Crossfire

In the CROSSFIRE today, Cliff May, former RNC communications director and currently the president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and Martin Walker, editor of the United Press International. Welcome, gentlemen.

BUCHANAN: Welcome both of you.

Martin, it seems to me, we have “Newsweek” now on the record as agreeing that they had one source only. It was an anonymous source. They thought they could rely on it. They did no other work. They didn’t go for the second source to confirm this report. They went out with a report that was extremely sensitive, almost a tender — a tinderbox out there when it comes to U.S.-Muslim relationships. They dropped it out there with absolute disregard for doing what would be standard in journalism, I believe, really, basic journalism and it resulted in 17 deaths so far. Is there not some cause for some serious accountability here?

MARTIN WALKER, EDITOR, UNITED PRESS INT’L: Absolutely, but it should have started a long time ago. It should have started back at Gitmo, back at Guantanamo, when we first had the release of, say, the British, the Australian detainees, who came out saying that they had seen copies of the Koran desecrated in front of them. We then had another — the detainee, a man called Moran Koresh (ph). He’s on record in “The New York Times” of last year, in October of last year, saying the Koran was desecrated in front of him. We’ve got a $10 million lawsuit against Donald Rumsfeld in the D.C. district court, right now, alleging the same thing. The desecration story is an old, old one.

What made this one different is something else, Bay.

BUCHANAN: Yes.

WALKER: What made it different was the claim that an official of the administration was confirming it.

BUCHANAN: And, you know, something else made it different, because we know there’s a reason why you all didn’t make a big thing when detainees make accusations. There was no evidence. There was no proof. It was people who had a grudge, making an accusation, which was never been able to be confirmed and no evidence was ever been produced. And, so, then, have you somebody saying somebody on inside told us it happened. They ran it without, without any kind of confirmation of any facts, and they caused the death of 17. Isn’t it time for “Newsweek” to take some responsibility for this awful mistake?

WALKER: I think it’s time for the Western press as a whole to be much more aware of the difficulties of reporting in a world as wide and as close as we are. There was some more deaths the other day in some demonstrations in Pakistan, the result of a cartoon in the “Washington Times” which showed the arrest of one of the al Qaeda officials being carried back by a dog to U.S. soldier who was patting this dog, labeled Pakistan, on the head saying good dog, go get some more. Now, in Islam a dog is a pretty unclean animals. These sensitivities are dynamite in a world as tightly wired as we have today, and we’ve all got to understand that.

BRAZILE: Well, Cliff, let me ask you a question. Michael Isikoff, today, “The New York Times,” he’s a highly respected journalist, someone that everyone knows in this city. He said this, today, in “The New York Times,” he said, “the Pentagon saw the item before it ran and then they don’t move on us until 11 days afterwards. They were as caught off guard by the furor,” as, of course, everyone else. Now, the White House is calling on “Newsweek” to do more. What more can “Newsweek” do?

CLIFF MAY, FMR RNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: I don’t think it’s just “Newsweek,” by the way. I think it’s the media in general. You had terrible scandals at “The New York Times,” CBS, obviously, now “Newsweek.” Any other profession in the world — journeymen welders — would be deep in self-examination if not self-criticism now but the media simply refused to do that. It’s all somebody else’s fault. They should’ve told us.

The media, I think, are in crisis right now and it’s time the media started to look at what they were doing. This case was terrible reporting. One guy, his memory vague, source — they showed something to somebody else. He didn’t pick it up. They didn’t say, is this right? We don’t want to run it if it’s not right. I think it’s just — I think — look, I think it’s dreadful on their part. By the way, I also have to say this, when the Taliban blew up the ancient Buddhist statues in Afghanistan, Buddhists didn’t go around killing people. When Maplethorpe did “Piss Christ,” Christians didn’t go around killing people. When we see American flags burned, we don’t go around killing people. Most Muslims don’t do this. Most — and this is not part of the Islam but radical Islamism is constantly looking for a way to make people hate America.

And, by the way, of course the Pentagon should know that. Of course, the State Department should know that, and of course, “Newsweek” and the media should know that, and they should understand that’s the environment they live in and not simply do what they do, which is say, this fits into our general narrative about this awful administration. We can go with it.

BRAZILE: But the last three general mobs (ph) …

MARTIN: That — you — that dog won’t hunt…

MAY: Don’t talk about dogs today.

MARTIN: You can’t — you can’t get away with saying a blanket condemnation of the media as being critical of the Bush administration when even “Le Monde” in France is saying was George Bush right? I mean, the whole narrative that I’ve been seeing in the world media over the last three months has been people saying, well, look at this — elections in Iraq, elections in Afghanistan. Just this week in Kuwait, people voting to give women the vote, one of the first times in the Arab world. It looks as though a kind of avalanche of some kind is building out there.

MAY: What you’re — maybe what you are seeing…

(CROSSTALK)

MAY: …if I may, people are swinging the pendulum but the media has to be wary of the pendulum going too far in this direction or too far in this direction, because that doesn’t mean it’s right here.

BUCHANAN: You know, Martin, this is my problem.

WALKER: It’s not balanced.

BUCHANAN: My problem is this. You know, you all want to talk about these other things that might be related, but we have a situation here, where, if indeed “Newsweek” isn’t challenged and really criticized by the rest of the media, then you are accepting the fact that you can just go with a story with one weak source who’s anonymous, of all things. Isn’t the standard of journalism — shouldn’t that be much, much higher if you wish to call yourselves professionals?

WALKER: Listen, I mean, the reporters who work for me would be delighted if people in the Pentagon and this administration would go on the record. We’re only…

(APPLAUSE)

BUCHANAN: If you don’t have it, you don’t have it.

WALKER: We accept, reluctantly, off-the-record sources because that’s what the politicians themselves rely upon.

BRAZILE: Dana Priest made that some observation today in “The Wall Street Journal” when she said, look, we’re forced to go to anonymous sources, and the administration actually encourages us to do that, so you can’t blame it…

MAY: But let me…

BRAZILE: …on these reporters when the administration is basically saying, go off the record.

CLIFF: But reporters have to recognize, not all anonymous sources are created equal. You have to say, does this person know what he’s talking about or not? Is this person telling me the truth or does this person have an agenda, and is this a fact I can check? Just because somebody from the administration tells you something, doesn’t mean it’s gospel truth.

BRAZILE: That’s true. Look where we are now in those country. Look, but General Myers, last week…

MAY: Sometimes the media only believes the anonymous sources. If the president says it, they think it’s a lie!

BRAZILE: Well, look, last week General Myers, and he’s part of the administration — he said that this recent wave of violence had nothing to do with this article. So, I mean, so who is right? Is this Scott McClellan who’s saying that this caused the violence or is it General Myers who said, this is not the source of the violence right now?

MAY: It’s not right to go with one anonymous source without any backing, and to say, look — and after that, I don’t care. If that were — that is not good journalism, and it’s worse (INAUDIBLE) to say if that is good journalism. They should say is, in this case, we didn’t meet our standard.

WALKER: Gosh…(INAUDIBLE)

BRAZILE: Hold your thought. Hold your thought. We’ll be right back.

WALKER: (INAUDIBLE) …had followed that rule when they were going for Clinton…

BRAZILE: Oh, thank you, there we go. They broke the rules on that one, too.

When we come back, why one Congressman thinks the White House has no business being mad at “Newsweek.”

And a British lawmaker lashes out at U.S. senators. Wolf Blitzer tells us right now, right after the break. Thank you.

BUCHANAN: It’s going to take more than an angry letter to the editor to fix the mess that “Newsweek” is in. Still in the “Crossfire,” Martin Walker, editor of United Press International, and Cliff May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

BRAZILE: Cliff, yesterday, Congressman Ney of Ohio basically said “Newsweek” perhaps did something criminal when they put this story out. Now John Conyers from Michigan put out a statement earlier today and sent the letter to the White House saying it is ironic that this administration can go around and claim that a newspaper is inciting violence when the White House, of course, led us to War in Iraq using faulty intelligence, error, misjudgments, et cetera.

I mean, is the White House overreaching in what they are trying to now do in setting a new standard of how you cover this administration?

CLIFF MAY, PRESIDENT, FOUNDATION FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES: Look, if they suggested that it was criminal behavior, I disagree. If anybody is suggesting the press be censored or restricted or manipulated, I don’t want to see any of that sort of thing happen.

We also have to understand this sort of thing, that Al Qaeda trains its people that if you get captured, make allegations. Why? Because the allegations will be repeated. And those allegations will be published and broadcast. They will be broadcast here, Al Jazeera. And they will do damage.

Journalists should not be manipulated or let themselves be manipulated by the administration. Neither should they let themselves be manipulated by the terrorists. And that is happening. It’s happening in this instance and happening in Iran and Iraq and other places.

BUCHANAN: Martin, you know, the First Amendment allows the press great power, and obviously responsibility goes with that.

And in the Second Amendment, we have a right to bear arms. If I have arms in my home, if I have guns in the home and I am irresponsible in taking precautions to keep them safe and 17 people die as a result, my response would be, “I obviously made some mistakes and I’m working on improvement,” as was “Newsweek,” wouldn’t the press be all over this story as an outrage that this could have possibly happened?

MARTIN WALKER, EDITOR, UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL: Bay, the difference is you can’t call a bullet back. On the whole, you can do something about a story that is wrong. You can retract it. You can apologize. The press has to do that because we are human creatures. We aren’t perfect.

The danger about this thing is to try to say that — and this has been so knocked down by several Pentagon officials — to try to say that there is a direct cause with this particular report and the demonstrations that took place.

I think what happened is that some people in Pakistan, in Saudi Arabia — you’re absolutely right: There are some very skillful Al Qaeda people, provocateurs who will take advantage of this thing. They will seize upon any kind of lever they can to exploit this.

BUCHANAN: But “Newsweek” was not careful in its reporting and that gave them the tool to do this.

BRAZILE: The story has been out for almost a year.

BUCHANAN: Not the same story. They have no evidence whatsoever. And “Newsweek” ran as if it was going to be in a military report confirming it.

WALKER: We had the story (inaudible) a single paragraph. They put it up to the guy in the Pentagon who took it around to one of his top sources who said: Yes, I have seen this. Now it then turns out that maybe he retracted it or said: Maybe I didn’t see it.

MAY: “Yes, I have seen this,” is not the same as “I know that it happened.” Look, what “Newsweek” did what the media has been doing calls for self-criticism. But the only people responsible for the killing are the people who did the killing.

BRAZILE: OK. Well, thank you guys. Thank you all.