Posted on 06/18/2004 10:01:42 AM PDT by johnqueuepublic
By William A. Mayer - June 18, 2004
In 2002 a highly placed network news executive scoffed at the hullabaloo surrounding the cable industry’s supposed audience gains with the observation that on average, the unique evening audience for the big three – ABC, NBC, & CBS – stood at approximately 36 million.
At the time, that figure was roughly ten times greater than that of the combined total of all the cable news providers.
Two years later, the best estimates on these figures places the network audience at maybe a little over 30 million, less than the somewhat more rosy exec’s semi-spin, but still nearly 10 times the size of cable’s audience, whose growth has flatlined [with only a 6 week spike during the onset of the Iraq conflict] since 2002.
So while we on the right, were busy feverishly arguing over the imponderable - how many Brit Humes, or Wolf Blitzers or Neil Cavutos could dance on the head of the cable pin - the network boys and girls continued to clean our clocks.
The networks do face serious difficulties, their evening news audience is already old - 60 years on average. On the other hand the average cable viewer is a relatively young 35. It is primarily because of this demographic reason that cable is viewed as a long term major threat to the networks, as is the democratization of the media in general. Those who now control the game don’t share well and don’t like to give up the home field advantage.
However until those charged with providing us with communication technology more fully implement the necessary infrastructure, relatively few will have access to the semi-alternative media.
The majority - and with it public opinion - will continue to be left to the tender mercies of the monopolists.
While future trends may be interest to some, this presidential campaign is run in the here and now and the above reality is not lost on those who run political operations and certainly not on the bright, seasoned professionals who run the Kerry campaign.
Item - from Kerry headquarters, a press release:
WASHINGTON, June 16 /U.S. Newswire/ -- John Kerry for President today released the following highlights from tonight's network news coverage on the validity of the Administration's claims of ties between Hussein and al-Qaida:
CBS:
"It is one of President Bush's last surviving justifications for war in Iraq and today took a devastating hit when the 9/11 Commission declared there was no collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
'I think it's the clearest case of the administration misleading the American public to rally support for war and that misleading worked...'
...Those repeated associations left the majority of Americans believing Saddam was involved in 9/11. But the Commission today put the nail in that connection, or for that matter, any other al-Qaida acts of terror against America, declaring: there is no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States. The report is yet another blow to the President's credibility as he struggles to find the exit door in Iraq, and opens him up to new criticism on the wisdom to taking on Saddam with Iraq's leadership still at large."
NBC:
"But the 9/11 commission contradicts the White House today, particularly on claims that
Iraq and al-Qaida were linked before the war... The report said that the meeting and other contacts between Iraq and bin Laden do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.
...Critics say the president has gone out of his way to blur the lines between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks... It's clear this report is a blow to the president's rationale for war."
ABC:
"One of the Bush Administration's most controversial assertions that Bin Laden was linked to al-Qaida. Today the 911 commission said unequivocally, not so...
...The 9/11 commission staff report was categorical... But the Bush Administration continues to link the two... The commission found, however, that the only relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida was an apparent agreement not to attack each other."
Paid for by John Kerry for President, Inc.
How ironic that tag line.
Can you imagine how this must look from the perspective, lets say, Karl Rove?
Imagine having the media compose your campaign hit pieces for you, offer millions of dollars of prime broadcast time and then run them.
For free.
Yet, that is precisely what happened on the evening of June 16.
Even for those of us who have soberly observed, throughout this administration, the relative hostility and personal animosity with which the Fourth Estate has for Mr. Bush, the sheer maliciousness that the media brings to bear on this issue is breathtaking.
CBS was of course most vituperative - but not only did all three of the networks totally misrepresent what the Commission said, they went several steps further; prejudging the effect [“devastating...another blow" in CBS’ parlance] of the media created controversy, alleging that that the justifications for invading Iraq were nearly all shot through, stating in no uncertain terms that Bush had misled the country and that as NBC stated the “report is a blow to the president's rationale for war."
The next morning, the print media ran with it also - lies spread across the front pages of nearly every major paper across the United States.
Whole cloth creations, without basis in fact.
For the record, this is what the Commission said, it is rather innocuous, and is exactly what the administration has been saying itself, all along.
“We have no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the US."
It does not say that there was no link between Saddam and al-Qaeda, just that the commission has no, what it terms “credible" evidence of a direct link between the September 11 attack and Saddam, no smoking gun.
Devoid of mention in the withering media anti-Bush onslaught are these gems from the very same Commission report:
"There were contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda, a number of them, some of them a little shadowy. They were definitely there." – Commission Chairman, Thomas Kean
"A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994." At that meeting, Bin-Laden and agents of Saddam "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan."
Funny thing is that the media, under the previous administration’s watch was spinning a very different tale than what passes for gospel today:
“Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. . . . ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad." - January 15, 1999, ABC News
And the Old Gray Lady herself had a similar perspective:
“That indictment was returned before the embassy bombings and resulted from a two-year grand jury investigation of his [bin-Laden’s] activities in Somalia and Saudi Arabia, as well as reports that he had connections to a circle of Islamic militants in Brooklyn. The new indictment, which supersedes the June action, accuses Mr. bin Laden of leading a vast terrorist conspiracy from 1989 to the present, in which he is said to have been working in concert with governments, including those of Sudan,
Iraq and Iran, and terrorist groups to build weapons and attack American military installations" - Benjamin Weiser – New York Times November 5, 1998
Perhaps it’s just a case of short term memory loss, keeping track of constantly changing politically motivated opinions must be difficult even for those whose occupation is making slanted personal opinion appear to be reportage.
Let us also keep in mind that the 911 Commission is by no means the end-all-and-be-all resource for information relevant to this controversy.
In many ways because of its structure and composition, it is fatally flawed.
It does not have unlimited subpoena power, it does not have access to what may be significant intelligence on the subject for a number of reasons, the most obvious of which is that among its staff and members are untrustworthy partisans like minority party panel memberJamie Gorelick, who would not give a second thought of disclosing information regardless of its potentially catastrophic effect on the intelligence gathering process, just as long as it provided short-term political benefit.
Similar leaks by people such as Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy have in the past, according to press reports, resulted in field operatives being killed after being "outed."
For those interested in the, by now, voluminous evidence of linkage between al-Qaeda/bin-Laden and Iraq, the most exhaustive assembly of which was outlined by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith in an October 27, 2003 memorandum to the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
That memo, which was leaked, has been referred to and characterized by Vice President Cheney as the most comprehensive accounting publicly available regarding the relationship between the ex Saudi terrorist’s organization and the government of Saddam Hussein.
The memo lists 50 possible contacts between them.
It has been written about extensively, by the Weekly Standard’s investigative reporter, Stephen Hayes, is available to any interested unbiased party and is partially excerpted below:
“5. A CIA report from a contact with good access, some of whose reporting has been corroborated, said that certain elements in the "Islamic Army" of bin Laden were against the secular regime of Saddam. Overriding the internal factional strife that was developing, bin Laden came to an "understanding" with Saddam that the Islamic Army would no longer support anti-Saddam activities. According to sensitive reporting released in U.S. court documents during the African Embassy trial, in 1993 bin Laden reached an "understanding" with Saddam under which he (bin Laden) forbade al Qaeda operations to be mounted against the Iraqi leader."
“8. Reporting from a well placed source disclosed that bin Laden was receiving training on bomb making from the IIS's [Iraqi Intelligence Service] principal technical expert on making sophisticated explosives, Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed. Brigadier Salim was observed at bin Laden's farm in Khartoum in Sept.-Oct. 1995 and again in July 1996, in the company of the Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti."
Two rather intriguing links.
Two of fifty.
Yet certain segments of the press, always predictably the same segments, ignore any information that clashes with their agenda, despite the fact that the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence directly contradicts their screaming headlines.
It may be news to some, but it is nonetheless important to remember that the Clinton administration - six years ago - in the spring of 1998 brought a sealed indictment against bin-Laden which also contains language suggestive of al-Qaeda – Iraq links.
The same year produced a stunningly revelatory Clinton White House official White Paper on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction.
Perish the thought that these two documents would have any resonance today amongst the dominant media.
If this is degree to which the media will bend the truth and do so boldly in what passes for broad daylight, confident that none of their brethren will call attention to their Swiss cheese-like pronouncements, one can only imagine what donkey and pony show they have lined up for us upon the release of the 911 Commissions final report.
© 2004, William A. Mayer, all rights reserved
What has transpired in the last 48 hrs should scare the hell out of us.
We know Saddam worked with the PLO and other terrorists, he funded them. He at LEAST knew that 9/11 was coming.
Less than two months before 9/11/01, the state-controlled Iraqi newspaper “Al-Nasiriya” carried a column headlined, “American, an Obsession called Osama Bin Ladin.” (July 21, 2001)
In the piece, Baath Party writer Naeem Abd Muhalhal predicted that bin Laden would attack the US “with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House.”
The same state-approved column also insisted that bin Laden “will strike America on the arm that is already hurting,” and that the US “will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs” – an apparent reference to the Sinatra classic, “New York, New York”.
(Link below)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1106657/posts?page=1
List of newspaper article in the 90's which mention the world's concern regarding the growing relationship between OBL and Saddam: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/946809/posts?page=1
Son of Saddam coordinates OBL activities:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/951911/posts
The AQ connection (excellent):http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/944617/posts?page=2
Western Nightmare: http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,798270,00.html
Saddam's link to OBL: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/866105/posts
NYT: Iraq and AQ agree to cooperate: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/985906/posts
Document linking them: http://tennessean.com/nation-world/archives/03/06/34908297.shtml?Element_ID=34908297
Iraq and terrorism - no doubt about it: http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp
A federal judge rules there are links:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/986293/posts
Wall Street Journal on Iraq and AQ:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987129/posts
Iraq and Iran contact OBL: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/981055/posts
More evidence: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F27%2Fwalq27.xml
Saddam's AQ connection: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/969032/posts
Further connections: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1007969/posts
What a court of law said about the connections:
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/98110402.htm
Some miscellaneous stuff on connections:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/989201/posts
Saddam's Ambassador to Al Qaeda: (February 2004, Weekly Standard)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1083778/posts
Yes - it's NewsMax but loaded with interesting bullet points.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1097521/posts?page=1
Saddam's Fingerprints on NY Bombing (Wall Street Journal, June 1993)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1115387/posts
Colin Powell: Iraq and AQ Partners for Years (CNN, February 2003)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.alqaeda.links/
The Iraq-Al Qaeda Connections (September 2003, Richard Miniter)
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html
Oil for Food Scandal Ties Iraq and Al Qaeda (June 2003)
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1125899/posts
Saddam and OBL Make a Pact (The New Yorker, February 2003):
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030210fa_fact
Al Qaeda's Poison Gas (Wall Street Journal, April 2004):
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005016
Wolfowitz Says Saddam behind 9/11 Attacks:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/921398/posts
Saddam behind first WTC attack - PBS, Laurie Mylroie:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/mylroie.html
Growing Evidence of Saddam and Al Qaeda Link, The Weekly Standard, July 2003:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/946997/posts
Qusay Hussein Coordinated Iraq special operations with Bin Laden Terrorist Activities, Yossef Bodansky, National Press Club
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/951911/posts
The Western Nightmare: Saddam and Bin Laden vs. the Rest of the World, The Guardian Unlimited:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,798270,00.html
Saddam Link to Bin Laden, Julian Borger, The Guardian, February 1999
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/866105/posts
The Al Qaeda Connection, The Weekly Standard, July 2003
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/944617/posts?page=2
Cheney lectures Russert on Iraq/911 Link, September 2003:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/982713/posts
No Question About It, National Review, September 2003
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins091903.asp
Iraq: A Federal Judges Point of View
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/986293/posts
Mohammed's Account links Iraq to 9/11 and OKC:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987075/posts
Free Republic Thread that mentions so me books Freepers might be interested in on this topic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/977221/posts?page=8
The Proof that Saddam Worked with AQ, The Telegraph, April 2003:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F27%2Fwalq27.xml
Saddam's AQ Connection, The Weekly Standard, September 2003
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/969032/posts
September 11 Victims Sue Iraq:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2237332.stm
Osama's Best Friend: The Further Connections Between Al Qaeda and Saddam, The Weekly Standard, November 2003
Terrorist Behind 9/11 Attacks Trained by Saddam, The Telegraph, December 2003
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1007969/posts
James Woolsey Links Iraq and AQ, CNN Interview, March 2004, Also see Posts #34 and #35
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1104121/posts
A Geocities Interesting Web Site with maps and connections:
http://www.geocities.com/republican_strategist/Iraq-Bin-Laden.html
Bin Laden indicted in federal court, read down to find information that Bin Laden agreed to not attack Iraq and to work cooperatively with Iraq:
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/98110402.htm
Case Closed, The Weekly Standard, November 03
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
CBS - Lawsuit: Iraq involved in 9/11:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/05/september11/main520874.shtml
Exploring Iraq's Involvement in pre-9/11 Acts, The Indianapolis Star:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/746225/posts
The Iraq/AQ Connection: Richard Minister again
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/989201/posts
Militia Defector says Baghdad trained Al Qaeda fighters in chemical weapons, July 2002
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/743892/posts
The Clinton View of Iraq/AQ Ties, The Weekly Standard, December 2003
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp
Saddam Controlled the Camps (Iraq/AQ Ties): The London Observer, November 01
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/741676/posts
Saddam's Terror Ties that Critics Ignore, National Review, October 2003:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1005579/posts
Tape Shows General Wesley Clark linking Iraq and AQ:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1056113/posts
Freeper list of links between AQ and Iraq:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/850346/posts
Salman Pak (Aviation Weekly)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/865435/posts
Another freeper resource - list of links between OBL and Saddam:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/838309/posts
Saddam/911 Link (FrontPage Magazine, Laurie Mylroie, May 2004):
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1133317/posts
Bush says Zarqawi killed Berg, cites Saddam ties (Reuters, May 2004)
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1136076/posts
The Connections (May 2004, The Weekly Standard)
New Information:http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1144123/posts?page=11
Saddam's role in 9/11. (Freeper book, May 2004)
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1144699/posts?page=5
Entire link and Post #5 - Clinton mentioned how AQ was developing a relationship with Iraq.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1145787/posts
The House of Representatives read into the congressional record the ties that Saddam had to Osama bin Laden (read down and open links in the record): June 2004
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/B?r108:@FIELD(FLD003+h)+@FIELD(DDATE+20040601)
Exploring the links between 9/11 and Iraq (Richard Miniter, June 2004)
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1146319/posts?page=1
The Terrorist behind 9/11 was trained by Saddam (The Telegraph, 12/03)
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1146356/posts?page=1
New Iraqi Chief Links 9/11 to Saddam (June 2004, NewsMax)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1146579/posts?page=1
Increasing evidence of Saddam's ties to 9/11 and AQ (National Review, June 2004)
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1146984/posts
Pre Bush Timeline of Saddam/OBL Ties (Freeper research):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1152923/posts?page=1
Cheney claims Iraq/AQ connections (June 2004)
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/1153781/posts?page=20
How the Networks Pretend to Ignore their own reporting from the 1990's (MRC, June 2004)
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040617.asp
The AQ/Iraq connection according to the NYT in 1998 (NYT, 1998 and again in 2004)
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1155977/posts
The three mainstream networks are committed to a Kerry victory, and any pretense of objectivity they tried to promote is gone by conscious choice. It IS scary when one contemplates the kind of raw, ruthless power the media seems to believe it has in shaping political opinion. If they're right, and they can put a boob in the White House, they will justifiably conclude they can put ANYONE in the White House, like the so-called 'robber barons' of old. There's more at stake in this election than a choice of presidents.
I think the difference between the 30 million viewers of network news and the few million viewers of foxnews should be put in perspective.
First, the 30 million get JUST 30 minutes of news.
Two, there is no real way to count the number of viewers of a 24/7 news channel.
It certainly is more than its nielsen rating. Barber shops, airports, waiting rooms, etc. -- how many people see some of it.
FoxNews could increase it's share by having Brit Hume on at 6 PM on the FoxEntertainment Network doing a 30 minute gig. Wonder why they don't? (Probably money.)
If the average evening news demographic is 60 years old, then the networks are in big, big trouble.
It doesn't just scare me, it profoundly angers me.
Is that all there is??
Stunning, thanks.
Yes there is far more at stake in this than the mere election.
LOL!
We pulled the network news average age from a Pew study, believe it is correct.
I hope that study is correct. That means we have just a few more years of liberal nonsense networks. Wouldn't that be great!
Additional food for thought
30 min of network time is at most 22 minutes of broadcast time, if you assume a 3 minute run of this coverage on all 3 networks you get 9 minutes total, at $500k a 30 second run that's 18 million smackers of "inkind" political contributions by the big 3 to kerry inc.
Aside from that you couch the "advertising" under the guise of news coverage and you provide an added value which is priceless, it simply can't be purchased at any price by an advertising agency.
Mega-Bump!
Great points!
Also, consider the number of sitcoms and other programs (mockumentaries, etc.) that will be politically focused in favor of Kerry these next few months.
He has an incredible lead in advertising money BECAUSE he doesn't have to buy most of what he buys.
These people don't scare me .. they still believe they have a lock on the media .. THEY DON'T. There is no more lying with impunity any more.
I dont know cyber, they sure seemed to have the floor in the discussion this week.
Well .. you need to go to Rush's website later today and read about his show today. This was not a good day for the dems .. not a good day at all. Don't believe the lies of the partisan media.
I am not a member of Rush 23 7 so I cant go and see that. I think that its a terrible week for America, when you see what the press is willing to do to get their guy elected it makes my blood run cold.
Well .. even though some people think it's expensive, it's the one place I can go and get the correct info.
However .. if YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THE DOOM AND GLOOM .. that is YOUR CHOICE.
There is plenty of GOOD NEWS on the internet - if you really want to find it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.