Letter to Howie Kurtz (re: outrageous "coverage" of Clinton-Wallace)

[pat_k]

To send your own comments: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?25">Feedback Form or [email protected]

Subject: Coverage of Clinton-Wallace Interview

Dear Mr. Kurtz,

Your coverage of the Clinton-Wallace exchange was outrageous.

Your dishonest clip, which edited out the powerful substance of the exchange, did not just fail to convey what happened; the selected fragments constitute the kind of hatchet job one would expect from the FOX News. (For specifics, see "A Closer Look" below.)

It is one thing if President Clinton had been non-responsive, but it is apparently the President's responsiveness in setting the record straight that upset Wallace and prompted him to impatiently and frequently interrupt, at times argumentatively.

During your show you used the terms "overboard" and "flying off the handle" in reference to the President, but you failed to make any reference to Wallace's own badgering and evasions. (I, for one, am still looking for an answer on how many Bush people Wallace has asked "Why didn’t you do anything about the Cole?" or "Why did you fire Dick Clarke?" Perhaps you could investigate that.).

Your repeated question to guests about whether or not an interviewer has a "right" to ask such questions, was a red herring that just supported the lie. Anyone who actually watched the interview knows that no one, and certainly not President Clinton, had a problem with the question.

Perhaps your vague reference to the fact that Clinton did offer a more lengthy response was intended to correct the false picture created by the disgraceful clip. Unfortunately, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Shame on you.

Patty K
Westfield, NJ

cc: Media Matters ([email protected])

--------------- A Closer Look ----------

You selected 20 words of Wallace's 194 word "question" to open your clip. That one sentence fragment made it appear that Wallace asked a simple, direct, question; something that is far from the truth.

The reality is that, in the 135 words of the 194 that followed your selected 20, Wallace piled on and prevented the President from beginning his answer, even though the President repeatedly indicated his willingness to respond.

Your clip then cut to a brief exchange (200 words spoken by Clinton, 45 by Wallace) of retorts that does not contain even a tiny fragment of the President's substantive responses to Wallace's accusations. Since it immediately follows the 20 word question, viewers would assume this clip constitutes the President's response. The reality of the President's response is diametrically opposed to the picture conveyed by this clip.

The clip selected to represent President Clinton's response actually comes after the substance of the exchange (875 words spoken by Clinton, 300 by Wallace) in which the President pointed out the context (the fantasies promoted in "Path to 9/11 and other outlets), and set the record straight (on Somalia, directives to the CIA, and so on), and before the President returns to Wallace's questions/accusations to fully address them (another 730 words spoken by Clinton, and 120 by Wallace).

In the exchange that preceded the selected clip, after Wallace finally allowed Clinton to begin his answer, he only let the President speak 240 words before interrupting, and then never let the President speak more than 190 (fewer words than his original "question") before impatiently interrupting, often interjecting dismissive or argumentative non sequiturs.

Instead of conveying the tone and substance of this exchange -- in which Wallace impatiently interrupts and badgers as President Clinton provides direct and specific answers, and challenges the biases of FOX News -- the fragments you edited together convey the picture of a man who, for no reason whatsoever, is angrily evading an interviewer's direct and simple question.

I say, once again, shame on you.