RE: Jon Stewart v. Ted Koppel

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, Adam Miller wrote:

> (I think this is the first time I've heard a member of the media
> establishment ever acknowledge the link between not questioning the line
> given to you by authority and the "credibility and gravitas" JS mentions -
> even though it seems painfully obvious to most of the people I know)

[It get's worse.  Amy Goodman also talked with Ted Koppel, last week:]

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think that the ABC and the other networks should
apologize for providing an uncritical forum for the administration to lay
out their unsubstantiated claims of weapons of mass destruction?

TED KOPPEL: I am glad you phrased your question so nicely. No, I don't
think an apology is due if what you are saying is could we all have been
more critical? I think the answer is yes. I must tell you, I am going to
be responsive in behalf of Nightline over which I do have some control. We
did do a 90-minute town hall meeting, the title of which was Why Now? and
the essence of which was: Where is the evidence that there's an immediate
danger to the United States? Did we do enough programs like that? I
concede we did not. But that's a function of perhaps incompetence on my
part, but certainly not ill will and I will try and do better the next
time, but I don't think I need to apologize for it.

AMY GOODMAN: A study of the two weeks around Colin Powell giving his
address at the U.N. for war looked at the four major nightly news casts
ABC, CBS, and NBC and the PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer. Of the 393
interviews done around war, only three were with anti-war representatives.
Now this was at a time when about half of the population was opposed to
the invasion wanting more inspections and diplomacy. So that did not
reflect mainstream America at all.

TED KOPPEL: No, but I, you know, where is it written that it is a
journalist's responsibility to go check the polls every day and see what
mainstream America wants them to do?

AMY GOODMAN: No. But three of almost 400 interviews were anti-war
representatives? That is so skewed to the pro-war voice.

TED KOPPEL: Right. I agree with you. But I must ask you in return, what
was, you know, what would you have looked to for evidence that there were
no weapons of mass destruction? There was evidence in 1998 that those
weapons of mass destruction, not only existed, but were present in, just
let me finish the plot--not only existed, but were present in Iraq. It did
not make logical sense that Saddam Hussein, whose armies had been defeated
once before by the United States and the Coalition, would be prepared to
lose control over his country if all he had to do was say all right, U.N.,
come on in, check it out, I will show you, give you whatever evidence you
want to have, let you interview whomever you want to interview. Logically
at that time, it seemed as though weapons of mass destruction--did I
believe at the time that there were weapons of mass destruction?
Absolutely, I did.

AMY GOODMAN: Well let me look at September 2002. Bush and Blair have they
are news conference at Camp David. They say an I.A.E. report has just come
out that alleges that Saddam Hussein will get nuclear weapons within six
months.

TED KOPPEL: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: This was six month away before the invasion.

TED KOPPEL: Sure.

AMY GOODMAN: Almost no mainstream reporter in this country reported, there
was no such report.

TED KOPPEL: I can take you back to 1990 for example when the evidence from
the CIA was that there was no indication that the Iraqis had any kind of a
nuclear program. After the war, they found all kinds of evidence.

AMY GOODMAN: But they were citing an IAE report that didn't exist. Then
what about the son-in-law of Saddam Hussein? He said, he was quoted
repeatedly by the press when they like what had he said. When he was
anti-establishment, when he said we have no--we destroyed the weapons of
mass destruction after the Gulf War, then the press did not pick up on
this. I mean--if these kinds of issues were the voices they would cite for
other issues.

TED KOPPEL: I am saying to you-- I mean we can go around this as often as
you like.

AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask a bigger question.

TED KOPPEL: Well if you are going to let me answer the first one before
you ask me the next one.

AMY GOODMAN: Okay.

TED KOPPEL: I am saying to you that it did not make any sense that Saddam
Hussein would run the risk of being overthrown; of losing all the power
that he had, if, indeed, in 2003 he had no weapons of mass destruction.
Why in the heaven's name did he not permit the kinds of inspections and
the kinds of interviews that would have demonstrated that to the world's
satisfaction? I am not seeing that now I believe there were weapons of
mass destruction immediately before the war. But I can understand why our
leaders and why many of us in the media were inclined to believe that at
the time.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you support the network's policy, ABC and the others, of
splitting military officials--

TED KOPPEL: Don't, we will do two more--having asked for one question, you
are now in yourself ent.

AMY GOODMAN: And then I will give you a book as a reward.

TED KOPPEL: Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you support the networks policy, including ABC's, of
putting retired generals, other military officials on the payroll, yet not
putting peace activists on the payroll?

TED KOPPEL: Yes, I do.

AMY GOODMAN: Why?

TED KOPPEL: I do. Because I think there's a certain level of expertise
that comes with having been, for example, a four-star general where we
have Richard Clark, let's say, is one of our paid consultants on ABC. I
wish that we could go back to the days of, I guess about 10, 15 years ago,
when it was network policy that we didn't pay anybody to come on and
express his or her point of view. Unfortunately, we live in such a
competitive environment that everybody now expects to be paid. Why should
a peace advocate expect to be paid for expressing a point of view without
any--I mean if you are talking about someone who has extraordinary
expertise, in a particular area, but you would have to be a little more
specific about who, for example you had in mind.

AMY GOODMAN: The Pentagon would put out their point of view for free. Why
pay one side? Because more often than not the generals are commenting on
whether or not we need to go from air war to ground troops moving in...

TED KOPPEL: Once a general, I mean my experience has been that once a
general is out of uniform and no longer in the Pentagon, is he a little
more free to discuss aspects of a policy than he was when he was within
the pentagon. But if what you are saying to me is do I wish we know longer
paid experts at all? You bet. I think everybody ought to come on
television for free the way I've just done for you. All right?

AMY GOODMAN: But when you keep these kind of commentators on a regular
basis, you end up with a pro-war--they are continually doing the play by
play and you don't have the--

TED KOPPEL: On the contrary. I think for example, and he's not within of
our paid expert, but you have Wesley Clarke who quite clearly has opposed
the war over the past few months.

AMY GOODMAN: Not quite clearly before the invasion.

TED KOPPEL: Not quite clearly before the invasion. But again, I mean it's
not necessarily always true. But because someone is a four-star or was a
four-star general, that he opposes or supports war.

AMY GOODMAN: But three of almost 400 interviews done around war being
pro-war, that's a serious problem.

TED KOPPEL: As you told me.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Ted Koppel of ABC's Nightline just outside the Fleet
Center.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/29/1434224
_______________________________________________
heads mailing list
[email protected]
http://ballistichelmet.org/mailman/listinfo/heads/
http://ballistichelmet.org/donate/