Media Bias Outrage of the Week - Self-obsessed Aaron Brown

Citizens Coalition for Responsible Media ^ | 06/17/2002 | Peacerose

[Peacerose]

Self-obsessed Aaron Brown

06/17/2002
It comes as no surprise to media bias observers that CNN's Aaron Brown reports every story as if it is all about him. Last Monday night, 6/10/2002, he went over the top.

"Good evening again. I'm Aaron Brown. So here's a nice day at the office. The administration says the half-century-old doctrine of containment in matters military is outdated and the United States in the future will exercise, if it so chooses, a first strike option against terrorists in those countries that harbor them. We've always said we are not a country that starts wars -- and mostly that's been true, though perhaps the thugs who ran the island of Grenada might argue the point. It is another sign the world is changing, that the whole notion of war as we used to know it is changing as well. And it's not the only thing that's changing.

"An American citizen, Abdullah al Muhajir, is being held in a military brig with no access to a lawyer, none of the other rights afforded to a citizen, because the government says he is part of a terrorist plot to detonate a dirty bomb. He has been held uncharged for a month and now has been declared an enemy combatant, which, according to the Attorney General, is the legal justification for this extraordinary action. I'm not a lawyer, and I have no idea whether this guy was planning something terrible or not, nor am I especially interested in seeing a bunch of terrorists running around the country blowing up buildings and killing lots of people while they are out on bail. But I'm also not especially interested in seeing the government deny citizens their most basic protection against governmental abuse. But that apparently is the tradeoff -- at least the administration believes it to be -- and it is an onerous tradeoff, one more reason to hate what happened on September 11th."

The sarcastic comment, "Here's a nice day at the office", can be read to mean that the world is not spinning along on Aaron's beliefs. Boo, hoo, hoo . . .

But then, he launches into the story of the day by totally blowing off the aspects related to public safety and national security. As Aaron Brown sees it, there is no doubt at all that the government is doing something wrong! And no possibility that his fellow citizens are safer with this terrorist locked up! The whole point of this horrifying tale is not that an American citizen would engage in such treasonous behavior, seeking to murder and terrorize his fellow countrymen. Oh, no. The point is that this guy's civil rights are endangered!

A number of Brown's viewers wasted no time in pointing out the obvious. The following evening, he opened his newscast with these comments:

"Good evening again. I'm Aaron Brown. I suppose I knew we were destined to do this bit of business tonight about this time last night. There's been quite a spirited e-mail discussion today about the case of Jose Padilla, the American being held in a military brig, who the government alleges was part of a plot to explode a dirty bomb in the United States.

"There was both praise and condemnation, and I was uncomfortable with both. For one, I didn't say the government was wrong. In this space yesterday I said I'm not sure, but denying an American, any American the most basic rights is extraordinary. Indeed, as best I can tell, it's only happened one other time, and that it might be necessary and right, I said, is just one more reason to hate what happened to all of us on the 11th of September. The blame, it seemed to me, was fairly placed on the terrorists.

"Without doing what my favorite boss accuses me of sometimes doing, excessive hand-wringing, how can we not ask questions about this matter? Here you have a man denied a lawyer, a formal charge, the presumption of innocence, something absolutely antithetical to American life -- how can we avoid asking questions about the law in this case? What kind of reporters would we be? And I don't honestly believe even the most critical viewer, if he took a step back, would want us to stop asking these questions -- not taking a stand, not saying this is right and that is wrong, but asking questions...."

Just asking questions? Certainly the guy's civil rights are part of the story, but it is only the most important part of the story if you assume that the evil John Ashcroft is more concerned with eroding our civil rights than in saving American lives! This is where Aaron Brown's bias rests: In placing the civil rights question above the basic who, what, when, where, why, and how of the arrest of a traitor.

Please join me in urging Mr. Brown to pull his head out. The contact information is below.

CNN
New York Bureau
5 Penn Plaza, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10001

E-mail

Read more here:

MRC CyberAlert, 06/11/2002
MRC CyberAlert, 06/14/2002

---

Some additional commentary on Aaron Brown's coverage of this story from the panel at FNC's News Watch:

"To me, I watched the Aaron Brown thing, and I thought: 'I don't care what you're interested in.' I'm old-fashioned enough to say, if you're going to raise skepticism, say, you know, 'Democrats were saying they question the timing,' not 'I'm not interested in hearing about a lot of arrests.' I thought it was way off base." - Jane Hall, journalism professor at American University

"I'm not interested in what Aaron Brown is not interested in and I wonder if this is some kind of new trend in anchoring. This guy, Aaron Brown, and I really don't like to be personal, but there's a real principle here. He uses the first person singular pronoun the way carpenters use nails. Always 'I,' 'I', 'I.'" - Eric Burns, host of News Watch

Alrighty, then!

MRC CyberAlert, 06/17/2002

[nd76]

The only problem with USC graduates is that "Trojans" burst under pressure.

[mrustow]

As always, thanks for the ping, Peacerose. I have to disagree with your emphasis on this one, though. Although I am no fan of Aaron Brown, I have no problem with his treatment of the Padilla case, which I'll come to. However, I have real problems with his first statement.

"Good evening again. I'm Aaron Brown. So here's a nice day at the office. The administration says the half-century-old doctrine of containment in matters military is outdated and the United States in the future will exercise, if it so chooses, a first strike option against terrorists in those countries that harbor them. We've always said we are not a country that starts wars -- and mostly that's been true, though perhaps the thugs who ran the island of Grenada might argue the point. It is another sign the world is changing, that the whole notion of war as we used to know it is changing as well. And it's not the only thing that's changing.

Brown has erased and rewritten "containment" in a way that is unrecognizable. "Containment" was a principle developed in a famous essay by "X" (who turned out to be George Kennan) ca. 1947. It was a doctrine for limiting the expansion of communism, while avoiding a shooting war with the Soviet Union, IOW, the groundwork for the "cold" war. The term is entirely irrelevant to the current war, because ... it's a war! 1. WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN ATTACKED! and 2. Our enemy, Islam, already controls all the nations it's going to control. We're in a shooting war (read: a real war), not a "cold" (read: metaphorical) war.

As for Brown's concerns re Jose Padilla. I have no problem with holding Padilla incommunicado as an enemy combatant. However, this was a nation conceived in liberty, not in chains. When we make newsmen (or even, talking heads) afraid to raise civil liberty questions, we will be just a dictatorship with pretenses. And since Brown talked about the criticisms he received, I think he did his job very well. One of the main problems with media bias, is that media outlets publish or broadcast a one-sided view, and refuse to acknowledge the disagreement by large portions (sometimes the vast majority) of the public. It is the misrepresentation of a political slant as an unchallenged, received truth, that turns bias into propaganda.

We are in very real danger of losing the last vestiges of civil liberties we had left pre-911. Have you read Lee Shelton's satire on the security for liberty swap? Believe me, it didn't make me laugh. Satire is serious business.

I am also not at all disturbed by Brown's use of the first-person pronoun; in fact, I wish all his colleagues would follow suit. It's much more honest than putting one's opinions in the mouths of anonymous "sources," "experts," and "the public."

[upchuck]

Thanks fer the flag Peacerose.

Seems to me like the simplest solution to this problem is...

QUIT WATCHING CNN!!

Did you hear Israel is considering taking CNN off their cable?

[mhking]

When we make newsmen (or even, talking heads) afraid to raise civil liberty questions, we will be just a dictatorship with pretenses. And since Brown talked about the criticisms he received, I think he did his job very well.

Say what you will about Brown, at least he has the stones to admit when he is discussing his own opinions. Not only that, he makes no attempts to hide when he is -- as opposed to Rather, Jennings, Brokaw, Williams, Couric, Sawyer, and the myriad others behind the microphone.

I don't agree with him much of the time, but I have to respect him for at least having the courage of his convictions, and the courage to stand behind his own opinions.

[philman_36]

"An American citizen, Abdullah al Muhajir...
There's been quite a spirited e-mail discussion today about the case of Jose Padilla...

LOL! The name game.

[rwfromkansas]

Anybody see the CBS Evening News last night? Reporter Bob Shieffer gave a one-sided story on parties raising soft money before CFR goes into effect. Shieffer showed stats of how much drug companies give to Republicans. He did not bother to show what Democrats are doing to raise soft money and did not care to show stats of groups that heavily support Democrats. This was disgusting.

[Deb]

Watching Aaron Brown is like watching a man have a nervous breakdown in slow motion.

It's also like watching re-runs of the Jack Paar Show on TV Land. I guess that's the same thing.

[ForGod'sSake]

Hi Peacerose; another good find.

Like many of his ilk, his words are smooth and his ways are subtle. He didn't SAY the current administration was wrong...exactly. He only suggested it as a possibility you see. NOT a problem.

The problem, as you and I of course know, is that he hasn't and won't hold his liberal komrades in the Dim party to the same standard. To him, conservatives are the enemy, and everything that goes through his pea brain has to pass through that filter.

The larger question is, who puts and keeps these utopian, socialist wannabes on the payroll??????

FGS

[ForGod'sSake]

When we make newsmen (or even, talking heads) afraid to raise civil liberty questions, we will be just a dictatorship with pretenses.

Consider what another poster said about Ruby Ridge, or one closer to my home, Waco. While the media handling of the events at Waco are not as clear as they once were, I can tell you this: The Propaganda Ministry's concerns for the civil liberties of the Branch Davidians was nil. At best, they were a bunch of wacko, gun running, dope manufacturing Jesus freaks! THEY were a danger to society, and had to be dealt with.....harshly! Kids and all. How many in the media bemoaned the trashing of THEIR civil liberties?

The problem again, is the selective application of the Propaganda Ministry's cry of FOUL on civil liberties. The only pretense here is that of Aaron Brown as a news man. Surely you can see that?

FGS

[mrustow]

When we make newsmen (or even, talking heads) afraid to raise civil liberty questions, we will be just a dictatorship with pretenses. And since Brown talked about the criticisms he received, I think he did his job very well.

Say what you will about Brown, at least he has the stones to admit when he is discussing his own opinions. Not only that, he makes no attempts to hide when he is -- as opposed to Rather, Jennings, Brokaw, Williams, Couric, Sawyer, and the myriad others behind the microphone.

I don't agree with him much of the time, but I have to respect him for at least having the courage of his convictions, and the courage to stand behind his own opinions.

Exactimiento!

[mrustow]

When we make newsmen (or even, talking heads) afraid to raise civil liberty questions, we will be just a dictatorship with pretenses.

Consider what another poster said about Ruby Ridge, or one closer to my home, Waco. While the media handling of the events at Waco are not as clear as they once were, I can tell you this: The Propaganda Ministry's concerns for the civil liberties of the Branch Davidians was nil. At best, they were a bunch of wacko, gun running, dope manufacturing Jesus freaks! THEY were a danger to society, and had to be dealt with.....harshly! Kids and all. How many in the media bemoaned the trashing of THEIR civil liberties?

The problem again, is the selective application of the Propaganda Ministry's cry of FOUL on civil liberties. The only pretense here is that of Aaron Brown as a news man. Surely you can see that?

FGS

Your post is a series of non-sequiturs: '1. The media did not respect the civil liberties of the Branch Davidians; 2. Aaron Brown spoke up for the civil liberties of accused terrorists; therefore, 3. Brown is no newsman.'

I see some pretenses here, but they are not Aaron Brown's.

[ForGod'sSake]

Your post is a series of non-sequiturs...

Granted my post was not, nor was it intended to be, a legal brief.

That said, what are your thoughts on my "conclusion": The problem again, is the selective application of the Propaganda Ministry's cry of FOUL on civil liberties. ???????

No pretenses here my friend. Only trying to point out the subtle, and not so subtle ways of the liberal cheerleaders/waterboys.

FGS

[Once-Ler]

I guess I'm not outraged.
I thought Browns points had already been discussed a lot, but they were less than inflamitory.
If this was the most egregious example of media bias this week then we did pretty good.

[mrustow]

That said, what are your thoughts on my "conclusion": The problem again, is the selective application of the Propaganda Ministry's cry of FOUL on civil liberties. ???????

No argument. At FR and elsewhere, I have hammered these guys again and again and again. But for reasons I spelled out above, I simply do not think that this particular case merited such focus and condemnation. I have seen so much worse from Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw, who either refuse to admit that anyone has criticized them, or treat their critics as if they're nuts who don't need to be listened to. (Brokaw, in particular, wants state censorship of the net, just so he can shut down FR). Hence, I think your anger at Aaron Brown is either misplaced, or you're angry at him over some previous offense.

[ForGod'sSake]

I think your anger at Aaron Brown is either misplaced, or you're angry at him over some previous offense.

My anger is towards the media generally, the "news" divisions especially, and there's plenty left over for the useful idiots they parade, unchallenged, before the unwashed every single day. And yes, there have been and will continue to be more egregious acts by the likes of the captain and pretty Petah, but others need to be called on the carpet from time to time so they don't feel left out ; )

FGS

[Orion]

United States Passport Page Four; IMPORTANT INFORMATION; LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP: Under certain circumstances, you may lose your U.S. citizenship by performing any of the following acts:

(1) being naturalized in a foreign state; Nope.
(2) taking and oath or making a declaration to a foreign state; Nope. Al-Queida is not a foreign state. It is a private organization, like the KKK, Dallas Cowboys, Hemlock Society, or the DU
(3) serving in the armed forces of a foreign state;Nope. The US gov't position is that Al-Queida is not an army of a foreign state. If they did, prisoners at X-RAY would be under the Geneva Convention.
(4) accepting employment with a foreign government or; Nope. Al-Queida is not a foreign gov't.
(5) formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. consular officer overseas. Nope.

For detailed information, consult the nearest American Embassy or Consulate or contact the oOfice of Citizens Consular Services, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520 or call 202-647-3444.

OK, so now that your passport argument is gone, what now?

Allow me...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury...Nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, whithout due process of law...

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherin the crime shall have been comitted, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to thave the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Talk all you want about some law, or judge, or previous action. We are not at war. This creep is a citizen. He was on US soil, and above lists many of the rights he is being denied.

If it can happen to him, it can happen to you.

[Criminal Number 18F]

Citizens Coalition for Responsible Media is the Free Republic Network media bias chapter

Out-bloody-standing!! I didn't know we had such a beastie!

Now, on the subject of Mr Brown, of whom I have never heard (no cable, no TV, happy camper here). He makes a common error in discussing the "presumption of innocence." That is a judicial presumption. It doesn't mean that reasonable men and women have to pretend the creep is innocent. It means that when he gets his day in court -- and he will, although it might not be Mr Brown's idea of a perfect court -- the jurors or judges or tribunal members (the finders of fact) must start from a "clean slate" presumption of innocence. The prosecution is required to prove its case -- they must prove each element of each charge. If that is not done, Padilla or Al-Mujahir or Geraldo or whatever he wants to call himself by then, goes free.

So the presumption of innocence is something the courts work on. It is not what the police use in investigating cases -- hell, no. They presume the suspect is guilty as they work to find enough data to let the lawyers prove it. But one's entitlement to the presumption of innocence only goes as far as the courthouse door and the public media's expressions of fact.

Compare and contrast CNN's take on the guilt of various terrorist suspects, and CNN's take on the guilt of similarly accused gay priests. In this farm some of the animals are more equal than others.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[dennisw]

No wonder the Izzies dumped that loser CNN... the so called all news all the time station. Which freeper watches ego tripping hang dog interviewer LarryKing anymore? Talk about irrelevant and old and in the way. CNN has run out of gas.

[Brian Allen]

I reckon you addressed your #36 diatribe at the wrong party.

I don't have a dog in that fight, just helped out in response to a FReeper's request to learn what it says in my passport.

Nice try though. Guess the practice [Kinda like you were shadow boxing/] won't go astray?

[Orion]

Upon rereading your post, you are correct.

My humble apologies.