Bill Clinton shows anger! How dare he shows he is Human!

To: nightly@nbc.com
Re: Report on President Clinton's FOX interview (Mike Taibbi)

--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Taibbi
NBC News


Dear Mr. Taibbi,

Your coverage of Chris Wallace's interview of President Clinton -- the fragments of the interview you selected and presented out of order -- created a dishonest picture of what occurred.

It is one thing if President Clinton had been non-responsive, but it is apparently the President's responsiveness in setting the record straight that upset Chris Wallace and prompted him to impatiently and frequently interrupt the President, at times argumentatively.

President Clinton's reaction was warranted when put into context, but the level of intensity of his response is actually the most trivial aspect of the exchange.

You left out President Clinton's review of his efforts to capture or kill those who committed terrorist acts against us (and the Republican ridicule and refusal to fund anti-terrorism). You left out Chris Wallace's impatient, dismissive interruptions and badgering. You left out the facts about the context the President spoke of ("ABC just had a right-wing conservative run in their little Pathway to 9/11, falsely claiming it was based on the 9/11 Commission report, with three things asserted against me directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission report.").

Instead of a report that fairly characterized the exchange, what remained was an out of context and deliberately distorted picture of someone who angrily evaded an interviewer's simple question.

Given the number of Wallace's argumentative interruptions between his initial, nearly 200 word "simple question," and the minor portion of Clinton's response that you presented, your report managed to construct the opposite of reality.

Of course, you are not alone. Your coverage presents a "narrative" consistent with what your counterparts at countless other news outlets parroted. It is the spread of this type of so-called "journalism" -- devoid of fact checking, evaluation, and substance -- that made it possible for the nation to be terrorized into a catastrophic war of aggression by threats of mushroom clouds in 45 minutes.

I'm not sure what prompted me to respond to your report in particular. Perhaps because I expect more of your pieces. Perhaps because I think there is a shot that you will actually consider what I have said. Or perhaps I am confusing you with your son.

Sincerely,


Patty Keeshan
Westfield, NJ

cc:
Media Matters (mm-tips@mediamatters.org)
Matt Taibbi (matt@buffalobeast.com)