Crooks and Liars

ABC's Brian Ross Cooks Up A Dangerously Inaccurate Story About Hasan and Al Qaeda

Susie Madrak — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:00:02 +0000

ABC's Brian Ross has a history of bizarre "scoops" (like this one, when he announced that Hillary Clinton had indeed been in the White House the day Monica went down on her knees). And yet, ABC News is still proud to have him as their chief investigative correspondent, for some odd reason.

Now he overreaches on yet another story, this one claiming Nidal Malik Hasan attempted to contact al Qaeda. You heard it all over the news, right? Via Gawker:

ABC News' Brian Ross has a breathtaking record of recklessly inaccurate, overhyped stories that don't live up to the headline. His scoop yesterday about Nidal Malik Hasan's "attempt to reach out to al Qaeda" was one of them.

Ross' report yesterday that Hasan had attempted to "make contact with people associated with al Qaeda" took over the internet yesterday and sparked a furious round of speculation that Hasan's attack was part of an Islamic terrorist plot. The headline, "Officials: U.S. Army Told of Hasan's Contacts with al Qaeda," said it all. The far more mundane truth emerged today in the pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post: Hasan had communicated via e-mail with Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical American cleric living in Yemen who formerly served as the imam of a mosque Hasan had attended in Virginia. What did they talk about? From the Washington Post:

The FBI determined that the e-mails did not warrant an investigation, according to the law enforcement official. Investigators said Hasan's e-mails were consistent with the topic of his academic research and involved some social chatter and religious discourse.

We were confused this morning, because Ross had clearly reported that Hasan had made contact with "people associated with Al Qaeda," and the only contacts that other reporters were confirming were with al-Awlaki, who is, as far as we know, a single person. We called Ross and asked him if there were more "people." No, he told us, his initial report was only in reference to al-Awlaki.

"That's how it was initially described to me by my sources," he says. "Given what they told me, that's all I could say. It's a strange use of the word 'people.' But when pinned down, my sources said it's just al-Awlaki."

A strange use, indeed. How about false, too? Especially because Ross' original story did, in fact, report that al-Awliki was among the "people" Hasan was suspected of having contacted. So he reported that Hasan contacted more than one person associated with al Qaeda, and then named one person that he was suspected of contacting. What he apparently didn't bother to do was "pin his sources down" on exactly what they were saying. The result was a clear suggestion that Hasan had tried to communicate with the al Qaeda network on more than one occasion.

So did he? Al-Awlaki is routinely described by the FBI and others as an al Qaeda supporter, and a fiery inciter of violence against infidels. And he was the imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 hijackers, as well as Hasan. But while it's clear that Al-Awlaki is a bad guy, what's not clear is whether he's simply a propagandist or someone who actually operates as a part of al Qaeda. It's one thing for Hasan to have sent e-mails to someone who vocally supports al Qaeda, and quite another for him to have sent e-mails to al Qaeda itself, or to operatives actively involved in trying to kill people. Ross told us that, according to his sources, "Al-Awlaki is considered a recruiter," which is how he justified invoking the name of the terrorist network. We'll defer to him on that point.

But without knowing what the e-mails are about, can it really be known that Hasan's communications were "attempts to reach out"? The FBI didn't consider them as such. Ross didn't know the contents of the e-mails when he described them that way, but felt perfectly justified in doing so based solely on the knowledge that Hasan had sent the e-mails.

We asked Ross if he had tried to contact Al-Awlaki in reporting the story:

"Yes."

So you reached out to al Qaeda, then?

"To al Qaeda? No. I reached out to him. Oh. I see what you're saying."

Hannity 'Apologizes' to Jon Stewart for 'Inadvertent Mistake' Airing the Wrong Protest Footage

Heather — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:00:52 +0000

DOWNLOADS: (391)

PLAYS: (1392)

Looks like Jon Stewart got the attention of Fox News with his segment criticizing Sean Hannity for showing footage of Glenn Beck's 9-12 rally and pretending it was crazy-eyes Michele Bachmann's teabagger health care protest. Hannity 'apologized,' if you want to call it that. It was a mistake...honest.

Hannity: He was correct. We screwed up. We aired some video of a rally in September, along with video from the actual event. It was an inadvertent mistake. But a mistake nonetheless.

Sure it was, Sean.

As Media Matters reports, his apology might be taken seriously if Fox News didn't have a record of doing this sort of thing--Hannity video switch-up is only the tip of Fox News' video-doctoring iceberg.

Dave N.: Cable-network producers know exactly what they're doing when they make these edits -- what their sources are, what they're representing. Inadvertent my tookus.

A Message From The Mayan People

CSPANJunkie — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:00:22 +0000

DOWNLOADS: (711)

PLAYS: (5128)

November 10, 2009 CBS David Letterman

Mike's Blog Round Up

bluegal — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:00:00 +0000

Vagabond Scholar: A series of Armistice Day posts, well worth the time.

Earth-Bound Misfit: And the military has yet another problem.

Speaking as a woman writer and film-maker, I laugh and scream simultaneously when I hear national publications imply that women can't write and women can't make films.

Stupak, Stupak, Stupak, Stupak.

Pour Me Coffee: Good news from the WH Visitor Logs! But did they search for Stupak?

Mike's away, guest-posted by Blue Gal (Did somebody say Stupak?)

Open Thread

bluegal — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:30:09 +0000

From Slowpoke Comics by Jen Sorensen, click here for full comic strip.

Also well worth a click, Mental Floss presents a commemoration of Veterans Day, with some overjoyed dogs greeting returning soldiers.

Open thread below...

Late Night Music Club: 'Beat It,' by Pomplamoose

Susie Madrak — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:00:02 +0000

Pomplamoose (it means "grapefruit" in French) is a Bay Area indie jazz-pop band and is ~~compromised~~ made up of Jack Conte and Nataly Dawn, who do what they call VideoSongs.

For those who don't know, a VideoSong is a new medium with (as Jack puts it) two rules:

1. What you see is what you hear (no lip-syncing for instruments or voice).

2. If you hear it, at some point you see it (no hidden sounds).

The unsigned band is fast picking up steam through social media. This is only one of their many interesting covers, but they have lots of cool, original music, too. (Oh, and they do a cover of a Gordon's Jewelers ad, which is amazing because in so many ways, they remind me of the late, lamented Huffamoose - whose name also ends in "moose" and had their song "I Want To Buy You A Ring" used in a jewelry commercial!) Like, synchronicity, man.

Maddow: Big Business and the "Child Labor Endorsing, Pro-Slavery Freaks"

bluegal — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:00:55 +0000

DOWNLOADS: (1582)

PLAYS: (4011)

Rachel Maddow wins my semi-famous "Don't Sugarcoat It" award for her talented muckraking in this segment. It's becoming abundantly clear to everyone in the left-wing activist community that without loophole-free campaign finance reform we are unlikely to change anything in Washington lobby/legislator love-fest. With an assist from blogger David Sirota, Maddow exposes the business lobby that would attempt to hide their desire to continue to import products made from child, slave, and prison labor. Given the American public's unending appetite for cheap plastic junk, it's easy to see why those profiting from that hunger would want their gravy train to continue. Sadly, Maddow must remind us, all of us, that, um, slavery is wrong, even when it occurs across the oceans.

Transcript from here.

...as Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress start lining up with corporate America and against new regulations now, consider the alliance that they are making.

Populist columnist David Sirota today made this catch from the business newsletter “Inside U.S. Trade.” This is a D.C.-based publication on trade issues. It‘s especially for people in international business.

What else are business groups worried about and lobbying against other than the new Wall Street regulations? I wouldn‘t believe this if I had not seen it for myself.

But check this out, quote, “Business groups are worried by the potential effects of provisions banning the import of all goods made with convict labor, forced labor or forced or indentured child labor that were included in a recent customs bill. American business groups are concerned, upset.” “Worried” was the actual phrase, worried about laws against using slaves and child labor.

Quote, “Business sources say the bill could cause DHS to more actively seek out imported products made with child labor, forced labor or convict labor.”

Oh, no. How will the corporations save themselves from that onerous rule that you can‘t use slaves and prisoners and children to make your products if you want to sell that product in the United States? Darn that liberal red tape.

Quote, “Sources conceded that this was a sensitive issue because industry groups do not want to be seen as opposing strict measures guarding against human rights abuses. However, one source did expect a push from lobbyists closer to the finance committee mark-up of the bill.”

Wow. I‘m guessing that business interests are OK with something like this being discussed in a subscriber-only industry newsletter publication like “Inside U.S. Trade.” I‘m guessing they might not want to let it become widely known that they are lobbying to stop rules against slavery.

But actually, you never know. The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think-tank that is very high profile in Washington and that maintains all sorts of Web sites and educational public venues to promote their ideas.

And on the Heritage Foundation‘s “Overcriminalized” blog, the Heritage Foundation, too, singles out the Child Labor Safety Act, which levies fines and jail time for companies using child labor as an example of what they call “trivial conduct that is now often punished as a crime.”

I mean honestly, “Kids these days. In my day, you would be delighted to be chained to the loom for a few pennies a day.” For the record, the Heritage Foundation also singles out Neil Abercrombie‘s bill against war profiteering as another example of making something trivial into a criminal matter.

Business interests and their think-tank friends on the right have every right to lobby on anything they want to. Think that Wall Street, despite almost destroying the whole economy of the United States should be left to its own devices again? Go ahead, make your case. I would love to hear it.

You think that child labor and slave labor and forced convict labor are cheap and therefore cool with you? Go ahead, make your case. I would love to hear it.

But unless you‘re going to make your case for things like that in total secrecy, know that the case against you is there to be made, too and that that will apply to any member of Congress who sides with you as well, you child labor-endorsing, pro-slavery freaks.

Lou Dobbs Leaving CNN

Heather — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:24:48 +0000

DOWNLOADS: (1705)

PLAYS: (2040)

So what's the next move for Lou Dobbs? Fox News? Dobbs announced tonight on his show that he has been released from his contract at CNN. From the NY Times--Update: Lou Dobbs to Quit CNN:

Lou Dobbs, the longtime CNN anchor whose anti-immigration views have made him a TV lightning rod, said Wednesday that he is leaving the cable news channel effective immediately.

“Some leaders in the media, politics and business have been urging me to go beyond my role here at CNN and engage in constructive problem-solving,” Mr. Dobbs said just after 7 p.m., suggesting that he would remain involved in the civic discourse, but perhaps not on television.

“I’m considering a number of options and directions,” Mr. Dobbs added.

Wednesday’s program will be his last on CNN, one of his employees said earlier in the evening.

Mr. Dobbs’ contract was not set to expire until the end of 2011. He told viewers that CNN had agreed to release him from his contract early.

Mr. Dobbs informed his staff members of his intentions in a meeting Wednesday afternoon, catching some of the staffers off-guard.

Well known for his political positions, Mr. Dobbs is an outlier at CNN, which has sought to position itself as a middle ground of sorts in the fractious cable news arena. The CNN employees said Wednesday that they did not know if Mr. Dobbs was moving to another network.

Continue reading...

Blanche Lincoln seems confused, but Blue America's new ad is here to help her

John Amato — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:00:50 +0000

Mike Stark catches up with Blanche Lincoln in Congress and asks her if she'll join the Republican filibuster. She has been virtually silent throughout the whole health care debate and Mike does a great job of getting her to say something on the record. What she said of course was nothing.

Stark: Can you see yourself filibustering or joining a filibuster?

Lincoln: I don't even know what the bill is going to be and I'm going to do what I think is most important for Arkansans and that is to look at the bill, to see if it's going to be helpful to Arkansans and the country in expanding health care...

She knows what's going on in this debate and gives a typical non-answer about supporting the public option like many have given up to this point. We at Blue America are running a brand new ad all over her state starting today so we can help her decide that filibustering health care is not in any one's best interests except the health insurance corporations that she's taken huge contributions from.

Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post writes:

The squeeze is on for Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) on health care in the form of a new series of ads paid for by the liberal Blue America PAC that cast the Arkansas Democrat as bought and paid for by insurers. "Blanche Lincoln claims to fight for health care reform but whose interests does she really represent," asks the ad's narrator before noting that Lincoln has taken more than $2 million in campaign contributions from the health and insurance industries. The narrator concludes the ad by asking viewers to call Lincoln and "demand she allow an up or down vote on the public option." (This is the fourth ad paid for by Blue America targeting Lincoln this year.)

Polling shows Lincoln, who is up for re-election in 2010, holding relatively slim margins over a series of unknown Republican candidates. Lincoln's dilemma? How to walk the line between the conservative leanings of the Razorback State -- Obama took just 39 percent there in 2009 -- and the increasingly vocal and well-funded left within her own party who see the inclusion of a public option as a sine qua non for health care reform.

Her primary is the reason we targeted her originally and it's worked out very well so far.

Please help us continue running this ad and many more to come and join in on Blue America's Campaign for Health Care Choice. Donations are much appreciated.

And Digby writes:

Perhaps Lincoln should start worrying just a bit about what will happen if her Democratic base stays home. The numbers aren't looking all that good for her right now.

She's between little rock and a hard place but it seems to me that's easily solved at this point. She should vote for cloture, thus appeasing her base and then she can vote against the bill if she needs to appeal to neanderthals who want people to die quickly.

Believe me, none of her constituents will hold it against her. Most people think cloture is unpasteurized sour cream. And they like it.

Jon Stewart totally busts Sean Hannity for using old footage to inflate size of Bachmann's teabagger rally

David Neiwert — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:00:21 +0000

Busted! Jon Stewart notices that Sean Hannity, in "reporting" on Michele Bachmann's teabagger anti-health-care rally last week, showed his audience footage from Glenn Beck's "912 Project" project of the month before, in order to make it look like there were big crowds out for it.

My question: Why aren't any journalists actually discussing the complete and utter travesty of "journalistic standards" as practiced by Fox News?

And why don't those Villagers who tut-tut the White House for standing up to the nonstop onslaught from Fox ever talk about this kind of crap? It's a constant, everyday occurrence at Fox.

Don't journalists care about their reputations anymore? Because Fox sullies the name of everyone who calls him- or herself a journalist.