WhiteHouse Dictated TV Lineup after Rumsfeld Interview

[lostnfound]

(This story is 5 weeks old, but I think it's an excellent example of how the media in this country is utterly used by the neocons to spin public perception however they want. I couldn't find this issue in the DU archives, but if it was already discussed I apologize.)

In order to get an interview with Rumsfeld, the White House required that each station air subsequent interviews with Wolfowitz, Bremer, and one other Pentagon official immediately following the Rumsfeld interview. So John Q Public first watches Rummmy, then here's 3 other supposed experts reiterate what Rummy says, and he thinks 'hmmm..must be true..no conflicts here..'

Here's the relevant portion of the Post article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A20109-2003Nov9¬Found=true

Package Deal

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, like his boss, is selling the Iraq policy with a new PR initiative, granting interviews to 18 local TV stations from Boston to Seattle during a three-week blitz. But the offer comes with strings attached. The White House media office has insisted that each station air subsequent interviews with three or four other Pentagon officials as a condition for getting Rumsfeld. These include Wolfowitz, Iraq reconstruction boss Paul Bremer and Central Command chief Gen. John Abizaid.

"We presented it as a team," says Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman, "because we thought there was some value" in giving stations "both military and civilian people in the department to talk to over a series of days. . . . I can't imagine people thinking they're getting a bad deal because we're giving them Rumsfeld, Bremer and Abizaid all in the same week."

Says Guy Gordon of Detroit's WXYZ-TV, who disclosed the carrot-and-stick arrangement to viewers: "We weren't bothered at all by the condition. . . . We weren't sacrificing anything to get access" to Rumsfeld.


I heard about it on Counterspin which gave some excellent points: http://www.fair.org/counterspin/111403.mp3 (starts at 1:34.)

transcribed from Counterspin -- 11/14/03:

...Rumsfeld is not just any official; he's an official with a clear track record of obfuscation and denying reality. To cite just one example, in a September 25 interview, a reporter from Sinclair broadcasting said to Rumsfeld, "Before the war in Iraq, you said they would welcome us with open arms". Rumsfeld responded with a denial: "Never said that, never did. You may remember it well, but you're thinking of somebody else. You can't find anywhere me saying anything like that. I never said anything like that because I never knew what would happen, and I knew I didn't know."

But on February 20, Rumsfeld was asked by PBS's Jim Lehrer, "Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?" How did Rumsfeld respond? "There is no question but that they would be welcomed. Go back to Afghanistan. The people were in the streets playing music, cheering, flying kites, and doing all the things that the Taliban and al Qaeda would not let them do."

As Eric Rosenberg of Hearst newspapers has pointed out, Rumsfeld has also denied statements he made concerning Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction. If you can't trust a person to acknowledge his own words, can you really trust him to accurately convey the complex reality of what's going on in Iraq? It seems to us that instead of following Rumsfeld with 3 or 4 of his associates, TV stations should put on some independent experts who can set the record straight.

[gasperc]

1. he seems to say, I didn't exactly say welcome with open arms

yeah, but you DID say say "There is no question but that they would be welcomed" they meaning the soldiers
clear enough now Rummy

[ClintonTyree]

2. And the "Liberal Media".................

rolls over and begs for more. If this isn't the most blatant example of conrolling information I've ever seen, I'll eat Bush's shorts.

[FredrickDouglass]

3. More Lying

Excellent post. It can't be pointed out too often that these guys are lying, not spinning. They consciously manipulate information and the channels through which it is communicated as to control public perception. It can't be mentioned enough. I am in Atlanta, GA and I talk to so many people that think that Rumseld and his associates are telling it straight. They don't say, "yeah, I believe him" but they are only skeptical about ideas and assertions that run counter to Rumsfeld's asssertions. Thus, by default they believe him. Even though as the references in this thread point out, and anyone that actually listens to what he says on a consistent basis, the only thing that Rumsfeld does consistently, is lie.

ATLien

[spooky3]

4. welcome to DU!

[newyawker99]

7. Hi FredrickDouglas!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[snippy]

5. The obedient media. How pathetic.

[tom_paine]

6. AS pathetic as Soviet Pravda

At least the Soviet "reporters" had fear of jail to "motivate" them to do what their Rulers said.

What excuse does the Imperial Amerikan "media" have?

One of the greatest disgraces to ever echo across human history was the steep and rapid degradation of Ameican Media into something only a Third World Dictator would love.

Of course, it hasn't fallen quite that far yet. Like Amerika itself, there is still more flushing of the ideals of the Old American Republic that needs to take place before THAT level can be reached.

But we are absolutely on our way.

[pinto]

8. someone said Rummy denies reality? get Ashcroft on speed dial...n/t

[Cocoa]

9. maybe this explains why the reporters are always laughing

The Pentagon press corps is always yukking it up with Rummy. It never made sense to me, Rummy is always lying in their faces and bullying them, let alone his violent policies and general unpleasantness.

Maybe they signed something like these local news outlets, mandating them to laugh at Rummy's cute comments?

[madfloridian]

10. The media is their mouthpiece. Disgusting.

:kick: