AARON BROWN WAS SO NASTY THAT I HAD TO BLOCK HIS MESSAGES

[volosong]

I thought my original #5 was too sarcastic, so I deleted it and shortened the questions so as not to tax the media's short attention span.

I sent Brown the following questions for Mr. Bush, and he got so irate that I had to put a block on his e-mail [email protected]
He was the most sarcastic fat-head that I've encountered in recent years. And that's saying something because even one FOX vice-president wrote me a polite letter which mostly agreed with my points. P.S. I'm leaving the block on his e-mail.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ASK MR. BUSH

1. Why is it that you claim to be a friend of veterans and yet have proposed so many cuts to programs benefiting veterans including the closure of some V.A. hospitals?
2. If you believe Sen. Kerry's military service was "honorable" and something "about which he should be proud," then why do you refuse to specifically condemn the Swift Boat Veterans? Aren't values more than something to which one gives lip service?
3. Former Sen. Max Cleland left half of his body in Vietnam. Yet when he came to your ranch with a letter signed by 9 other Congressional war heroes, neither you nor any of your immediate aides had the courtesy to accept the letter. Why?
4. The almost 3,000 victims of the WTC attacks did not die for politicians or political parties. How do you justify using images and emotions related to that tragedy for personal political gain?
5. Do you endorse members of the RNC mocking military medals by wearing "purple heart band aids" at the convention? If not, why have you failed to issue a statement denouncing that mockery?
6. Is it not true that you Mr. President have flip flopped on more issues than Senator Kerry such as the 9/11 Commission; on calling for a UN vote on Iraq; on creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security; on a Constitutional amendment on gay marriage; on use of the military for "nation building;" on the issue of tax credits for hybrid automobiles; on extending the assault weapons ban; on steel tariffs; on spending the Social Security surplus; on the patient's right to sue; on the Federal Government's position on tobacco buyout; on disarmament incentives to North Korea; on lobbying OPEC; on the Condoleeza Rice testimony; on your pledge to issue regulation based on science; on the presence of WMD in Iraq; on restricting Free Trade; on the importance of capturing Osama Bin Laden; on mandatory caps on carbon dioxide emissions; on an investigation into intelligence failures in Iraq; summits in the Palestinian crisis; campaign finance; on providing financial support for the First Responders; on military benefits; on who was responsible for the "Mission Accomplished" sign; on the fingerprinting and photographing of Mexicans entering the US; on refusing to pass budget deficits; your positions on stem cells and human embryos; about your support of the Low Income Energy Support Program; your position on abortion; on racial profiling; on describing success of US objectives in Iraq.
7. Specifically addressing your Flip Flops, which of your recent comments about the war in Iraq and terrorism is really your belief: Mission Accomplished, Mission Miscalculated, Mission Impossible, or the latest, Mission Possible?
8. How do you justify the budget cuts for veterans benefits at precisely the time you are ramping up the military for permanent war?
9. Where are the WMD? Would you still go to war knowing that there were no WMD?
10. 45 million people lack health coverage. Do you think basic health care is an American right? Health care costs have gone ballistic during your Administration. Why haven't you made health care more affordable?
11. "I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things." (June 4, 2003). Recently, you admitted mistakes in Iraq. Don't you think being more analytical, deliberate, and "sensitive" to the intricacies of international politics might promote US success and national security?
12. You are quoted as saying, "When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive." (Sept. 19, 2001). Then why are Americans still dying in Iraq so long after you declared "Mission Accomplished?"
13. "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." (Sept. 29, 2000). Then why are millions of fish now dying in our lakes and streams? Why are there warnings in many states advising people not to ingest fish because of the dangers of mercury poisoning from industrial pollution?
14. "As you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say." (Oct. 28, 2003). When was the last time that you spoke before an audience that wasn't exclusively "invited guests?"
15. "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." (Aug. 5, 2004). Do you really believe that policy is really beneficial?
16. On Aug 22, 2002 you proposed deforestation as a means to combat forest fires. ("We need to understand if you let kindling build up and there's a lightning strike, you're going get yourself a big fire.") Isn't your support for deforestation actually pandering to logging and timber financial interests? If not, do you think that we should test your theory by setting experimental fires in certain areas of Texas?
17. Sen. Kerry challenged you to run a positive campaign on current issues. In 2001 you said, "It is time to set aside the old partisan bickering and finger-pointing and name-calling." Do you think the RNC and your current campaign are consistent with your prior statements? Do you specifically endorse and share Zell Miller's hateful and divisive comments?

[Stephanie]

1. Please post Brown's reply

We'd like to see it.

[Goldmund]

2. Indeed.

[volosong]

4. I WAS SO MAD I ERASED THEM YESTERDAY

I SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT. BUT I WAS HORRIFIED SINCE I HAD THOUGHT HIM A GENTLEMAN AND NOT A SNOT SHOOTER.

PERHAPS I WAS OVER-REACTING, BUT I DIDN'T THINK HE SHOULD HAVE REFERRED TO MY QUESTIONS AS "SILLY."

HE SHOULD HAVE KEPT HIS MOUTH SHUT IF HE COULDN'T BE NICE, AND HE WAS DEFINITELY NOT NICE.

[ClassWarrior]

7. They should still be in your trash folder.

Cut out the all caps, please.

[BlueEyedSon]

3. Why shouldn't he be irate? You called him out on his absolute and

total failure to DO HIS JOB.

[Dhalgren]

5. Excellent questions!

Very well put! How was Brown nasty to you?

[Hornito]

6. Great questions. Exactly what did Brown say?

n/t

[Ganja Ninja]

8. So where's the fat head's reply?

I'll never forget Brown's reaction during the 9/11 attacks. He and his co-whores were standing on a roof somewhere in Manhattan while the towers were still burning and he had a great big grin on his face. I looked at that and I thought, What the hell is wrong with this idiot?

[Democrat 4 Ever]

14. Aaron Brown

If you read Brown's bio on CNN you will see he takes a lot of guidance from BoyGeorge - his bio waxes on and on about how he was on the roof of a building near WTC, etc. He's boosting his career on 3,000 deaths - just like Bushie.

He was, also, a particularly nasty, muckraking "news person" during the Clinton years. Never found a repug hate spewer he didn't allow time on his show to rant. Brown was just aghast, aghast, I say, that a man would get a BJ.

Personally, I think a couple of BJs for Bush, Cheney, Rove, Miller, Gatlin, Brown, hell the whole damn bunch - would help them find something besides hate in deep recesses of their souls. Ugh.

[volosong]

9. I WAS ABLE TO RETRIEVE THE FOLLOWING 2 MESSAGES

1. Gosh why didn't I think of these profound questions?

(Clearly sarcastic since I never used the term "profound.")

I replied to the above by saying that they were so much "profound," as just common sense questions about the Bush Record that anyone of "courage" would ask.

To this he replied,

2. You are right about the profound. Most aren't even good.

To me this is a silly discussion


SO THE GUY SAYS I AM BASICALLY STUPID AND SILLY. GUESS HE IS ENTITLED TO HIS OPINION, BUT MANNERS HE LACKS ENTIRELY

[Catherine Vincent]

10. Are you sure it was Aaron Brown?

it could have been one of his assistants, I'm surprised he has time to respond and send emails.

[quaoar]

12. I'd guess

that it was an assistanat also.

[Arugula Latte]

19. I got a nasty e-mail from Brown, too.

The tone was very condescending and snippy. If it's not him, he's got an assistant with a bug up his/her butt. It's very contrary to the regular-mild-mannered-reasonable guy act he puts on.

[PA Democrat]

11. Hi Volosong. I think I saved my emails from Aaron

They would be on an old computer. If I find them I will post.

Aaron Brown is thin-skinned. Perhaps he feels guilty.

[carolinayellowdog]

13. Bonnie Anderson regrets hiring him

She notes in her book News Flash that he makes $2 million per year, as does Paula Zahn. She refers to him as "a journalist I'd always respected and first brought to the attention of CNN executives (for better or worse, in retrospect.)" She goes on to comment about a promo in which "Brown himself appeared on the screen inviting viewers to tune into his newscast `for a unique perspective on the news.' It didn't mention that the very same program that CNN promoted as `opinionated' in other countries was apparently not opinionated here. But it sure would offer a `unique perspective' on the news. If news is reported properly, fairly, and in a balanced manner, can it truly be unique?" (p. 154)

What a prima donna. I'd forward the nastygrams to his superior. Not a first time offender, as he had MWO in an uproar a couple of years ago for the very same snotty behavior.

CYD

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[carolinayellowdog]

17. This is a personal attack

worthy of an alert

[Merlin]

29. Maybe so. Make the most of it. But answer my points. n/t

.

[mzmolly]

18. I totally agree. Brown is one of the good guys, there are many others

deserving our venom, he's not one of them.

[papau]

26. I agree - Brown is one of the good guys - albeit thinskinned - & his wit

is not clear in an email.

But I would not flame him.

[PA Democrat]

24. Sorry, I didn't read his post that way at all

Personally, I think that Mr. Brown like the vast majority of TV "journalists" are more concerned about their ratings than anything else.

If they were really doing their jobs:

1. George Bush would NEVER have been elected president.
2. We would not have young men and women dying in Iraq

If the media will not police themselves, then we have an obligation to call them out.

[Merlin]

27. I use common sense to weed out phonies.

And this story completely defies common sense.

If the poster is articulate enough to create that list of questions, then he/she is also smart enough to actually remember Brown's supposed response and to repeat them here.

Also, anybody who types in all caps is not savvy enough to create a list of questions like that on their own player piano.

[PA Democrat]

33. I had a similar experience with Aaron Brown

I have posted my correspondence with him below in its entirety. Brown responded to me TWICE. (Oops! Sorry about the caps- I don't want to be called a phony.)

[Merlin]

35. Are you saying his response was "SO NASTY THAT I HAD TO BLOCK IT" ?

I don't agree at all. Brown answered you honestly and honorably. My further comments are below also.

[PA Democrat]

41. I meant "similar" in that he was insulting

He implied I was a mindless drone taking orders from Will Pitt.

I guess we will have to disagree in our assessment of Aaron Brown as a journalist. In all honesty, at times, I find him refreshing, and at others an extreme disappointment, most especially during the lead-up to the Iraq war.

[Catt03]

16. Had the same experience a couple of years back

he is very thin skinned. Takes everything personal.

I just stopped writing to him....it can go on and on; he doesn't communicate; he defends, even if it is a compliment.

[Generic Other]

20. He called Will Pitt in a drunken fit of rage over Scott Ritter

The guy is a psycho. And his teeth are too white.

[gulfcoastliberal]

22. Do you have the details of the incident?

Why was he pissed at Will? Because Will published the truth when Brown was in full-on war whore cheerleader mode? Sounds interesting, please do tell.

[PA Democrat]

28. See Aaron's mention of Will in his email to me below

He basically accused me of sending my critique of his coverage because I had received some type of "marching orders" from Will Pitts. At that time, I had never heard of Will.

[PA Democrat]

21. My Correspondence w/ Aaron Brown. This was Jan 2003

-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 7:57 AM
To: [email protected]
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)

[dennis4868]

30. How does this man have so....

much time to respond to all these emails?

[Merlin]

31. I find this to be a perfecly legitimate, honorable exchange of views.

I do not consider Brown one of the problems. He's not with us all the time, but he's not against us all the time, either.

To me, he is among the most conscientious of TV talking heads, and his astute responses to your astute questions prove that.

Good work, PA Dem

[PA Democrat]

37. I don't want any journalist to be on *OUR* side

I want them to be on the side of truth.

Please compare the journalistic "standards" applied to the recent swift boat veterans group's smears. There were reported ad nauseum by everyone without any verification of the facts. However, even Aaron Brown admits in his correspondence that he did not report on George W. Bush's scandalous past because he could not VERIFY the story.

That is a double standard.

I don't want slant. I want truth, because if most Americans got the truth, we would not be in the mess we are today.

[Merlin]

38. Wait a minute! How is it a double standard? What did BROWN say about SBVT?

That's the measure. He doesn't represent the whole media. The question is what did HE do on HIS show.

As I recall, he was extremely tough on the Swift Boat LIARS. He presented them as what they are, political smear artists.

[PA Democrat]

40. I am glad to hear that he was tough on the swift boat guys

I admit I am guilty of not watching all of his coverage. But here is another side to Mr. Brown:

Kennedy was recently scheduled to be on Aaron Brown's show, "CNN Presents." The appearance was cancelled, however, because they didn't want any "Bush-bashing," Kennedy said.

Another time, he was scheduled to be on Bill O'Reilly's " The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox. They requested that Kennedy do a pre-interview to see if he could actually do an interview without bashing the president. That appearance was cancelled, also.

"The media is controlling the flow of information," Kennedy said.

Kennedy is currently traveling around the country speaking on Sen. John Kerry's behalf in order to get his views on environmental issues known.

http://www.tnhonline.com/news/2003/12/12/News/Robert.Kennedy.Jr.Shows.Support.Of.Senator.Kerry-576891.shtml

Why not allow Robert Kennedy Jr. to make his claims about Bush's environmental record and debunk them if they are not true? He did allow the Swiftboat veterans to do the same IIRC.

[Catt03]

39. My response

from Debbie Sauders, SFChronicle in re her defense of the Republican convention on Hardball this week and she said tht I was a "typical, over reacting liberal."

I was rather insulted.}(

[omshanti]

34. "belive"? "usuable"? "later" not "latter"?

does this guy have spell check? you'd think Aaron Brown would know how to spell usable, or the difference between "later" and "latter", but then again, I've seen worse typos on the CNN ticker. Maybe the same person who does the ticker answered your email?

[gulfcoastliberal]

42. Great emails to Brown!

What a prick. He knows damn well CNN skews coverage to the right - and admits he was a Clenis attack dog. Fuck em all.

[grasswire]

23. maybe what we should do...

...is email someone else at CNN and "warn" them that someone is using aaron brown's email to send out sarcastic and nasty mail to viewers. Obviously, Mr. Brown being such a thoughtful and well-mannered person, the words couldn't be coming from him. Rigghht?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

25. With all due respect

your list is too long, too partisan, and I could see how someone could describe a few of them as silly (original list).

However, please don't interpret this comment as a sign that I have any respect for AB.

[wwbarnes]

36. I Agree

Those questions were Democratic talking points. There was no need to send a whole list when the message was much simpler, i.e., "I think you're biased toward Bush."

[Clinton Crusader]

32. Ive gotten similar from Anderson Cooper

I called him on some condescending thing he said about the election, the statement so skewed as to make Kerry/Dems look foolish and shrub look like a fucking god, he sent me email after email after email.

After I got maybe 4, I just replied saying :LMAO: truth hurts, rich boy?

He's GLORIA VANDERBILT'S son, y'know..

Then blocked him. As mentioned here, Ive gotten politer responses from Faux.
:kick:

[autorank]

43. Help is on the way -- Gore's network is gearing up--Dems will switch

Just imagine the wonderful feeling we will have when CNN's best prime time shows go from .6 million to .2 million. HAHAHAHA. Fuck them and the elephant they rode in on.