Posted on 03/12/2017 9:21:22 PM PDT by TBP
The broadcast network evening newscasts, which didn't care in 1993 about the Clinton administration's decision to ask for the resignation of all 93 U.S. attorneys, went apoplectic Tuesday night in leading with the "controversy," fed by the media, over the Bush administration for replacing eight U.S. attorneys in late 2006 -- nearly two years after rejecting the idea of following the Clinton policy of replacing all the attorneys. Anchor Charles Gibson promised that ABC would "look at all the angles tonight," but he skipped the Clinton comparison. Gibson teased: "New controversy at the White House after a string of U.S. attorneys is fired under questionable circumstances. There are calls for the Attorney General to resign."
CBS's Katie Couric declared that "the uproar is growing tonight over the firing of eight federal prosecutors by the Justice Department" and fill-in NBC anchor Campbell Brown teased: "The Attorney General and the firestorm tonight over the controversial dismissal of several federal prosecutors. Was it political punishment?" Brown soon asserted that "it's a story that has been brewing for weeks and it exploded today" -- an explosion fueled by the news media.
ABC's World News, the CBS Evening News and the NBC Nightly News on March 13 led with and ran multiple stories on the controversy, which were clearly propelled, in part, by attacks by Senate Democrats who demanded the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. But Justice Department clumsiness, which provided hooks for those Democratic attacks, does not absolve the news media of the responsibility for putting the replacement of U.S. attorneys into greater context for viewers so they would understand how Bush's predecessor removed every one (actually all but one as Brit Hume explained, see #2 below) so that Clinton, as is being charged in the current case, could replace them with attorneys more favorable to the administration's agenda.
[This item was posted Tuesday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
Unlike ABC, CBS and NBC watchers, cable viewers got a hint of context as Steve Centanni, on FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume, pointed out how "the White House acknowledged there were talks in 2005, just after the President won his second term, about terminating all 93 U.S. attorneys just as President Clinton unceremoniously did 1993 after he won the White House." The point made it onto CNN's The Situation Room -- barely -- thanks to guest Terry Jeffries who raised it during the 4pm EDT hour of the program.
(Tuesday's Good Morning America ran a full story from Pierre Thomas framed around the Democratic attacks on Bush and Gonzales, with analysis from George Stephanopoulos. For a details, including a transcript of the story by Thomas, check Scott Whitlock's NewsBusters posting: newsbusters.org )
Last week, on the same day as the Libby verdict, Katie Couric introduced a full March 6 CBS Evening News story by Sharyl Attkisson, who failed to remind viewers of Clinton's wholesale firings: "Another big story in Washington tonight also involves federal prosecutors, or at least former prosecutors. Eight U.S. attorneys were axed by the Bush administration last year, and some Democrats say the firings were politically motivated. Today some of those ex-prosecutors told Congress about the pressure they felt from top Republicans."
Back in 1993, the networks weren't so interested in Clinton's maneuver. The April 1993 edition of the MRC's MediaWatch newsletter recounted:
Attorney General Janet Reno fired all 93 U.S. attorneys, a very unusual practice. Republicans charged the Clintonites made the move to take U.S. Attorney Jay Stephens off the House Post Office investigation of Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski. The network response: ABC and CBS never mentioned it. CNN's World News and NBC Nightly News provided brief mentions, with only NBC noting the Rosty angle. Only NBC's Garrick Utley kept the old outrage, declaring in a March 27 "Final Thoughts" comment: "Every new President likes to say 'Under me, it's not going to be politics as usual.' At the Justice Department, it looks as if it still is."
Short memories.
Too many Americans have that problem.
So many details, so many devils.
Good find. I’ve been thinking about this egregious disparity.
True nuff. This is how the news media can get away with smearing Donald Trump to a sheeplike people, although the sheep quotient is slowly diminishing in spite of it.
What’s great is they don’t affect public opinion much any more.
Or Trump would have lost by 30 points.
And his approval rating now wouldn’t be near 60.
#### em.
They’ve ####’ed themselves and look to keep on ####’ing themselves more and more.
It goes to show how the Media are just blatantly hypocritical and disingenuous, given the demonstrable and profound bias that has been documented so many times.
It's amazing that these Media clowns—who have truly become the Enemy of the People—were ever given any credence, given what I've seen in my 35+ years of adult life, having to watch this pro-Democrat, anti-Republican saturation propaganda...
The media's objectivity is shot, it doesn't exist!
Didn’t obama replace GWB’s appointees? I don’t recall but I’m sure that he would have. Any uproar must have been very quiet.
Good to see ya :)
YES they have.
Now with the babbling about Bannon’s bathtub having acid on it, they look INSANE!!
Worse than a rag at the checkout counter
There are some even here (who should know better) who still swallow the pablum spooned out to an unsuspecting public by a partisan press.
“Preet was a non-partisan crusader abused and misused by an arbitrary Donald Trump who promised to keep him on ...” blah blah blah
Get smart. They lie like bear rugs because they honestly believe—in a 1984 doublethink fake-but-honest way—that it is their job to tell us what to think.
According to Bharara, Trump asked him if he’d be willing to stay on, and he said he’d be open to that. Not exactly a promise. More like a feeler.
When God’s holy presence comes close, evil self-defeats.
It is surprising to me Bush did that. No wonder he never got much of his agenda litigated when he needed it.
Contrast him with Obama - Obama wasn’t taking ANY chances at all, even on the ones that Bush had kept from Clinton.....
DHS, TSA, US attorneys, who knows who else Bush kept. Bad decisions.
This action by Attorney General Janet Reno to fire 93 U.S. attorneys, was shocking and unprecedented. Many of those fired were apolitical, hard working government employees, who were fired for no valid reason except to put in partisan hacks.
It is no wonder that the Clintons illegally had their hands on scores of FBI files on people they did not like, did not trust, or wanted to threaten.
When Bush took office he did practically nothing to change the situation to return to apolitical employees in the FBI and other agencies.
In his stupidity Bush kept many of the Clinton partisans in his administration. Only Democrats purged and cleaned house after they were elected. It is no wonder that Michael Savage claimed that we had an oligarchy with Democrats and GOPe in charge.
That has changed with the Trump administration.
People in the news media either 1) have short memories or 2) they didn’t do their research on past presidential firings upon entering the office. My guess is they either weren’t even 21 8 years ago so they really have no clue and they didn’t do their research and just wrote an article to either 1) get paid or 2) damage Trump. I am guessing the former as that is what seems to be the dribble that is called news these days.
Use the Nominations Search Tool at the US Library of Congress to compare ...
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.