Danny Glover has a collection of thoughts on the intersection of new and old media.
Is Tony Snow winning over the normally hostile DC press corps?
Yeas & Nays reviewed the press briefing and press gaggle transcripts from Snow’s first four months on the job and compared them to those of Snow’s predecessor, Scott McClellan, during his first four months.
Under Snow, there were more than 330 percent more instances of laughter — as defined by the transcriber’s insertion of “(Laughter)” in the transcript — than under McClellan.
Have reporters fallen for the former Fox News commentator’s woo and charm? And — gasp! — could Snow actually be making the notoriously curmudgeonly task of covering the White House fun?
“It’s not that Tony’s necessarily a laugh riot,” says Ron Hutcheson, who covers the White House for McClatchy newspapers. “But he engages, and it’s a lot more fun to be in the room with somebody who’s engaging reporters.” Hutcheson says that McClellan, on the other hand, “was just cautious, cautious to a fault. He would retreat to the talking points and it was almost as if he didn’t listen to the question.”
Senate Democrats have sent a letter to ABC executives threatening them over their planned airing of a 9-11 miniseries that lays some of the blame for the tragedy at the feet of the Clinton Administration. The letter in part reads:
Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.
The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest…
Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program.
Mary Katharine Ham has a great list of links and she points out the hypocrisy that is completely transparent when you examine the Democrats’ response to this issue compared with their response to an anti-Reagan miniseries being pulled in 2003.
Stephen Sprueill asks:
Who in the press will stick up for ABC’s right to air this miniseries without having its broadcast license threatened?
Where is the New York Times when you need ‘em?
UPDATE: Clayton at Red State observes:
What happens when the party in power starts to use these kinds of threats? What would the reaction have if the Republicans had threatened CBS in the wake of the Rathergate scandal? Calm heads on both sides of the aisle can see the wicked dangers here.
In short, ABC made some changes and bowed to public pressue. But at the end, nearly 3,000 people still die. That’s one scene the liberals will never be able to rewrite.
Ugh…terrible news. It looks as though Fox News reporter Steve Centanni and a camera man have been kidnapped at gunpoint in Gaza City. Michelle Malkin has the details.
My Heritage Foundation colleague James Gattuso comments on this on his blog, The Technology Liberation Front.
Hugh Hewitt points out the Los Angeles Times’ striking display or moral equivalence in respect to the terrorist group Hezbollah.
My column today focuses on the atrocious reporting by the mainstream media of a July 7 Defense Department memo:
The Bush Administration suffered a crushing defeat this week … according to the mainstream media. Front pages across the nation reported that the president “bowed” to the wishes of the Supreme Court and “reversed” his long-standing policy for handling military detainees, including those held in Guantanamo.
Television commentator Bill Press described this “new policy” as a “stunning reversal,” while the New York Times insisted it was “a victory for those within the administration who argued that the United States’ refusal to extend Geneva protections to Qaeda prisoners was harming the country’s standing abroad.”
The media reports rely on a July 7 memo issued by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England in response to the recent Supreme Court’s Hamdan decision. In this case, the high court declared that the military tribunals the administration wanted to use to try detainees captured during the war on terror are unlawful and not in compliance with the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
But despite the fevered “reports” emanating from the mainstream pack, England’s memo doesn’t read like an Administration reversal of policy. Instead it seems merely to summarize the court’s ruling.
Read the whole thing at Human Events.
Jed Babbin, a former deputy undersecretary of defense, is refuting the media hype surrounding today’s rash of stories claiming an Administration reversal on their detainee policy.
The new memorandum about the status of terrorist detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and elsewhere - signed by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England on Friday — is being widely misreported. The memo, which is reproduced in full below, doesn’t say that the terrorists are now POWs under the Geneva Conventions or that they will be afforded the full rights and protections of the Geneva Conventions.
What it does say is that with the exception of the military tribunals tossed out by the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan, the treatment of the terrorist enemy combatants - under the cited Defense Department and Army manuals - is believed to be consistent with Geneva standards. The media hype of this is entirely wrong.
Babbin is right on…more on this tomorrow in my column. H/T: Irish Pennants.