Letter to Howie Kurtz (re: outrageous "coverage" of Clinton-Wallace)

[pat_k]

To send your own comments: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?25">Feedback Form or [e-mail]

Subject: Coverage of Clinton-Wallace Interview

Dear Mr. Kurtz,

Your coverage of the Clinton-Wallace exchange was outrageous.

Your dishonest clip, which edited out the powerful substance of the exchange, did not just fail to convey what happened; the selected fragments constitute the kind of hatchet job one would expect from the FOX News. (For specifics, see "A Closer Look" below.)

It is one thing if President Clinton had been non-responsive, but it is apparently the President's responsiveness in setting the record straight that upset Wallace and prompted him to impatiently and frequently interrupt, at times argumentatively.

During your show you used the terms "overboard" and "flying off the handle" in reference to the President, but you failed to make any reference to Wallace's own badgering and evasions. (I, for one, am still looking for an answer on how many Bush people Wallace has asked "Why didn’t you do anything about the Cole?" or "Why did you fire Dick Clarke?" Perhaps you could investigate that.).

Your repeated question to guests about whether or not an interviewer has a "right" to ask such questions, was a red herring that just supported the lie. Anyone who actually watched the interview knows that no one, and certainly not President Clinton, had a problem with the question.

Perhaps your vague reference to the fact that Clinton did offer a more lengthy response was intended to correct the false picture created by the disgraceful clip. Unfortunately, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Shame on you.

Patty K
Westfield, NJ

cc: Media Matters ([e-mail])

--------------- A Closer Look ----------

You selected 20 words of Wallace's 194 word "question" to open your clip. That one sentence fragment made it appear that Wallace asked a simple, direct, question; something that is far from the truth.

The reality is that, in the 135 words of the 194 that followed your selected 20, Wallace piled on and prevented the President from beginning his answer, even though the President repeatedly indicated his willingness to respond.

Your clip then cut to a brief exchange (200 words spoken by Clinton, 45 by Wallace) of retorts that does not contain even a tiny fragment of the President's substantive responses to Wallace's accusations. Since it immediately follows the 20 word question, viewers would assume this clip constitutes the President's response. The reality of the President's response is diametrically opposed to the picture conveyed by this clip.

The clip selected to represent President Clinton's response actually comes after the substance of the exchange (875 words spoken by Clinton, 300 by Wallace) in which the President pointed out the context (the fantasies promoted in "Path to 9/11 and other outlets), and set the record straight (on Somalia, directives to the CIA, and so on), and before the President returns to Wallace's questions/accusations to fully address them (another 730 words spoken by Clinton, and 120 by Wallace).

In the exchange that preceded the selected clip, after Wallace finally allowed Clinton to begin his answer, he only let the President speak 240 words before interrupting, and then never let the President speak more than 190 (fewer words than his original "question") before impatiently interrupting, often interjecting dismissive or argumentative non sequiturs.

Instead of conveying the tone and substance of this exchange -- in which Wallace impatiently interrupts and badgers as President Clinton provides direct and specific answers, and challenges the biases of FOX News -- the fragments you edited together convey the picture of a man who, for no reason whatsoever, is angrily evading an interviewer's direct and simple question.

I say, once again, shame on you.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Kurtz's wife is an RNC fundraiser. nt

[Gabi Hayes]

2. excellent letter, which will, unfortunately, be ignored, like all the

others sent to this pitiful hack

[pat_k]

3. If Media Matters picks up on it (cc'd them), he at least gets a more . .

. . . public slapping.

Kurtz occassionally references MediaMatters, and does appear to keep an eye on them (out of laziness, if nothing else -- MM does a better job of following and critiquing the media than he does).

[Gabi Hayes]

4. saw that cc, and was going to mention it, but, like HK, I'm very lazy.

it's interesting that the M$M is unable to ignore MM, isn't it?

wonder why they choose whom to avoid paying attention, like Robert Parry, one of the only real journalists out there

when's the last time you saw him on one of those gasbag shows?

never, you say?

that's right

[pat_k]

5. My all time favorite from Parry. . . (edited to fix link)

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/051006.html">Hey, Democrats, The Truth Matters

I should fax it to every member of the Democratic Caucus -- both House and Senate -- along with a plea to stand up, fulfill their oath to support and defend, and demand the Impeachment and Removal of Bush and Cheney. (To date, I've only faxed it to the leadership and my own Senators)

ALL their recent failures come down to their silence on Impeachment. As Parry points out, over and over, over the decades, they make the same mistakes, rationalizing silence with the destructive and wrong-headed belief that appeasement will somehow serve them better "as a practical matter."

And with every lie left to fester, we pay a higher and higer price.

You cannnot call the War Criminals in the WH War Criminals if you are hell-bent on assuring the public "No, No, we won't Impeach anybody." Anytime they attempt to tell the truth, or get "tough" they end up sounding like morally-confused, mealy-mouthed morons as they tip toe around actually DOING anything about the subversion of our constitutional democracy.

It is physically painful to watch them betray their oath, betray the nation, AND shoot themselves in the head politically by confirming their image as weak and impotent. (Impeachment IS Our Positve Agenda for goodness sake! What the heck do they think they can accomplish even if they win when the so-called "leader of the free world" rules by signing statement? How can American's be expected to trust them to go after terrorists, if they can't stand up to those who terrorized us into a war of agression with threats of Mushroom Clouds in 45 minutes?)

Arrrggghhhh. . .

End of rant.

[Senator]

6. kick