Webruary
07-29-2005, 08:17 AM
How the Mainstream Media Created Rovegate (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1453105/posts)
<SMALL>Accuracy in Media ^ (http://www.freerepublic.com/^http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/3876_0_2_0_C)| July 28, 2005 | Cliff Kincaid</SMALL>
In a July 17 story, Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen of the Washington Post had to admit, in recapping White House statements about the Valerie Plame case, that White House spokesman Scott McClellan was usually careful to disavow involvement "in any illegal leak, though his public statements clearly left an impression of a White House aloof to the affair."
This is the key to understanding White House statements about the case and the reported White House role. If you read the transcripts of McClellan's briefings, it is clear that McClellan had denied a White House role in a criminal disclosure of classified information.
But in order to make it seem that the White House was not leveling with the American people or that it was caught in a contradiction, reporters at press briefings misrepresented the McClellan position as one that had denied any White House involvement at all in even mentioning or discussing the case with journalists.
But that's of course ridiculous. Officials leak information all the time and many journalists rely on that information. The issue is whether officials were involved in an illegal leak of information. But when McClellan then took the stand that he would not comment any more on the case because of the ongoing investigation, members of the White House press corps descended like sharks in the water, creating the impression that there was a cover-up.
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org (http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/3876_0_2_0_C) ...
<SMALL>Accuracy in Media ^ (http://www.freerepublic.com/^http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/3876_0_2_0_C)| July 28, 2005 | Cliff Kincaid</SMALL>
In a July 17 story, Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen of the Washington Post had to admit, in recapping White House statements about the Valerie Plame case, that White House spokesman Scott McClellan was usually careful to disavow involvement "in any illegal leak, though his public statements clearly left an impression of a White House aloof to the affair."
This is the key to understanding White House statements about the case and the reported White House role. If you read the transcripts of McClellan's briefings, it is clear that McClellan had denied a White House role in a criminal disclosure of classified information.
But in order to make it seem that the White House was not leveling with the American people or that it was caught in a contradiction, reporters at press briefings misrepresented the McClellan position as one that had denied any White House involvement at all in even mentioning or discussing the case with journalists.
But that's of course ridiculous. Officials leak information all the time and many journalists rely on that information. The issue is whether officials were involved in an illegal leak of information. But when McClellan then took the stand that he would not comment any more on the case because of the ongoing investigation, members of the White House press corps descended like sharks in the water, creating the impression that there was a cover-up.
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org (http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/3876_0_2_0_C) ...