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

Fox News, scores of Republican pundits, and Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC), among others, dragged then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice through the mud for citing talking points that mentioned an anti-Islamic YouTube video on Sunday morning news programs following the attacks. Despite right-wing media claims to the contrary, however, Kirkpatrick stated that the attack on the Benghazi compoundwas in “large part” “fueled” by the anti-Islamic video posted on YouTube. He wrote (emphasis added):

The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

[…]

There is no doubt that anger over the video motivated many attackers. A Libyan journalist working for The New York Times was blocked from entering by the sentries outside, and he learned of the film from the fighters who stopped him. Other Libyan witnesses, too, said they received lectures from the attackers about the evil of the film and the virtue of defending the prophet.

Another talking point that right-wing media used to accuse the Obama administration of a political cover-up was the removal of Al Qaeda from Rice’s morning show talking points. Kirkpatrick, however, affirmed in his NYTimes report that Al Qaeda was not involved in the attack in Benghazi (emphasis added):

But the Republican arguments appear to conflate purely local extremist organizations like Ansar al-Shariah with Al Qaeda’s international terrorist network. The only intelligence connecting Al Qaeda to the attack was an intercepted phone call that night from a participant in the first wave of the attack to a friend in another African country who had ties to members of Al Qaeda, according to several officials briefed on the call. But when the friend heard the attacker’s boasts, he sounded astonished, the officials said, suggesting he had no prior knowledge of the assault.

Kirkpatrick also dispelled the notion that the attack on the compound was carefully planned, writing that “the attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.” 

h/t: MMFA

The NYT investigation on the Benghazi story is yet more proof that the right-wing was using scaremongering tactics about what happened there as a tool to attempt to get Romney elected President in 2012, smear President Obama (and Democrats by extension) with impunity, and to deliberately harm Hillary’s reputation for the 2016 elections.

The flawed 60 Minutes report represented a willing and eager decision by CBS to get mired in the Benghazi mud. CBS thought it could keep its reputation clean while cashing in on the built-in buzz it knew the right-wing noise machine would produce for the report.

But that’s a dangerous game given that there’s nothing sane or rational about the right-wing’s Benghazi fantasyand the claims it’s a “Watergate”-like scandal that implicates both President Obama and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton. The far-right’s Benghazi campaign has been an endless stream of hollow allegations and smears. (i.e. “The cancer on the Presidency is lying exposed — grisly and repulsive.”) Why would a trusted brand like CBS try to wallow in that kind of conspiratorial nonsense?

In reality, Lara Logan’s report produced little new reporting of interest or significance. And much of what it did cast as new turned out to be deeply flawed. The October 27 broadcast seemed designed to whip up angry emotions from conservatives, rather than illuminate the facts.  

The Benghazi fact sheet will likely haunt the network for years:

On October 27, 60 Minutes featured Dylan Davies, a British security contractor who claimed to be a “witness” of the September 2012 attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities; a witness who claimed that during the attack he heroically scaled a wall of the U.S. compound and knocked out a terrorist with his rifle butt. The action-packed tale Davies told was the same one he spelled out in a book published by CBS subsidiary, which meant the 60 Minutes report was helping to juice sales for a CBS-affiliated book. (60 Minutes did not inform their readeres of that conflict of interest.)

The story Davies told CBS though, was wildly different than the subdued account he gave his work superiors, according to an incident report that was obtained by The Washington Post on October 31. Davies had told his security contractor employer that he “could not get anywhere near” the compound the night of the attack.

With his story under fire, Davies responded that he lied to his employer because he didn’t want his boss to know he’d disobeyed strict orders that night to stay away from the Benghazi compound. While acknowledging that deceit, Davies claimed he told the truth on 60 Minutes and told the truth in his book, and said he would be vindicated by the FBI’s report on what he told agents shortly after the attack. 

Then the Times reported that the FBI report actually showed that Davis also told agents he failed to make it to the U.S. compound on the night of the attack, and therefore did not engage in a night’s worth of heroic deeds.

In the days that followed the original airing of the troubled Benghazi report, CBS did nothing to re-report or fact-check the story after holes began to appear. Other journalists, including those from the Washington Post and the New York Times, took on that burden. Basically, CBS waited for outside journalists to vet its Benghazi story after it aired. And only after CBS’ competitors uncovered glaring inconsistencies did the network’s news division admit mistakes were made. But the admissions came slowly and haltingly.

As it stonewalled, CBS couldn’t avoid the fact that in 2004 when 60 Minutes II was caught in a crossfire of conservative outrage after airing a disputed report about President Bush’s Vietnam War record, the network appointed a former Republican attorney general, Richard Thornburgh, to thoroughly investigate what went wrong. The review panel, created to “protect the integrity of CBS News,” was given ”full access and complete cooperation from CBS News and CBS, as well as all of the resources necessary to complete the task.” Those resources included reporters’ notes, e-mails, and draft scripts. After interviewing 66 people over three months, the panel issued an-often scathing 234-page report.

By contrast, no outside panel was appointed to determine how the flawed Benghazi report was put together and who was to blame for allowing it to air; the network instead commissioned a limited internal review by CBS News executive Al Ortiz. And instead of a 234-page report, CBS issued an 11-paragraph summary of Ortiz’s findings. It seemed clear that CBS executives had no interests in opening up 60 Minutes to an independent review; one that would truly probe and ask the hard questions. (Was that because CBS News chairman Fager, Ortiz’s boss, is also the executive producer of 60 Minutes?)

It was, as one journalism association put it, “a case study in how not to correct an inaccurate report in the digital age.”

To date, nobody at CBS has lost their jobs because of the Benghazi hoax. Logan and her producer Max McClellan were asked to take a “leave of absence” following the internal review (those leaves may end as early as January), but CBS has not said whether the two are being paid during their forced hiatus. 

Quite simply, how is it possible to spend a year reporting out a story only to have almost none of it stand up to the slightest scrutiny? The magnitude of the malfeasance was baffling, demonstrating that the network failed to follow even rudimentary rules of journalism in preparing the report.

In the end, CBS’s internal “review” of the debacle did little to address the troubling, central questions about how the errors were made and who was to blame. That, in turn, only led to further speculation about motives. Journalism that sloppy and misleading doesn’t happen by accident. Not at the elite level of 60 Minutes.

It took the CBS team nearly two weeks to concede what critics had pointed out as the report’s deep flaws. The price CBS paid? Its prized Benghazi report turned the network’s news team into a national punch line. (See The Colbert ReportThe Daily Show With Jon Stewart, and Saturday Night Live.) 

[…]

The night the 60 Minutes Benghazi hoax aired, CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson used her Twitter account to relentlessly hype the program. Tweeting a dozen times that night about Logan’s Benghazi piece, Attkisson urged her followers to tune in and watch.

A professional Benghazi aficionado and the declared darling of the right-wing media, Attkisson’s cheerleading wasn’t a surprise. Nor was it surprising that when the 60 Minutes report completely imploded, Attkisson never acknowledged the network’s blunder via Twitter. She simply moved on to her own Obama gotcha campaign that featured a journalism lapse that nearly matched Logan’s.

On November 11, Attkisson aired an exclusive report based on reviewing what she acknowledged were selectively leaked partial transcripts. Those transcripts likely came by the auspices of Republican anti-Obama crusader, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), whose utterly fruitless investigations of the White House as chairman of the House Oversight Committee have become legendary. Issa himself has become known as being legendarily untrustworthy, particularly in his dealings with the press. But that didn’t stop Attkisson from simply regurgitating Issa’s hit piece.

In her report, Attkisson, who’s been identified by some of her own CBS colleagues as an open GOP partisan, suggested Healthcare.gov’s chief project manager Henry Chao in September was completely unaware of “limitless” security concerns related to the government’s troubled site; concerns that could lead to identify theft.

That was Attkisson’s tale as told by the House Oversight Chairman, and the partial transcripts he allowed Attkisson to see. The entire transcript story? In his testimony, Chao was asked about security concerns that had nothing to do with the October 1 rollout of Obamacare, and instead were related to parts of Healthcare.gov that won’t be active until 2014.

That’s just atrocious journalism. As MSNBC’s Steve Benen noted, the Attkisson report left out “pretty much every relevant detail that points in a more accurate direction.” But it did successfully create more panic about the Obamacare launch. The fact that Attkisson’s producers allowed her to air that kind of obviously flawed and flimsy report (Attkisson had no idea what the full transcripts revealed but she leveled a bogus charge anyway), says a lot about the gotcha culture inside CBS today.

It also reveals a lot that a reporter like Attkisson, who has such a rich history of being wrong on very important stories, is still a top reporter at CBS.

[…]

The “Ghastly” Social Security Disability Report

And then there was the October 6 scare report 60 Minutes aired that alleged widespread fraud within the Social Security disability program. (i.e. “A secret welfare system.”) Told from the perspective of another crusading Republican lawmaker, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Media Matters noted at the time the CBS report relied almost entirely on anecdotal evidence to dishonestly portray the social welfare program as wasteful, despite the fact that award rates fell during the recession and that fraud represents approximately one percent of the program.

After watching the lopsided report, Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik denounced CBS correspondent Steve Kroft’s “rank ignorance about the disability program” and the “ghastly” piece Kroft helped produce.

Hiltzik wasn’t aloneThe Nation attacked the 60 Minutes report as a “hatchet job.” Economist Dean Bakerlamented that, “Perhaps the most remarkable part of this story is that the 60 Minutes crew seem to think they are being tough for going after people on disability.” And disability advocates, who had preemptively reached out to CBS in hopes that 60 Minutes would air a balanced report, denounced the “sensational” account as a “disservice” to people with disabilities.

Taken together, these troubling CBS reports, centered around the shocking Benghazi hoax, paint a disturbing portrait of one of Americans’ most famous news teams, and one that seems overly eager to spread Republican misinformation while doing deep damage to its own brand.

h/t: MMFA

On October 27, CBS’ 60 Minutes aired a segment anchored by correspondent Lara Logan and featuring the results of her year-long investigation into the September 11, 2012, attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya. Right-wing media outlets and conservative politicians promptly seized on the story, claiming it validated their extensive effort to turn the attacks into a political scandal for President Obama and Hillary Clinton.

12 days later, the network pulled the report and apologized to viewers, with the network acknowledging that it had committed its biggest failure since the 2004 controversy surrounding a 60 Minutes story on President Bush’s Air National Guard service.

After facing withering criticism for issuing an apology on 60 Minutes that failed to detail what the network had done wrong or any investigation CBS would undertake to explain how its blunder had occurred, CBS announced on November 14 that it had begun an ongoing “journalistic review” of the segment. But the network declined to detail who is performing that review or whether its results will be made public.

Much of the criticism has revolved around the network’s handling of its interview with the former British security contractor Dylan Davies, identified by CBS as a “witness” to the attacks. But numerous flaws in the report have been identified since the segment aired.

1.  The Fraudulent Benghazi “Witness”

The 60 Minutes segment featured Davies, who appeared on the show under the pseudonym “Morgan Jones.” Logan and Davies related how the security contractor had scaled a 12 foot wall on the side of the diplomatic compound the night of the attack and dispatching a terrorist with his rifle butt. He also told viewers about how he had supposedly seen Ambassador Chris Stevens’ dead body in a local hospital.

But four days later, The Washington Post reported that an incident report filed by Davies’ employer, Blue Mountain, had said that the security contractor “could not get anywhere near” the compound the night of the attack, and that he found out about Ambassador Stevens’ death not by finding him in a local hospital, but from a Libyan colleague.

In an interview with The Daily Beast, Davies claimed that he had not written the incident report and that he had lied to his boss to cover up the fact that he had disobeyed orders. He said that he had also discussed the events of the attack with the FBI and that that account matched the one he had given to CBS and would vindicate him. Logan stood by Davies’ claims, saying that she had known all along that Davies had told a different story to his bosses and that she believed the story he had told her was the truth.

On November 7, The New York Times reported that the account Davies gave the FBI matched the story he told his boss, not the one he told CBS. The network retracted their report, with Logan apologizing on-air, saying CBS was “wrong to put him on-air.”

2.  The Ethical Conflict With The “Witness’” Book

The initial 60 Minutes segment referenced and aired an image of the cover of Davies’ book, The Embassy House: The Explosive Eyewitness Account of the Libyan Embassy Siege by the Soldier Who Was There. But Logan failed to disclose that the book was published by Threshold Editions, an imprint of the CBS division Simon & Schuster.

On November 5, The New York Times reported that Logan and CBS News were standing by the network’s Benghazi reporting. But Logan and Fager both said that the network erred by failing to acknowledge the financial connection it shared with Davies.

h/t: MMFA

h/t: Josh Marshall at TPM

h/t: Brad Friedman at Salon

holygoddamnshitballs:

CBS News will issue a correction for its Oct. 27 “60 Minutes” report on the terrorist attacks on a diplomatic compound in Libya, and the correspondent who reported the story has apologized to viewers.

“The truth is that we made a mistake, and that’s very disappointing for any journalist,” correspondent Lara Logan said Friday on “CBS This Morning.” “It’s very disappointing for me. Nobody likes to admit that they made a mistake, but if you do, you have to stand up and take responsibility and you have to say that you were wrong, and in this case we were wrong. We made a mistake.”

The story began to fall apart when the Washington Post reported that Dylan Davies, the former State Department security contractor interviewed under pseudonym on the program, had told his employers in a post-incident report that he’d been nowhere near the Benghazi compound when it came under attack.