Posted on 01/05/2006 12:43:20 PM PST by summer
It gets curiouser and curiouser.
As we noted Wednesday, [a liberal site] noticed an odd moment in Andrea Mitchell's interview this week with New York Times reporter James Risen: While interviewing Risen about his new book and revelations that George W. Bush authorized warrantless spying on American citizens, Mitchell asked Risen if he had any information suggesting that CNN's international correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, "might have been eavesdropped upon." Risen said he didn't. But as [the liberal site] surmised, the question certainly suggested that Mitchell did.
Right about the time the [liberal site's] theory started floating through the blogosphere, somebody deleted Mitchell's question and Risen's answer from the transcript posted on MSNBC's Web site. We said we'd like to hear an explanation, and TVNewser actually went to the trouble of getting one. "Unfortunately this transcript was released prematurely," reads a statement TVNewser says it got from NBC. "It was a topic on which we had not completed our reporting, and it was not broadcast on 'NBC Nightly News' nor on any other NBC News program. We removed that section of the transcript so that we may further continue our inquiry."
Assuming the statement is legitimate, that sure seems to us like a long way of saying, "Yeah, we're looking into the possibility that the Bush administration was eavesdropping on Christiane Amanpour."
Now, it's probably time for a deep breath and some patience here. What we've got here is some reading between the lines, and it's about a question, not an answer. But as we said yesterday, if the answer is ultimately answered in the affirmative -- that is, if the Bush administration has indeed been listening in on Amanpour's phone -- the implications are enormous. We don't much like the idea that the government might be listening in on the conversations of a reporter. And Amanpour isn't just any reporter: She is married to Jamie Rubin, a State Department spokesman under Bill Clinton and a foreign policy advisor to John Kerry's presidential campaign. If the Bush administration was listening in on Amanpour's phone, was it listening when she talked with her husband? Was it listening when he might have used her phone himself?
Again, what we've got here are hints about a question. We're a long way from an answer. But when you start circumventing Congress and the courts and begin to spy on Americans in a way that you insist you aren't, you invite questions like these. And along the way, you invite people to think about the last time some people who worked for a president tried to spy on the opposition.
Whatever. You worry about the MSM having another story with which to go after the president (like they need an excuse). I'll concern myself with the truth. I think the MSM jumps the shark with each passing "scandal" and they don't see the cliff they're approaching.
CNN had no problem lying about their deal with Saddam and lying for Saddam to continue their access in Iraq.
"Again, what we've got here are hints about a question."
They aren't quite to the level of question yet. They are speculating.
(yawn) Yeah, whatever, Oh Sole Seeker Of Truth.
Good point. Reporters really do think they are a separate entity. This whole wiretapping story is proof of that. They believe they are Other than the rest of us, above it all, unrestrained by the laws the rest of us live by. If their actions aid the terrorists? Hey, tough, they serve The Truth. That seems to be their attitude.
Right. And, after their stunning performance with the WV Miner story, I just can't tell you how much faith I have in them when it comes to being the Great Discerners Of Truth for the Poor Stupid Masses. /sarc
So many of the MSM reporters are traitors it makes a lot of sense.
The libs are even more paranoid than I thought!
Their fatal flaw is that they don't realize that people will buy something that seems partway rational and trust the reporter to an extent. If they sit back and think "So Bush was trying to stop a terror attack..." then the MSM's "story" falls apart.
The simple fact is, people don't want another attack. Reporters don't seem to even consider the possibility, only their desire to get THE STORY. They don't look up from their work to see they don't live in a vacuum, they live here with the rest of us. And we're at war.
Now that you mention it, that story certainly could stick in people's minds when they think about the "reliability" of the MSM.
Just calls between her and her sources. AlJeezera.
Well, she's married to a US citizen, so she probably has LPR status at least.
Amanpour is the terrorists best friend. If her calls were snagged by Able Danger, then I am glad she got caught.
You're right. "The Story" -- the one that pushes up the ratings -- is their primary focus. And, unfortunately, the story that pushes the ratings isn't necessarily the facts.
Not just any American citizen.
And Amanpour isn't just any reporter: She is married to Jamie Rubin, a State Department spokesman under Bill Clinton and a foreign policy advisor to John Kerry's presidential campaign.
I'd bug both of them.
Yeah, but there's not really anyone you wouldn't want bugged, is there?
Only Islamists and their enablers :)
You beat me to it. That says it ALL.
"...reporters connect the dots they WANT connected, and ignore the rest..."
Boy, are you ever right...and all one has to do is watch the first 15 minutes of a Hairball show...and come armed with "facts"...you will be astonished at the LACK of details that Chrissy has...
The other night..his first night back, since the Abramhoff plea deal came out...he and his little nitwit buddy, David Shuster had a whole report of "background"..and didn't mention ONE democrat that received money from Abramhoff....LOL
All uber liberals talk with an affected British accent. Who knows why.
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.