CNN's Chuck Roberts Apologizes to Ned For al Qaeda Candidate Comment

[stopbush]

Well, that's progress:

Actual praise for a TV anchor E-mail
Tuesday, 15 August 2006
Chuck Roberts on CNN Headline News, interviewing Ned Lamont, just apologized for these comments by saying this:

You know, I owe you an apology. Last week, I led into an interview with a guest analyst and really botched the set-up. The guest had wanted to discuss the Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman statements suggesting that terror groups -- Al Qaeda types, to use Cheney's words -- would be buoyed by your win, but I posed it badly, stupidly ad-libbing about "some saying Lamont is the Al-Qaeda candidate." No one, in fact, used that construction. Anyway, I wanted to correct the record, and I'm glad we had this chance to do it. Now, let's get to the insinuations that were lobbed...

After which the guy gave Lamont the chance to rebut Cheney and Lieberman.

Same reservations I always have about news media. But for once, somebody did the right thing. Cheers.

PS -- Just back from Florida where I had limited access to the Internet, air conditioning, and my own common sense. This worked out surprisingly well. More as I unpack.

http://www.bobharris.com/content/view/1086/

[AndyA]

1. I'm glad to hear that Chuck Roberts did the right thing, apologized, and

explained how it all happened. The media needs to be held accountable for what they say and do, and I hope the apology gets as much coverage as the remark that started it all did.

[NNN0LHI]

2. Feck Roberts and CNN. They know exactly what they are doing

A resignation would have been more appropriate. That would have proved he really was sorry.

Don

[Supersedeas]

9. sure, now that the damage is done by the VP's shill..who is listening now?

[MrCoffee]

15. WE are listening, and the man did the right thing...

I emailed Chuck last week and demanded a retraction and apology, which we now have. I just emailed him back and thanked him for it.

There are many people listening, and I don't think he needs to be run into the ground anymore now that he's retracted the statement and apologized for it. He owned up to what he did, admitted he was wrong, and maybe he'll think twice before doing it again. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

And if he does it again, we'll beat his ass down with emails again.

[theHandpuppet]

21. I'm going to email him also

Like you, I had emailed him over the the "Lamont=Al Qaeda candidate" affair and now that he's apologized I'll email him again to thank him for the retraction.

[Cocoa]

3. good for Chuck Roberts

let's thank him for doing what a lot of other newspeople should do but usually don't.

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form4b.html?76

[senseandsensibility]

4. So what did Ned say in his response?

And did Roberts give him ample time without interrupting?

[Marr]

5. The fact that he was comfortable saying that to begin with

is an indictment of our shamelessly biased corporate media.

Would a talking head like Chuck Roberts ever consider calling Dick Cheney the "Hitler candidate"? After all, "some are saying" he's a fascist, after all.

[stopbush]

8. Ya know, sometimes you need to be happy for the small victories

and give people - even newsreaders - the benefit of the doubt. I'm happy he apologized and did it to Ned's face.
He could have pulled a George Allen non-apology ("I'm sorry you're upset") , or he
could have issued a generalized apology and hid out from a direct confrontation with Ned, but he didn't do that.

Maybe someone will post the video soon.

[Marr]

27. I am happy to see he apologized. But that doesn't change my point.

He was comfortable saying it. Calling a Democrat the "Al Qaeda candidate" apparently didn't set off any internal decency alarms. He'd never call Santorum the "Taliban candidate", or Tom DeLay the "Hitler candidate", because that's so far outside the realm of acceptable dialogue that it'd give him pause. Those labels would be no less sensational, but one side is outside the range of acceptable commentary and one side is not.

And by the way- any news reader who *did* call a Republican something like the "fascist candidate" would be off the air in a day. An apology wouldn't cut it.

[saltpoint]

37. Agree. Roberts behaved like an adult and accepted responsibility

for his error.

I'm on board with your OP, stopbush.

[datadiva]

6. Maybe somebody read all the emails

that must have been sent (including mine). Now I'll have to send another one congradulating him on doing the right thing!

[wryter2000]

23. There's the real victory

Regardless of his motives for the original statement, the e-mails obviously made an impression. They have to learn that if they lie about Dems they're going to be held accountable. For too long they've only been afraid of negative feedback from the rwers.

[Grateful for Hope]

7. I am glad to see that he apologized

but, he should not have done what he did in the first place.

[stopbush]

10. Well, we're there no wrong things "done in the first place," there'd be

no need to ever apologize.

Besides, when's the last time anyone apologized to a D? Most recent apologies are a D
saying he's sorry to some RW lowlife, and usually after the D has spoken truth to power
about the RW lowlife.

The problem is that the damage is already done. The RW will continue to call Ned the al Qaeda guy,
even though the newsreader apologized.

[Grateful for Hope]

16. Good point

Besides, when's the last time anyone apologized to a D? Most recent apologies are a D saying he's sorry to some RW lowlife, and usually after the D has spoken truth to power
about the RW lowlife.

But, as you say, "the damage had already been done" which is why I said he should not have done this in the first place.

[Cha]

35. the rweenies will do whatever they

want anyway, look at what glenbeck said about Dean on his show and limpballs will say anything just let the poison out.

snip~

"Glenn Beck on Iran Pres. Ahmadinejad: "This guy is Howard frickin' Dean."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1909608

[napi21]

11. Thanks for the appology Chuck. Seems like NONE of the other

reporters are ever willing to do that! HOWEVER, you, your producer, and CNN should have KNOWN BETTER than to ever let anything like that to be said! Do you think it would have ever happened if you would have been talking about Link Chaffee, or Chuck Hagel? Both of those candidates are also for pulling out of Iraq ASAP! Just because Ned is a newcomer to the political scene, that was still uncalled for!

[jsamuel]

12. I think that botch will play into Lamont's hands in the long run

The truth is that IS what Lieberman and Cheney have been "suggesting" is that "Lamont is the Al-Qaeda candidate". Chuck Roberts was actually paraphrasing them correctly. Now Lamont can show how truly demented these guys are.

[MrCoffee]

13. Holy shit...WE MUST EMAIL HIM AGAIN!!!

I can't even believe it. He apologized? Good on ya, Chuck!

EMAIL THE CHUCKSTER BACK AND CONGRATULATE HIM ON OWNING UP TO HIS DUMBASS COMMENT!!!!

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form4b.html?76

[NNN0LHI]

14. Just so you all know CNN is not live. It is delayed

Since the advent of all the Howard Stern joke callers nothing gets on CNN without the approval of the producer in charge at the time. He can stop whatever is being aired with the push of a button at any time.

If this had been a Republican that Roberts had this little "slip of the tongue" with you would have never seen or heard about it. It would have been edited out.

Don

[LTR]

60. I don't buy that

First off, I don't think cable is held to the same standards as broadcast. Hell, ever watch FX? Some pretty raunchy stuff and salty language at ol' Rupert's other entertainment channel (first one, of course, being his news channel).

Though I can see CNN using a delay, after what Novak's little outburst last year. They don't want a repeat of that.

I didn't see FOX News censoring the "Hannity Sucks Ass" sign last week, so either they don't use delay or somebody was asleep at the control board.

Broadcasters are scared shitless about the new FCC rules. I'm sure all they're concerned about is profanity and tit flashing. But that's over-the-air. Not sure how that would apply to cable.

As for Chuckie, good for him. He screwed up, and he did the right thing and apologized. Think some asshole like John Gibson or Bill O'Reilly would ever do that?

[Dinger]

17. Small Victory, But I'll Take It (nt)

[MrCoffee]

18. To Err is Human, To Forgive, Divine

Chuck Roberts screwed up last week, and I was pretty vocal about emailing him, CNN HN, and the sponsors and demanding a retraction. Well, we have that retraction. I would like to encourage everyone who emailed Mr. Roberts last week to do so again and thank him for owning up to his mistake and to encourage responsible journalism.

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form4b.html?76

[salinen]

29. Good point

Roberts is no human.

[marions ghost]

19. Gosh

I'm not as nice as you guys. I think Chuck Roberts should be sued for slander and his job should be on the line. Apologies don't cut it. The damage is done.

I think this is sometimes the problem with us liberals. We smile and forgive and appreciate the little after-the-fact "apologies." It's all a game and we are being played for suckers. This is no victory in the world of spin.

[saltpoint]

24. Perhaps you could write to the head honchos at CNN and insist that

Roberts be eviscerated on national television.

[marions ghost]

30. LOL

as much fun as that would be, I think there are more civil ways to deal with serious transgressions. When you have as much clout in the mainstream as CNN does, there is a certain level of responsibility. (At least I THINK they hold themselves a cut above Rush and Co). Whether CNN is "responding to viewers" is anybody's guess. I doubt it...just more CYA. The apology will never reach most people and so is meaningless, except to those who did take the time to protest appropriately. Meanwhile the slur is out there and appears to have a long shelf-life. It's very damaging to give legitimacy to this kind of statement. And that's what a mere slap on the wrist does (compare that with Dan Rather's grovellng apologies and rapid exit).

We liberals are not getting anywhere being thankful for crumbs in this media-oriented game. That's the mode of people who have not been treated fairly for so long they've forgotten what it was like not to be abused. There's nothing extreme in my suggestion, as you imply. People have lost their jobs for less. It's completely irresponsible and malicious in this country to associate ANYONE with Al Qaeda on national TV, much less someone who is so much in the news. It is career-damaging slander.

This is a productive discussion --it ties into things I've been thinking about lately, as the NeoCon's Hindenburg has hit some snags. How much is it necessary to "forgive" the trangressions of people who will do you in in a heartbeat--people who know NO boundaries? People who look for every weakness to exploit? We have let them walk all over us and it hasn't been very effective. I think we have to start setting some boundaries. Don't you?

[saltpoint]

31. Transgressions of boundaries are mendable by contrition and

apology.

Roberts fucked up. He admitted it. He apologized.

My honoring his respectful response in a sea of media skullduggery does not undo progressive political participation.

No, I don't agree with you. I seldom do, in fact. Your response re Roberts is stingy. Even when the door is open for dialogue, you slam it shut, as you've done here with Roberts. Lamont's campaign is doing pretty good, actually. Lieberman never thought it would get this far, but it did. I very seriously doubt if Lamont's supporters in CT would bail over a thoughtless remark by a CNN analyst.

[marions ghost]

34. I have not slammed shut any doors

to dialogue whatsoever. However your coming back with "I seldom agree with you in fact" is certainly a put-down and a door slammer. You suggest that this is my general nature or something, from your extensive personal observations. Care to explain? (I didn't think so).

It's not Lamont's supporters that I'm worried about here. It is the association of all Democrats to the left of Lieberman as "Al Qaeda" sympathizers -- that is way over the line of civility in the context. Yes I take that personally. And I think it will sell very well in Rushworld. And I think my opinion was not stingy in the least. I applaud the people who emailed CNN --that was very much to the point. But I also think the response was nothing to crow about. Better than nothing, sure. But the damage is done.

So how come you don't like me and take a minor comment so personally? Wow, I'm not that special around here. More of a reader/cheerleader most of the time. What's up with you? Seriously--let's dialogue. Let's work it out, since that's what you accuse me of not having the capacity for. And I think my larger question is a valid one. Do 'apologies' really change anything? I don't think "Al Qaeda" is a slip-of-the-tongue.

[saltpoint]

36. The man apologized.

What more would you ask of him?

[marions ghost]

39. I ask nothing more of HIM

but I ask a LOT more of the media, and of CNN.

The problem is that this does not send a strong enough message about the perils of this kind of blatant slander, when you paint it as a little oopsie. The problem I have is with the response by the network, which is implied here. A lot of my family is or has been in journalism/media and I've had my own minor flings with it. There used to be the kind of integrity in media that made a public apology a big deal. These days, if you required apologies from the media for serious wrongs to progressives, there would be nothing but apologies all day. As long as the corporate media can get away with this abuse, they will continue it. There have to be stronger controls so the networks will not LET it happen. That means more serious repercussions. I think we need to be tougher, fair but tougher on TV media slander. This is a good example--"Al Qaeda candidate" is not a minor transgression.

Do we get to hear announcers on CNN call George Bush the "Saudi Royal Family candidate?" Same diff.

Maybe you are worried about erosions of freedom of speech or something? I don't see why you'd consider this such a challenge to your core principles or whatever. Your reaction indicates a strong defense --of progressive activists? Will they be turned off by my opinion here? I don't see it. :shrug:

[saltpoint]

40. We agree that you don't see it. I think you're glasses are fogged on

this one, MG.

Adults who commit errors are expected to apologize for those errors. Roberts did.

Roberts' exact words:

_ _ _ _ _
You know, I owe you an apology. Last week, I led into an interview with a guest analyst and really botched the set-up.  The guest had wanted to discuss the Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman statements suggesting that terror groups — Al Qaeda type, to use Cheney’s words — would be buoyed by your win, but I posed it badly, stupidly ad-libbing about "some saying Lamont is the Al-Qaeda candidate."  No one, in fact, used that construction.  Anyway, I wanted to correct the record, and I’m glad we had this chance to do it.  Now, let’s get to the insinuations that were lobbed…
_ _ _ _ _

That's the point of the OP. Read it again: it's right there.

If you have a greater problem with the media, you need to contact those media outlets/networks/systems/etc. and leverage your complaints to them directly.

He.

Apologized.

That's the point.

[marions ghost]

58. I've read it 3 times already thanksverymuch

The horse is out of the barn, despite Roberts half-baked attempt at (adult) apology.

"The Al-Qaeda candidate" is already echoing through the echo chambers far and wide, you may be sure...just one opening salvo in the upcoming media war against Democratic candidates...in this case a direct propagation of Cheney and Loserman's talking points--propagated in the spirit in which they intended it.

Did you see that they're running an ad in NY which puts a picture of Hillary Clinton next to a picture of Bin Laden? Yes, I realize this is technically an "ad" and the CNN interview was an "interview" but there's no longer any difference. And that's the problem.

[saltpoint]

62. I hear nothing but a stingy and stubborn refusal to acknowledge

adult conduct by a public media figure.

Nurse your grudges all you want.

It's stingy to cheat the moment of its demonstrable effect.

[marions ghost]

67. well if my opinion is "stingy and stubborn"

at least half of the blogosphere is saying exactly the same thing. Many are calling for resignation or removal of Roberts...Look around, look around.... :) Yes, the comment has touched a nerve and it's good to see people blasting CNN about it. Maybe it touched a nerve because it was SO inexcusable.

Addressing your points:

1. Whoeeeee pardner! I have to agree with you that some adults around here sure are stubborn. But that's how politically inclined adults tend to be, y'know. I like stubborn people. Personally I'm working on being more stubborn. I think it is often a plus.

2. My grudges against the corporate media are deep, wide, high, long --and I will be nursing them a loooong time yet. Thanks for the encouragement.

3. LOL re. cheating THE moment ... I'm not influential enough to have ANY effect on demonstrable effects of ANYBODY's moments...and therein is freedom.

:hi: the time has come
Goodbye baby and amen
The time has come
To say goodbye

Bye bye baby bye bye
Au revoir
Danke schoen
Have a nice day
Hasta la vista

I’d never thought
I’d have to say
Sayonara to you
Babe

Even when we’re apart
Just for a while
I feel sad

Auf wiedersehen liebchen
Und amen
We’ll meet again
Some time

[saltpoint]

68. Roberts apologized. If that's not good enough for you, keep working

on being more stubborn and more stingy.

At least you admitted it.

[stopbush]

59. You have a point. When I lived in Las Vegas, a local weatherman

let slip the phrase "Martin Luther Coon" while on air. He IMMEDIATELY apologized, within seconds in fact.

The TV station immediately fired him. I agreed with their decision. That phrase would never pop out of the mouths of anybody I know.
The fact that the weatherman uttered it indicated it was a phrase he used in private (I say indicated, not proved).

So, Chuck Roberts did apologize, but CNN could still take action.

[saltpoint]

63. But the slur on King was to his person, where Roberts' slam was

not racial but political, and then indirect.

"The al-Qaeda candidate" is not at all the same as singling someone out for a racial epithet.

CNN may take action, but a characterization of a political figure is not usually actionable, where a racial slur most certainly is.

[MissWaverly]

32. Agree with you, look at the swift boaters

Once that smear was out there; it stuck and it influenced people's vote and it was nothing but
a dirty lie; they had national exposure on CNN and then you have the whipped cream of, ad infinitum coverage on other networks, now Joe Sixpack is going to call him the Al Quaeda guy everytime, his name is mentioned, oh, but saying he is sorry makes it all better-no, it doesn't and they will keep doing this until charges are brought.

[marions ghost]

42. Thanx MissWaverley

yep, you only have to look at the Swiftboat smear campaign. Here's a review on Huffpo about a recent book on the media's role in that:

"In his new book, "Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over For Bush," Eric Boehlert dissects the Beltway media's culpability during the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth smear campaign from the 2004 campaign and concludes the episode "likely delivered Bush the cushion he needed to win in November" and "represented an embarrassing new benchmark for campaign season reporting." "Lapdogs" holds the press accountable for the central role it played in enabling a smear campaign that consumed the crucial campaign month of August 2004 -- "a media monsoon that washed away Kerry's momentum coming out of the Democratic convention." ...

"By the time the Swift Boat story had played out, CNN, chasing after ratings leader Fox News, found time to mention the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth--hereafter, Swifties--in nearly 300 separate news segments, while more than one hundred New York Times articles and columns made mention of the Swifties. And during one overheated 12-day span in late August, the Washington Post mentioned the Swifties in page-one stories on Aug. 19, 20, 21 (two separate articles), 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31." ...

More at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/05/03/eric-boehlerts-lapdogs_n_20318.html

-----------------

So where are the apologies for this? Do we just forgive and forget?

:eyes: "Al-Qaeda candidate" --I still cannot get over that. They act as though it was a mere slip-up...how about malicious defamation --intended to hurt progressives? There is no possible way to counter that in a civilized debate. It just can't be allowed to continue.

[MissWaverly]

47. I am sure that it was a deliberate smear

like "riding with Osama" I am waiting for people to be held accountable for their actions.

[tbyg52]

44. My email:

Thank you for your apology to Ned Lamont. You are among the few who have done the right thing in cases such as this, and I appreciate it. Please keep in mind, however, that the damage has been done--"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." -- Winston Churchill

[MissWaverly]

45. yes, I would say that sums it up

if fact, I refer to this era since 2000 as the "Age of Deception"

[bear425]

20. Must be 'cause of the email I wrote to him.

At least he did the right thing to apologize. Thank you Mr. Roberts.

edit: I will email my thank you to him. k/r

[MissWaverly]

48. well, I am glad that you e-mailed him

and I sent Lieberman a letter asking him to drop out of the race!

:-)

[bear425]

50. Thank you for the thank you! I sent LIEberman a letter, too!

Maybe, between you and me, we'll make a difference. :)

[MissWaverly]

51. I hope so, I want things to change so much

I really feel like we have to make change happen; it's now or never.

:-)

[saltpoint]

22. For his absolutely contemptuous treatment on air of Dennis Kucinich

and Carol Moseley-Braun, Ted Koppel of ABC never came back with an apology.

At least Roberts has the dignity to admit the error and allow reaction time to the candidate.

We'll take it.

[FrenchieCat]

25. Good that he apologized...but I'm certain if no one had complainted

via emails and phone calls, Chuck Roberts would be going about his business. And hence lies the problem......that we have to literally babysit the media in order for them to do the right thing! That ain't how it is supposed to work.

They will be many times in the future (as there have been many times in the past when this will happen).....and let me tell you all, if the "Gatekeepers" need "Gatekeepers"....then that ain't saying much good about the U.S. Corporate media!

[MrCoffee]

26. I disagree...this is EXACTLY how it's supposed to work...

If someone spouts off bullshit, and they get called out on it, then that someone is supposed to apologize for it. If you emailed or called Chuck, now's the time to email/call him back and let him know that we're still keeping an eye on him, and to thank him for doing the right thing.

[FrenchieCat]

33. I don't think you "got" what I was saying......

so I will term it differently.....

What happened with the apology is good.....and so, we can thank God for "small" favors....

HOWEVER, it shouldn't be our job nor our responsibility that there be some objectivity in our media....CNN shouldn't need correcting! but it does...and so, granted, it has become our job.....

and that, my friend is the sad part!

[MrCoffee]

38. That was exactly the part I was disagreeing with...

It HAS to be our job and our responsibility to ensure objectivity in the media. Of course CNN needs correcting, if for no other reason than sometimes people make mistakes. One of the costs of a free press means that the press is free to write whatever the hell they want. If they publish lies, we MUST call them out. We must correct them. The press is only free from government censorship, the rest of it is up to us. If we want to keep partisanship and alleigance to corporate owners out of the newsroom, we have to beat the hell out of them whenever partisanship and alliegance to corporate owners shows up in the newsroom.

And this time, it worked. Chuck Roberts did a despicable thing last week. He got nailed to the wall for it. Then he apologized to the man he slandered. I don't see that as a breakdown of the system, I see that as the system working exactly as it should.

[saltpoint]

41. Hear, hear.

:thumbsup:

[FrenchieCat]

46. Old Crusoe.....

Are you truly in agreement in the statement that our System when it comes to the media is NOT broken?

[saltpoint]

49. FC, this ain't my first trip around the block. Media, or as you describe

it in another thread, is not "free" nor is it wholly "owned." If it is owned it is no different from other commercial interests and likely reflects the political biases of its corporate moguls, but among the most owned or free of these outlets we also get Bill Moyers. We get Christiane Amanpour. We get Robert Fisk. We get Dan Schorr. Bob Herbert. Katha Pollitt. Frank Rich. Some of the responsibility is ours to create a more free press, including supporting these voices when we can.

The post here addressed itself to the apology of Chuck Roberts to Ned Lamont. Roberts' apology is here:

_ _ _ _
You know, I owe you an apology. Last week, I led into an interview with a guest analyst and really botched the set-up.  The guest had wanted to discuss the Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman statements suggesting that terror groups — Al Qaeda type, to use Cheney’s words — would be buoyed by your win, but I posed it badly, stupidly ad-libbing about "some saying Lamont is the Al-Qaeda candidate."  No one, in fact, used that construction.  Anyway, I wanted to correct the record, and I’m glad we had this chance to do it.  Now, let’s get to the insinuations that were lobbed…
_ _ _ _

--and is described on Dkos and other liberal blogs as praiseworthy. "A class act," one called it. "Classy" says McJoan on DailyKos.com, etc. etc.

I argue that media is always a battle ground for disparate points of view. In its extreme expressions, it becomes "anti-media," or in the case of the far right, it becomes water boy for reinforcing the control the State insists on.

That's not what's being discussed in the Lamont/Roberts matter, in my opinion. It is peripheral to but not the point of the OP.

MrCoffee and others here and elsewhere find praiseworthy the adult response to personal transgression, and I agree with them.

[FrenchieCat]

52. Well maybe I am not impressed because I've seen so many

times that the media did this same thing, and (I used to lead a yahoo group that did nothing but battle media inaccuracies)it was rare to see a retraction....although, yes, there were some.

My problem is not so much a personal one with Chuck Roberts, as much as it is with the entire system. It is great that Chuck Roberts apologized, but it is only a miniscule battle won in a important and difficult war. So in the end, I still see it as a small blessing relative to the big picture prayer.

[saltpoint]

54. Ok, I hear you on that, but don't you and I expect that for every one

Katha Pollitt there'll be three dozen Paula Zahns? That's always what reform is up against -- majority viewpoints.

An enthusiastic bystander told then-candidate Adlai Stevenson at a rally, "Mr. Stevenson, you're the choice of every thinking man and woman in the nation!"

"That's not nearly enough," Stevenson said. "I need a majority."

And he didn't get that majority because a majority of the nation thought Ike was their guy. You and I aren't going to reverse the anti-intellectual vein in American life. Gore Vidal traces it to the very first Calvinist/Puritan/nutbags England dumped onto a boat and sailed west. They were our social founders. While Madison and Franklin and Jefferson convened in Philadelphia, raving fundie nutbags were running our towns and villages and families, and generations down the line, we get numbskulls (literally) like Reagan, shitheels like both Bushes, and a gaggle of maniacs in the U.S. Senate like Santorum and Sessions and Ted Stevens. Jesus. It's an incredibly stiff challenge to be on the Democratic side, especially nowadays.

So when Roberts slammed Lamont, and then apologized on the air to his face, it's noteworthy. Some would say praiseworthy. You can bet a pile of emails gathered at CNN's offices and the top guns understand that you can't smear liberals with lies without challenge. I like that role. I respect Roberts for delivering the apology he truly owed. Lamont accepted the apology. And that's where we stand tonight.

[FrenchieCat]

55. Well if you want to personalize it to one anchor at a time......

Then I get your point....

But I still see it as a small victory in a rather painful (to us) war.

I still disagree with the poster who stated that --It's a free press....and this is the cost.....and ended by more or less stating that --the system is not broken.

I'll remind you that this is the post to which you responded "hear, hear!".

[saltpoint]

56. Hear, hear is right. I stand by that.

Chuck Roberts IS an individual newsman. He is not ALL newsmen.

Why refuse to honor others' point of view, FC? You make it clear you don't want to communicate. You want to scold and parade a bias. The Roberts/Lamont question hinged on Roberts' on-air apology to Lamont.

That's not an opinion. That's a demonstrable fact, an event that actually happened.

If you'd turn down the cynicism once in a while you'd see that grown-ups honor responsible conduct, and Roberts' apology meets that criterion.

[FrenchieCat]

57. I didn't think that I had dishonored your response.......

But if I offended you for wanting some clarification on your response....then I'm sorry, because my intent was not to disrespect you...here on these boards. You normally make a lot of sense a lot of the time....so I was somewhat surprised that you would agree with those two specific views that, I guess, you do afterall agree with. :shrug:

But if "Honoring" to you means that I shouldn't simply be able to ask if your "hear, hear" meant that you, Old Crusoe, agreed with the statements that the costs of a free press is that they are free to say and do whatever they want....and if "hear, hear" meant that you don't see the system as broken (because one indiviudal newsman does not a system make).....then I am sorry if I didn't honor your response in a way that you found fitting.

[saltpoint]

61. Or very possibly I misread your intent, and if I did, then the error is

all mine and not yours.

My distrust of Joe Lieberman predates his support of Bush for the war, so when at last Lamont upended him in the CT primary, I was elated. When Roberts slammed him ("the al Qaeda candidate"), it was infuriating, and I thought it was another FOX-style slam job by the corporate media, and then Roberts apologized, on-air to Lamont.

That was bascially the sequence of events, and my own take on it started with Joe Lieberman's grandstanding moralizing against "sinful" Hollywood movies. That stuck in my craw from way back, and Lamont didn't have to work that hard to win my loyalty and a modest campaign check.

If DU and other liberal blogs had greater control of the media, there'd be some changes made. I do not agree that it's all broken, and I certainly agree that there's room for improvement. But there are many bright lights in a dark sky, otherwise we could not see how bright they are. I do not believe, as another DU poster states upthread, that this is a worse time for truth-telling than any other time. Not myself a Christian, I am nevertheless impressed by Jesus' shitfit he throws with the money-changers. That was over 2,000 years ago, so greed, buying and selling, junk marketing, and group/corporate monopolies of currency were always with us. Likely they always will be.

Often it is the anonymous, individual who makes the big historic change. In this case, it was a fairly well-known news guy. I'm no fan of Chuck Roberts, although I suppose I'd take him over most of FOX's crew. Apologies are hard for anyone, so Roberts' on-air apology resonated with a lot of us. I thought acknowledgment of Roberts' gesture was important, as did several other posters on two or three different threads on DU tonight.

You and I agree on the internet and its potential. I try not to think of its dangers -- where all this new communicative energy becomes the domain of the State. For now, it's working pretty well.

I respect you, FC. But we two are fighters, probably from way back. I bet we could sit down over a cup of coffee or a cold beer and chips and speak in mutual agreement on an almost unlimited list of topics.

Your Clark guy enjoys a lot of support, and not just on DU. Stick with him. I ran into a Kucinich voter last summer and his son. If you are as bedrock in love with Clark as they were with Kucinich, and the Edwards and Kerry and Feingold etc. people are with their candidates, then the Republicans would do well to carry their sorry asses out of the country while we take over the government again. We have a good team.

[FrenchieCat]

43. I disrespectfully disagree that it HAS to be our job.....

to ensure objectivity in the media. It may be our job, but it shouldn't have to be.

Once upon a time, there was no Internet to call out the media; and once upon a time, the media did much better than it does now. That's why I thank God for the Internet every single day!

Also, I disagree with your statement that the costs of a "free Press" is that it is free to write whatever it wants.....because WE DO NOT HAVE A FREE PRESS, we have a BOUGHT PRESS owned at a 95% share by 5 multinational corporations (Disney, General Electric, Times-Warner, Viacom, and Robert Murdock's empire). So your basic premise, in my mind is incorrect.

A free press, i.e., the 4th estate, is supposed to be protected from government interference. That is a myth....because it allows the governmental parties to direct the flow of information, and it should not.

Airwaves are "Public Domain" because they are to represent reliable information to its owners, the collective; the people. therefore, they are the ones who are supposed to have a responsibility to US to be honest, not the backward way that you term it, that WE have a responsibility to keep it honest.

The airwaves are given away by our government (via the Telecommunications Act of 1996), which was not the manner in which the founding fathers had envisioned the system of a free press. So your referal to the original "free" press is a misnomer. http://www.sentienttimes.com/01/dec_jan01/dem_airways.html
http://www.creativevoices.us/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=77

You may think that "if we beat the hell out of them", somehow they will set the record straight...and at times they will, and at times they won't. It is those times when they don't that hurts our democracy....and it has happened time and time again.

Give Howard Dean a call, and ask him if the Bloggers helped him when your "free" press went after him with a vengeance in what was the termed "the Scream". Ask John Kerry if the Bloggers were able to help him set things straight when the Swiftboaters were given credibility via numerous appearances by every single one of the Corporate owned entities, which helped keep Bush in power. Ask Wes Clark and Dennis Kucinich, who were both effectively ignored during a large portion of their presidential primary bids, if the press reacted in a way that made up for their treatment no matter the amount of emails, snail mail, and outraged telephone calls the various electronic and print media received from their respective supporters.

Actually the first sentence of your last paragraph betrays your initial text and ensuing text because the media shouldn't be doing "despicable" things to begin with. Essentially, no news media should be forced to be "nailed to the wall" by the public in order not to spew lies in a transparent biased manner.

You don't see it as a breakdown of the system....and hence lies a great deal of the problem. There is no reason to fix something that you don't think is broken. Alas, it is broken, and until more folks wake up........we will be forced to do what we should never have been forced to do; be the gatekeepers of the (supposed to be) gatekeepers of our government.

First they came for our Airwaves, and you said....."there is no breakdown of our system",
Then they came for our Internet access, and I guess you'll say...."there is no breakdown of our system".

[MrCoffee]

53. The "Airwaves Belong to Us" argument is compelling, but...

it misses the point. Let me ask you a hypothetical. What is to stop Coca-Cola from starting a 24 hour news channel, CokeNews, on cable, with handsome and attractive anchors behind a big red-and-white desk, and field reporters dispatched all over the globe, and running nothing but pro-Coke news with reports on how Coke makes you virile, wealthy, immortal, and enlightened? Nothing at all. There's nothing in the world preventing them from doing that. Would you be mad at CokeNews for not presenting "real, objective" news? OF COURSE NOT. So why do you expect Fox News/CNN to uphold some external standard of journalistic ethics? THEY ARE NOT NEWS OUTLETS! If I may repeat myself, FOX NEWS AND CNN ARE NOT NEWS OUTLETS!

When the airwaves were finite (radio and broadcast television), and a public trust (as they should have been at the time), you are right, there was some expectation that the news media "represent reliable information to its owners, the collective; the people". The airwaves belonged to everyone, and we left it up to the government to decide how they would be apportioned. Part and parcel of the privilege of using a part of the airwaves was to present the public with an objective perspective on the events of the day. This is still true. NBC/ABC/CBS/Fox still have a responsibility to present an objective news report (IF they choose to present the news at all). For the *most* part they do.

But the "airwaves" are not finite anymore. The cable spectrum (and satellite) are expanding almost daily. You have to pay to bring them into your home. The old "public airwaves" arguments hold less and less water.

Fox News and CNN don't even broadcast over the airwaves. The public trust argument DOES NOT APPLY to them, because they aren't part of the "public airwaves" spectrum. They are not news outlets in the classic sense; they don't have to give an objective perspective on anything. THEY ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO BE OBJECTIVE. So yes, they are corporate media. THEY ARE COKENEWS! They can say whatever they want. They can make up the news. You cannot expect them to be objective in and of themselves.

SO if you want them to be objective, what do you do? You force them to be objective. You use the only bullet in the gun; your money. When Chuck Roberts spews scurrilous lies about Ned Lamont, you have NO RIGHT to indignation. You can, however, let him know that you are indignant, and that his statement was disgraceful. You can demand an apology, and you can let his sponsors know what you think of his statement. You have NO RIGHT to expect any of those things, because the expectation itself is unreasonable of CNN.

But he did apologize. In spite of all that, he apologized. WE WON. WE DID OUR JOB.

[marions ghost]

65. FrenchieCat

You nailed it :thumbsup:

[BuyingThyme]

28. Correct the record? Not hardly.

[conflictgirl]

64. It's a good step

It's not going to be enough to make me start watching any of the cable news networks because I still don't trust them and I don't like all the hysteria and hyperbole and non-news. But it's good that at least he's responding the way he's supposed to when he's called out on this, and maybe if we (the collective public) keep calling them out on such comments, they'll eventually get the idea and stop doing it.

The news media and the Repubs and their blind followers are the only one spreading ridiculous ideas like the idea that only wacko uber-lefty terrorist supporters are against the war in Iraq, for example. That is a viewpoint of middle America. Supporting candidates like Lamont is NOT an extreme leftist, radical kind of thing to do and most of the normal people out there know it. We have to keep an eye on the news media so that they know we're not buying the propaganda.

[Liberal_Dog]

66. He DID NOT Apologize

He said, "I owe you an apology", but he never actually apologized.

All this was just more weasel word from another media flunkie.

[Skittles]

69. good, but he is still a f***ing slime bucket

yup

[Dawgs]

70. Good for him, but...

I'm still waiting for the apology to all of the Connecticut citizens that voted for Lamont. His remark was more of an attack on Democracy than Lamont himself. And, I agree that he should have lost his job.

[mtnsnake]

71. Maybe an anchor can say Bush is "the binLaden President" & apologize later

for his "mistake" *cough* *cough*.