On and off throughout the years, I have watched the CBS Evening News. My family has always preferred CBS over the other networks for whatever reason. I keep watching it now out of habit and because I believe that it is fairly representative of middle-of-the-road, mainstream media coverage.
Unfortunately, "middle-of-the-road, mainstream media coverage" means that CBS slants far rightward these days. Despite the fact that their coverage is so biased, I have never seen any complaints about it on Daily Kos or Media Matters. So, I have decided to become the self-appointed Daily Kos CBS Evening News watchdog. This will my third diary on CBS; the others are here and here.
If you agree with my assessment of last night's news cast, please contact CBS and let them know:
CBS
E-mail
CBSNews
524 W. 57th St.
New York, NY, 10019
As always, when contacting the media, please be polite and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and be sure to indicate exactly what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.
------
Alrighty, onto the show. Tonight, John Roberts ran a story on the wiretapping scandal. In introducing the segment, Bob Schieffer made the only mention of what the scandal actually is about:
President Bush is out to convince the American people that the government needs to be able to spy, and without a court order, on U.S. citizens who are suspected of having ties to terrorists.
After that, Roberts took over and played a clip from President Bush's speech:
You know, it's amazing when people say to me well, he's just breaking the law. If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress? heh.
Bush's statement is an obvious side-step of the real question -- it doesn't address
why doesn't think he was breaking the law -- and, besides that, he did
not brief Congress on the secret wiretapping program. Roberts, rather than discussing any of those uncomfortable points, moved on.
ROBERTS -- No scandal here, he insisted. In fact, it would be scandalous not to do it.
BUSH CLIP -- If they're makin' phone calls into the United Statesss, we need to know why.
ROBERTS -- The White House wants to make this into an election-year issue. On Friday, Karl Rove painted critics of the program as soft on defending the nation.
Roberts went on to point out that Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) had questioned the program before sitting on the stage behind Bush during his latest speech:
I think it's in a grey territory. Uh.. and we need to have a thorough look a the legality.
Then came the part I really want to focus on. Roberts included a quote from General Michael Hayden, Deputy Director of National Intelligence, that is similar to what was mentioned on
several blogs yesterday:
We're going after very specific communications that our professoinal judgment tells us we have reason to believe are those associated with people who want to kill Americans.
To analyze that quote, we must backtrack a little. You may recall that the administration initially said that they had ignored the FISA courts because the program was a huge, sweeping data mining operation that would have either have overwhelmed the FISA court with too many warrant requests or required court approval of people who did not have any terrorist ties. General Hayden's comments signal a big change in the administration's position.
The program is no longer a huge data mining operation, but is "going after very specific communications." Well, if that, then why can't they go the FISA courts? From the NY Times:
"The trigger is quicker and a bit softer," [General Hayden said.] ... The standard laid out by General Hayden - a "reasonable basis to believe" - is lower than "probable cause," the standard used by the special court created by Congress to handel surveillance involving foreign intelligence.
The Times failed to mention that "probable cause" is not specific to the FISA courts. It actually comes from here:
U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Further, the FISA courts had approved around 99.5% of warrant requests since its creation. Did the administraion need 99.8%? "Probable cause" hasn't bee much of an obstacle in the past.
Back to CBS. Roberts actually included the specific quote that shows the administration changing its position and a quote that would lead nicely into this discussion of "reasonable basis to believe" vs "probable cause," but Roberts instead continued right on and closed with this:
That is the argument that President Bush hopes people will buy into and see him as the Protector in Chief. And, the White House believes, if they do, they just might be able to turn this scandal into a virtue, Bob.
The report did not include any commentary from any Democrat. The only criticism included was from Senator Brownback who says the program was in legal "grey territory."
This scandal is very, very simple. The President violated a Congressional statute and tried to keep it secret. A whistleblower blew the cover on the operation and the administration has subsequently moved into full Orwell mode. They don't even address the question of whether the program is legal; they just accuse Democrats of not wanting to wiretap terrorists. But, to John Roberts, this is just politics as usual. If the administration plays their cards right, this could even help them. What a total farce. CBS should be ashamed of itself.