|
-----Original Message----- From: Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 7:57 AM To: newsnight@turner.com Subject: News Night Comments name: email: zip: view: Negative submitTime: comment: Dear Mr. Brown, I saw your interview of Scott Ritter and I wish that you showed the same zeal and overt pleasure in asking tough questions about our President's past. You know, things like Bush's drunk driving and drug use, his insider trading at Harken, his Enron-like accounting deals at Harken, Enron's involvement with his administration in setting the country's energy policy, etc. Or how about some tough questions demanding proof of Saddam's terrorist links or evidence of weapons of mass destruction which Bush uses to justify a "pre-emptive" war "for the sake of peace".
You eagerly rush to discredit Ritter because of allegations of sexual misconduct, and chose to ignore more important questions that should be answered by Bush.
Your blatant partisanship has no place in a "news" broadcast. Keep referring to those empty warheads as "CHEMICAL" warheads, which by the way have a range of 12 miles. With "newscasters" like you, it's no wonder that more than half of the American public believes that all or some of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqis, and fewer than 20% know that NONE of the hijackers were Iraqis.
Do us a favor and go to work directly for Bush and stop masquarading as an objective newscaster. ***************** Brown's response
Thanks for the note. Do you know anything about my reporting on the Bush DUI stop in Maine that came out during the campaign? No, it is easier to just say things like you've said. Do you know what the program has done on Harken? No, I'm reasonably sure you don't. I do understand that if William Rivers Pitt writes it you do believe it. Ok. Now, on the facts. It wasn't an allegation. He was charged with endangering a child and pled. The case was "dismissed after 6 months of no further bad actions. This is not the story of an innocent man being beaten up by the big bad press. But of course you won't believe that because it hasn't been posted on a web site yet. What has saddened me in the last ten days or so is that so many otherwise smart people see a conspiracy that doesn't exist while chasing windmills they think do. The program is good and honest and honorable. I don't make political decisions and didn't last night. Scott has three times been a guest on the program to talk about Iraq. We were hardly out to get him. I don't expect people with strong political views to enjoy the interview. I do expect them to understand why we did it and why it should have been done and the fairness of our approach. I note that some on one "left leaning web site" did note that and I was pleased. Others, of course just called me a whore. Small progress in civil discourse... a start. I'm sorry you feel the way you do. I'm sure you reacted with equal anger when the Bush DUI story came out. Thanks for taking the time to write. A
******************
My Response
Mr. Brown,
I am so glad that you are so confident that you know that I rely on "some website" for my news source. Actually, I don't read Pitts. I am capable of forming my own opinions from reading a wide variety of printed material including but not limited to a number of newspapers from both sides of the political spectrum. I've voted for candidates from both parties.
I am hardly defending Mr. Ritter. My objection to your interview was your closing remark which was something to the effect that how did Ritter expect anyone to believe anything he said. Did you offer the same type of commentary regarding Bush's refusal to respond to questions regarding his drug use, to his DUI, to his many shady activities at Harken, or to his relationship with Enron's Ken Lay? Not that I can recall, although I'd be happy to read a transcript if I am wrong.
And I did not react in anger when Clinton's sexual indiscretions were first reported in the press. But I do have to wonder over an "objective" press that reported ad nauseam on the Clinton sex scandal, and yet hardly pays lip service to reporting about Harken, and about the Bush administration's cozy relationship with Enron, and their failure to address accounting reform. Just curious, did you ever question Bush's honesty or integrity related to his claim that he was committed to accounting reform? Did you ask how can anyone believe anything Bush says? What about after he slashed the SEC's budget, and allowed Harvey Pitt to remain in control of the SEC, systematically shredding the Sarbanes-Oxley Act?
When I look at my decimated retirement savings, I really wish that the press had paid even half the attention to the hypocrisy of the appointment of Harvey Pitt to head the SEC by Bush, as they did to the shape of Clinton's penis. I'd be willing to bet that you did more stories on the Clinton sex scandal than on Bush's questionable ethics. Ritter's and Clinton's actions offended my sense of morality. I'll get over that. Bush's actions have adversely affected my and many other Americans' finances.
I am hardly one to believe in conspiracy theories. Spare me the Don Quixote metaphor, please. But I do see an appalling reluctance by the media to do the type of real investigative reporting that they once did. Why bother, when a juicy sex scandal will do? And I see an alarming concentration of media control in the hands of a few large corporations which have their own political agendas which don't always jibe with freedom of the press.
According to Reporters without Borders, the US now ranks 17th in freedom of the press. Frankly, I'm not surprised.
"http://www.rsf.fr/article.php3?id_article=4116&var_recherche=ranking"
****************
Brown's Response
If I was wrong on the web site then of course I apologize. I recall a reference to the warheads that is straight out of pitt. But again if this is not so then I apologize. I never said, I ending the interview that no one would belive him. I did say during the interview that as long as this went unaddressed he was radioactive and no one would touch him. I believe that then and now. I have no way of knowing what people will believe or not or even if people belived him before. Mr bush did respond to the maine dui case and voters did what voters do. And while I have seen lots of rumors about drug use I have never seen any credible reporting. I know when I was at abc we had three people working it and got nothing usuable. I'm not in the rumor business. Of course we did Harken and the second budget and on the later I wrote a page two on the duplicty there. As for clinton.. I was tough on him to be sure in pieces I wrote at the time for abc. But enough of this. You believe me unfair and I believe you are wrong. Nothing is going to change your mind. Again thanks for writing. -------------------------- Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld (www.BlackBerry.net)
|