(WSJ reporter) part II

I saw the show twice. When she said "we" .. I think she meant the media in general .. not the Wall Street Journal in particular.

any else watch the show .... any one else get the feeling like the tide will begin to turn .... ??


* * * *



please phone this WSJ reporter


Lobby / Latest General Discussion
Original message


grasswire (1000+ posts) Sat Dec-20-03 03:37 PM
Original message
please phone this WSJ reporter

Edited on Sat Dec-20-03 03:47 PM by Skinner
Friday on Washington Journal, Wall Street Journal's political reporter Jeanne Cummings stated that the media had covered the story of George W. Bush's absence from his military duty during the campaign of 2000.

Of course, that is not true. There were a few stories, but they were too little, too late.

A Nexis search of the WSJ finds no coverage of Bush's desertion from his post of duty during wartime. This reporter's paper did not ever cover the story, and yet she thinks the American people were informed of it.

Will you join me in letting Jeanne Cummings know that her assertion is offensive and scandalous in itself?

You can get to her voice mail by calling XXXXXXXXX. Ask for the voice mail for WSJ reporter Jeanne Cummings and they will put you through.

Tell her the documentation is available on the Internet (I forgot to mention that.)


Replies to this thread:


I hope that people will not call that person. Skinner Dec-20-03 03:49 PM #1


Skinner ADMIN (1000+ posts) Sat Dec-20-03 03:49 PM
Response to Original message

1. I hope that people will not call that person.


I think that could be considered harrassment, which is against DU rules.

Instead, write a letter to the editor, or call Washington Journal next time they have open phones.

I'm locking this thread.

Skinner
DU Admin

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

...the point is this: If she believes the story was adequately reported, how can she explain the fact that there was no mention in her own paper, which is one of the three most influential papers in the country?

The hypocrisy remains clear. The record remains clear. The story was under-reported -- spiked.

I was very glad to hear some good questions about the media's failures asked by callers to both WSJ and NYT reporters.

The reporters looked uncomfortable, and gave very unsatisfactory answers.

One NYT reporter said her paper wasn't covering the intelligence failures story recently because it "wasn't in the news." Wtf? And Brian Lamb said nothing.

Cummings from the WSJ said that they followed the Clinton "scandals" much more closely than the Bush scandals because the republicans controlled Congress, and so they were able to launch investigations that the press then followed.

She didn't mention something I distinctly remember, that several of those investigations were actually launched by Janet Reno, who apponted special counsels. And that the press was very persistently calling for those investigations in their editorial pages, and very aggressively following up on republicans' charges, whether there was a formal investigation or not.

Compare to the treatment of the Plame leak, which was totally ignored for months, when the main evidence was in black and white, in the Novak column itself. There was no reason to wait for the CIA to request the investigation before they reported on it.

I was in the middle of typing up just about exactly what you said......

I saw both of those shows, and had the exact same, disGUSTED response as you.

Elisabeth Bumiller played Cummings' part for the NYT.

what's next, the WashPost?

will it be Susan Schmidt sitting in this time?

I talked to her, BTW, twice, on the radio, and asked her about Jean Lewis' perjury/fainting spell, and why she didn't cover it in the Post. She LIED about it, after weaseling out, saying she left for lunch, then didn't come back for the afternoon session, asserting that somebody else from the Post did cover it. Well, according to all accounts that I've read (hard to prove a negative), from Conason, to the Howler, to a few other places I checked, Lewis' perjurious performance was NOT carried at all, EVER, by the Post, NY Times, Time, Newsweek, TV, etc. .........not at ALL.

....wrote to me that her paper could not cover such a scandal unless a high-profile Democrat wanted to make news about it. I have the emails she sent to me. I'll find them and post them here. It was outrageous.

And Ron Fournier (America's #1 reporter, Associated Press) told me last year that he didn't know anything about the Carlyle Group, but he would "ask around."

....my daughter is sick this afternoon and I have to get to the grocery store before I come down with what she's got. Chills, fever....I just pray it isn't influenza. Argh.

I called and asked him, Jim Warren, and Mike Tackett, of Chicago Trib, if they knew who Eliza May was, and what the significance of her story was.

they, of course, didn't, and also opined that the story of a person who clearly PERJURED himself in a civil trial had no bearing whatsoever on anything....not relevant......?!?

gee, wasn't that EXACTLY the rationale for impeaching the previous CINC? they didn't see the conundrum involved at all.

lazy, provincial, ignorant, self-protective members of the CW herd.

that's all most of them are. the rest, like Robert Parry, Ray Bonner, Jason Leopold, Greg Palast, lose their jobs, work the fringes, get no audience among the vast majority of news consumers

"lazy, provincial, ignorant, self-protective members of the CW herd"

tell me, sir/madam, do you remember the names of two CUB reporters back in the mid seventies?

I think their names were Woodstein and Bernward, or something like that......did they sit steno for republicrat party and wait, like little puppies for theis news snacks?

you, sir/madam, should be more than ashamed of yourself

is one of the following:

a. afraid for his life
b. bought and paid for by the Rove Machine
c. EXTREMELY naive

....gathered by Paul Begala and announced in a forum February 6, 2001.

"Let me give you some statistics," responded panelist Paul Begala, "I worked for Bill Clinton in 1992 and …in anticipation of this very question, I looked this up on Nexis. There were 13,641 stories about Bill Clinton 'dodging the draft' …and there were 49 stories about Bush and the National Guard," Begala said.

http://www.uaw.org/cap/01/news/day3media.html

So I wonder how Ms. Cummings can say Bush's desertion was "covered" considering that her own influential paper didn't mention it and only 49 stories on Bush's military record could be found by Feb. 2001.