Below is my recent column in The Hill Newspaper on the Rice controversy. Media spins for Rice continue including MSNBC “AM Joy” host Joy Reid describing the softball interview with Andrea Mitchell as a type of “Government for Dummies” lecture: “She was on with our own Andrea Mitchell yesterday trying to explain how government works, for those that don’t know.” Of course, unmasking political opponents (if the allegations are proven to be true), would not be how the government is supposed work. Nor is alleged lying about knowing nothing about the unmasking in prior interviews — a curious conflict with Reid’s take that Rice was trying to explain how government works. This was Rice’s second or third explanation.
The controversy occurs after the Washington Post gave Rice a retroactive “Four Pinnochios” for her claim that the Obama Administration got rid of all chemical weapons in Syria. (That is not the first time that Rice has been accused of false statements on national security issues, as discussed below). None of this seems to matter in the coverage of the most recent controversy involving Rice. It appears that Trump is the temptation that many journalists simply cannot resist. It is a Faustian bargain: media is so intent on pursuing Trump that they have lost any sense of their own navigational beacons of objectivity and neutrality.
There is a common expression in the media that there are “some facts too good to check.” It is used in jest to reflect how you sometimes hate to give up a great story for the real facts. That tension was well on display this week as media seemed to tie itself into knots to avoid admitting that there are legitimate questions raised by the “unmasking” allegations surrounding the actions of Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice.
For weeks, the media has hammered President Trump over his sensational tweets accusing President Obama of “wiretapping” Trump Tower. The media was right to demand proof and to castigate the administration for a less than forthcoming response to the controversy.
Then came the disclosure that Susan Rice had repeatedly asked for the unmasking of the protected identities of Trump associates who were intercepted by American intelligence in the course of lawful surveillance. By any objective measure, that should be a major story. Rice may have an explanation but, at least on its face, it would confirm the interception of Trump aides by the Obama administration.
Instead of acknowledging that this is a serious development, the immediate response of the media was to actively debunk the story and portray it as facially invalid. CNN anchor Chris Cuomo responded to the story with the following: “All right, President Trump, right-wing media types [are] peddling a fake scandal.” CNN anchor Don Lemon called the story a “diversion” and refused to discuss it so “not insult your intelligence.”
In the meantime, NBC had Andrea Mitchell interview Rice. One would think that any interview would begin where Rice had left the controversy just last month in an interview on PBS Newshour. Rice was asked about the allegations of unmasking raised by House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes and responded with a categorical denial: “I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today … So today, I really don’t know to what Chairman Nunes was referring. But he said that whatever he was referring to was a legal, lawful surveillance and that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens.”
It would seem a rather newsworthy place to start, right? Yet, in the segment, Mitchell asked nary a single question on the prior statement. Not one. Instead, she spent time discussing the “politicized” investigation of the House Intelligence Committee and outrage over Trump’s tweets. She never got around to noting that Rice was saying something diametrically at odds to her prior statement on this very controversy.
She was not alone. ABC News ran an interview with Rice and again never mentioned to the viewers that she said the opposite on a national news program just weeks ago.
Instead, the media actively sought to focus on aspects of Rice’s statement that could still be supported. Media insisted that that was no proof that Rice leaked the information. Indeed, Rice said that she has never — ever — leaked anything as a high-ranking government official. If so, she would be in one of the smallest groups of Washington (that could be a difficult question under oath in a future hearing). The threshold question is whether Trump aides were indeed subject to surveillance and were indeed unmasked. Alternatively, the media hit on the fact that such surveillance is legal. Of course, the use of lawful surveillance in an abusive way could still be abusive and, yes, newsworthy.
The media also did not pursue the question of how the unmasked transcripts might have been shared with officials like former National Intelligence chief James Clapper, who also said that he had no knowledge of such unmasking. Clapper and Rice would seem to warrant such added probing. After all, Clapper lied about his knowledge of one of the most massive secret surveillance programs in history and later explained that he simply chose “the least untruthful” answer to give the Senate.
For her part, Rice has been repeatedly criticized for past false statements. The most glaring was her repeated public statements in 2012, that the Benghazi terror attacks were spontaneous responses to a “hateful” Internet video. Later it was shown that the administration already knew the Benghazi attacks were the result of terrorism and unnamed administration officials criticized Rice for misrepresenting the facts. Rice later said that she did “regret that the information I was provided was wrong. That doesn’t make me a liar.” That is correct but it also does not make Rice the most reliable source. So why run a story and not lead (or even mention) a prior conflicting question?
A more serious question is raised by the other ignored aspect of this story. For years, many of us have criticized the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows surveillance without meeting the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The law is filled with nice sounding protections that are practically meaningless. That includes the rule that Americans incidentally intercepted on surveillance of foreign targets must have their identities “masked.”
U.S. Signals Intelligence Directive (Section 18) only allows unmasking of the identity of U.S persons when it is essential to national security. The question is why the identity of Trump aides satisfied this standard if there was no evidence (as has been reported) of collusion. Nevertheless, this intent standard is difficult to violate absent a confession or incriminating statement.
Objectively, a reporter might want to ask Rice how privacy is protected when she can just routinely unmask names without any serious review or need for explanation. That concern would seem particularly great when these are the names of Republican operatives on a campaign criticizing your administration. Indeed, Rice herself was a common target of such criticism by Trump aides.
I happen to share the anger in the media over the treatment of the press by this president. However, journalistic ethics require reporters to transcend such anger and maintain objectivity. It often means acknowledging facts that favor someone who has shown little respect for the press. That is the point of the joke. No matter how much we might prefer blissful ignorance, there are no facts too good to check.
Reporters are now so committed to refuting Trump that they are refuting actual stories. The loss of objectivity in the response to the Rice story reflects a broader problem of the press focusing so hard on Trump that it is losing sight of its own bearings. The irony is that Trump was wrong about the media but many in the media seem to be working hard to prove him right.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.
Posts like this are what drew me to this blog. Kudos for honesty and integrity. You’ll be invited to very few Christmas parties this year.
Pardon me, but I’m offended by your politically incorrect use of the term “Christmas” parties in this public forum. Shouldn’t that be “Holiday parties” ? 😉
Bob – I am offended that you are offended by the use of the word Christmas in this public forum. I am going to retreat to my safe space now. 😉
Ah, JT I love it when you throw out the red meat for the republiborg collective. Its always the same,, Lie, Spin, Distract, Deflect, Repeat.
Very well stated, Mr. Turley.
MSNBC should drop the propaganda and air 24/7 episodes of the Honeymooners.
MSNBCs ratings were tanking before they all started talking about Russia colluding with Trump and how Trump should be impeached and all things trashing Trump. Now they are going up, up, up. Same with the ladies on The View. Their ratings are going up since they trash talk Trump all the time now. So they can all thank Trump for saving them from crashing and burning in the ratings. What will they all talk about now that the Russia collusion story is falling apart?
“The irony is that Trump was wrong about the media but many in the media seem to be working hard to prove him right.”
That to me is the biggest issue at hand. The Russian connection (as far as I can tell) is not that big of a deal (but it still requires investigating). So many of trumps outrageous statements have a bit of truth in them. The hatred of Trump by the media has truly blinded them. Acknowledge the bits of truth and investigate the whole story, Not just the Trump is dump story.
Our political system is corrupt to the bone with the major news organizations complicit in the crime. This is the reason Trump won. Due us all a favor MSM, get back to reporting facts no matter who their harm.
Turley’s got a point here. However, read the Washington Times and Fox News and Turley’s accusations toward the supposed left wing media more than pales by comparison. Most countries have media that are somewhat one sided. One needs to read a foreign newspaper or one like Reuters to get a perspective closer to the middle. In defense of the scandalous left wing rags, when you get such an unending and blatant stream of buffoonery, lies, and slander as has been and continues to be experienced coming from the fish mouth that is our President, it’s hard to take each lie, slander, and idiocy and treat it like it’s worthy of unbiased reporting. But, Turley does have a point here. Unfortunately he is focusing on the wrong side and ignoring despicable rags like the Washington Times and Fox News. This makes a bigger point regarding Turley’s perspective, somewhat biased, to say the least.
Rain Man has spoken, the wet blanket has been thrown.
Right on (sustained), JT!
The press report only what it wants to report and in the light of what proves their own political agendas. Like good lawyers they argue the facts when the facts favor their agendas and they argue the issues when the issues are where they see that could influence the American public.
The MSM has no credibility. There is no reason to be mad or glad at them. They are a nothing. I just ignore the pressitutes.
The problem is the millions of people who DON’T ignore them and actually listen to and believe the biased garbage being shoveled at them. CNN is always on in airports, medical office waiting rooms, and TV screens all over the world. The CNN phony baloney journalists, pundits and anchors know that by seeping the fake news out there into the airwaves that it penetrates into the weak, lazy and distracted minds of the sheeple. The sheeple then form their opinions based on these blatantly false, slanted, biased and misleading talking points and sound bites – thus, Mission Accomplished for the left-stream media. Fox News and other conservative outlets are covering what all the other outlets choose not to cover or talk about. Most of the MSM seem to care only about forwarding their not-so-hidden political agendas and protecting their chosen ones (ie Democrats). The Podesta emails exposed the blatant collusion between DNC, Democrats and the liberal media. There used to be some semblance of journalistic ethics, but they don’t even try to hide it anymore.
Trump is a proven liar. He upchucks empty claims and then the media spend their time running around while talking about themselves. The media are corporations seeking attention and nothing more, just like the idiot in the Oval. They’re mirrors of one another.
Right-wing snowflakes melted the last eight years and, now that this con ghostwriter-created persona dimwit charlatan is in office, their rage has to avert somewhere else.
So it’s the media. Fake news fake news fake news.
It’s not difficult: Don’t trust the media and certainly don’t trust the government. Always been the case. Nothing new to see here.
Separately, if you look back to the original talk-shows that Rice went on, she began all five with the caveat (paraphrasing), “Based on what we know so far…” So it was clear that everything that followed would be amendable.
Liars typically don’t add caveats, they just say things: like Obama was born in Kenya and 3 million voted illegally and I have $10 billion and I donate to charity and my students attend a real university for which I would never settle for $25 million.
“He upchucks empty claims”, but many of them aren’t empty claims. Turns out their was some surveillance of Trump and his associates. Turns out that the Obama was born outside the U.S. did have a start within the HRC campaign in 08, I could go on. Many of statements have a hint of truth inside a loud mouthed yelling nonsensical tirade. Turley’s article is all about one of these hints of truth in Trumps statement yet you say em upchucks empty claims. I think not.
And no, I am not a Trump supporter, he is an ass, perhaps a dump ass, but sometimes the ass makes sense.
Dave 137…,
The Benghazi attack happened on Sept. 11, 2012.
By the time Susan Rice appeared on the Sunday talk shows (on Sept. 16th), the Obama White House knew that the attack was not a spontaneous reaction to the video.
People might have been able to cut her some slack with the “..based on what we know so far..” defense if she promoted ” the video story” on Sept. 11 or Sept. 12.
By Sept. 16, the “based on what we know so far” story about “the video” doesn’t fly.
There used to be a band called The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band. If we could get down to the nitty gritty of what is sort or espoused in the “unmasking” story then the media criticisms might be focused on. So. Question: Who did Condolezza “unmask”; to whom; when; and what about? This is sort of the who. what, where, when elements of journalism.
Second question: who was the unmasked American speaking to on the other side of a border?
i.e. except after Z: what foreign alien of consequence?
Did Trump”s kid talk to a Russian spy? Diplomat? Coke dealer?
Without one example of the unmasked person speaking to a bad person on the other side the theme of this article gets clustered and is lame.
That photo of her is ugly. Not as ugly as the gay Putin photo or Hillary photo on the smart phone.
Its Monday. We need a good article today.
“Condoleeza?”
If the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band is no more,would anyone like to buy my tickets to see them on June 24th at Romp Fest 2017 in Owensboro,KY?I promise not to scalp them given the circumstances.
Wish Levon was still alive. FWIW, here is one of my favorites that came off the Will The Circle Be Unbroken Part Deux:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2n7JUZkh1k
It is also a very easy guitar song, using only an A and an E chord. Or C and G, if you please,. Maybe D and A??? Whatever, but I like A and E.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
So if there was an unmasking of identities were any of them leaked?
If so, why is that not THE story?
If someone handling the identities in the chain of the unmasking leaks information and it doesn’t get published isn’t that still disseminating or releasing classified info?
On another note:
Was Trump’s order to use cruise missiles classified when Hillary said this?
If so why did she have this info?
Just curious.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/coincidence-just-earlier-today-hillary-clinton-suggested-bombing-syrian-air-fields/
This is worth repeating.
http://www.activistpost.com/2015/08/the-illusion-of-choice-90-of-american-media-controlled-by-6-corporations.html
Objectivity ended with World War ll.
If you get a chance try to read anything on the Creel committee.
I think you might be one World War off.
Come again? Newspapers prior to the 2d World War were vigorously partisan. The cult of ‘objectivity’ was characteristic of the Newseum era in American journalism, extending from about 1955 to 1995.
A previous generation of journalist were vigorous and competitive reporters, however (think the Kilgallens, father and daughter). That’s what’s been gone for a long time, I suspect.
Susan Rice is a soulless political hack, long before Benghazi and The Great Unmasking, to wit:
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Wow Squeek thanks for posting. I had no idea that Rice had been around that long as I wasn’t into politics during the Clinton years – I just remember that Bill creeped me out (before Monicagate) – an intuition. That is totally sick that anyone would politicize the slaughter in Rwanda.
You’re welcome!!! BTW, I got Fatu Hiva in two days ago. Thank you for telling me about it. I also got Peter Freuchen’s book of the Seven Seas, which I read my father’s copy years ago, and I wasn’t able to steal it from him. What can I say. I actually liked Moby Dick, too.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Never heard of Freuchen – just looked him up. Sounds like he led an amazing life full of adventure and courage. Gonna see if our library has Seven Seas. Thanks for the tip!
Thank you for the post, Squeeky. Was this the Rwanda genocide of Hotel Rwanda infamy?
It is sad that our people and our media suffer such a persistent case of convenient amnesia.
Yep. One and the same. Hootsies versus Tootsies or whatever. Black lives did not matter to Rice as much as staying employed. Still doesn’t. Ask yourself what this idiot could do for employment if it wasn’t for her political connections. She would bring negative value to whoever hired her.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I would say it this way, “President Trump is proving the media is incorrect and with themselves the supporters of foreign idealogies such as but not limited to Susan Rice. Be it foreign or domestic the only question is who was she working for really? I would not bet on the Red Russian Herring – foreign as much as the embedded Deep State Fourth Branch ….domestic variety . For a valid definition read Oath of Office of the military.
News flash! The media are Democratic operatives with bylines and the Washington Democratic Party is sociopathic. It’s all about a claque of crooked and pretentious rent-seekers and their sleazy press agents.
One problem is there are enough individuals who want the news slanted to their preference that it is more profitable to cater to this demographic than to be objective. The bias is probably a function of that market’s demand and influenced by the political leanings of senior executives in those outlets.
We should be just as wary of the media-political complex as we must be with the military-industrial-congressional complex. Incidentally, the “congressional” element was in one of Ike’s drafts of his farewell speech, but it was omitted in the final copy.
Darren I wil lhave to agree whole heartedly and unreservedly. They are in search of ratings and money and would cheerfully eat their young raw. What they do has nothing to do with journalism. Nice call on the Eisenhower misquote.
Cities are being driven by the Planning Industrial Complex. They are being turned into experimental virtual reality game boards by authorities that live in the future, ignoring the present. One hopes the president is living in the future because that is where we live.
But there is a lot of attempted social engineering going on here too. CNN and MSNBC aren’t just going for high ratings. Yahoo actively tried to alienate its conservative base. They seemed embarrassed of them and wanted to hype queer millennial readers. Brilliant business move.
The media has lost its soul.
Now I’ll post for myself.
I and others who earlier supported Trump are extremely disappointed in his latest Syria bombing, doing exactly the opposite of his campaign promises.
Of course, now the Democrat neocon warmongers like HRC, and war criminal scum of the earth like McCain and “the world’s better with Saddam gone” (no, it’s not) Lindsey Graham, now worship Trump for getting us closer to WW3. Even the MSM libs adore Trump for launching missiles, now calling him “presidential.”
More war.
More debt.
Less personal freedom.
Go, America! Spreading democracy and regime change, one or thousands of missiles at time.
Of course, now the Democrat neocon warmongers like HRC, and war criminal scum of the earth like McCain and “the world’s better with Saddam gone” (
This place appears to be a collecting pool of palaeotrash whose doctors can’t get their psychotropics right.
When facts fail, make an ad hominem and mock mental illness.
If he wants better treatment, he might refrain from characterizing a perfectly ordinary mainstream politician as ‘criminal scum of the Earth’. You talk crazy, I treat you like you crazy.
i doubt your first statement since the rest of your statement describes the left wing idealogues perfectly. We are NOT a Democracy and have never been one we are a Representative Constitutional Republic basdded on democratic prnciples.
Sixteen years of war a twenty trillion dollar debt thousand of millions at a time.
Seig ME No Heils Comrade. collective. time for reprogramming.
Wow did i butcher the spelling of based by adding add. I just really get incensed from snakes and poseurs.
I’ll take this opportunity at the first poster, to post in lieu of reader “Isaacbasonkovich” and other “Progressive” Democratic party liberals. Isaac, you can continue watching CNN now.
“Why the heck do you carry water for Trump, Turley? Don’t you know he is the spawn of Adolf Hitler, and he killed more babies than Himler himself? Don’t you know he’s the dumbest stupidest human being on earth. You should be ashamed of yourself.”
Seig Me No Heils Comrade We don’t serve the party or your foreign Marixist Leninist Maoist Hitleresque philosophy – we serve the Constitution. You do not have the ability to not shame yourself.As I recall it was the left wing fascists shouting baby killer in the San Francisco Airport and the same one’s asking to kill more babies to this day without let nor hindrance. Take a whiff of Sarin and do mankind a favor.
Sitting on your arse and pretending a problem does not exist goes NOWHERE toward solving it. This chemical weapons thing could’ve and SHOULD’VE been taken care of in 2013 when our ball-less president, Barack Obama, drew that famous “line in the sand” and then watched as Syria continued to gas it’s people. If they were gassing YOU and YOUR FAMILY…would you not beg for aid from another nation? The citizens of Syria deserve a chance to govern their own country and live there in peace! Trump let you down? Let’s talk about 8 years of Obama letting us all down first!
Joseph, are you a product of a socialist school? Where do get your info about Trump killing babies. That what Democrat/Progressive Abortionist do.
And you have no problem whatsovever being EXACTLY what you criticize others for being…
Somewhere, Irony is shooting up smack an weeping uncontrollably…
“Himmler”.