CNN, Kurtz derided as "ludicrous" the "Democratic" notion that Bush timed

[steve2470]

Supreme Court nomination to distract from Rove scandal (headline)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507200003

Reporting on President Bush's July 19 nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to the Supreme Court, various CNN correspondents derided as "ludicrous" and "overwrought" the suggestion -- often attributed solely to "Democrats" or "liberals" -- that the White House may have accelerated the nomination to divert media attention from the scandal surrounding White House senior adviser Karl Rove. In fact, news reports suggest the White House did accelerate the nomination to distract the media, and both Republicans and Democrats have suggested that the nomination was moved up to shift focus away from Rove. Many Republicans were reportedly happy the White House was "changing the subject."

Rove was recently implicated in the outing of former CIA operative Valerie Plame.

CNN's chief national correspondent John King twice belittled the idea that the White House moved up the nomination to divert attention from Rove. On the July 19 edition of CNN's Inside Politics, King said, "It is ludicrous to think that the president of the United States would rush a decision simply to change the subject." Later, on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, King said, "The idea that they said, 'Oh my God, we're in trouble because of Karl Rove; we need to rush this' -- I think that's a bit of a stretch." CNN senior analyst Jeff Greenfield similarly brushed off the notion on the July 19 edition of CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports, saying: "I think we're being a little bit overwrought in thinking that this is a clever move to get Karl Rove off the front page."

Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz, who also hosts CNN's Reliable Sources, and CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux implied that Democrats and liberals were alone in suggesting that the White House had moved the nomination forward. In his July 20 "Media Notes" column (via Nexis*), Kurtz wrote: "The prime-time maneuver also neutralized the blogosphere, although liberals were convinced it was all a plot to knock Karl Rove and the CIA leak story off the front pages." On the July 19 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, Malveaux said: "Well, what the Democrats are suggesting is that perhaps this information is coming out to take Rove and the CIA leak investigation off the front pages of the newspapers."

<snip>

[Cocoa]

1. liberal media at work

it's funny the liberal media sounds more like Bush partisans than objective journalists, let alone "liberal media."

[Pithy Cherub]

2. The Combover prattles on

being the support hose for the WH once again.:eyes:

[halobeam]

3. The day before, Bush was asked/told in a conference

that he was close to making his decision. Bush replied (paraphrasing here).. LOL, I am? That's news to me.

Well the next night, he suddenly decided? Either he decided overnight, which is scary enough, or he lied right there and knew who it was.

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. However, the fact is its obvious that he moved it forward.

Whether they want to admit it is another story.

[blm]

5. How many Republicans said Clinton bombed Afghani terror camps to divert

attention from Monica Lewinsky?

Did King, Kurtz and the rest of CNN charge them with being "ludicrous" back then?

[writes2000]

6. Many and I mean MANY Republican talking heads claimed that was the motive!

[jrthin]

7. These statements

exemplify why msm has no credibility. These statements makes clear why journalists should have no special privilege, as they'll only use it to further the aim of the establishment and not further the aim of the common person.

[indepat]

8. Liberals are not only ludicrous and overwrought to think Repugs would time

any action for political purposes, but demented too.

[Stirk]

9. Yes, it's ludicrous to think that the Bush Administration would

put media spin ahead of duty.

Right, Mr. Rove?

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[Fiona]

12. Hopefully, duunreal

your brief stay will allow you to answer some questions....

How and when did she "out" herself? Can you tell us exactly which dates bracket her time as an "operative"? You guys seem to KNOW with certainty what her official status was. Can you tell us how you know?

As for Rove, is a criminal conviction the bare minimum it takes to lose a job in the Bush administration? Is unethical or immoral behavior not enough to warrant losing a job? I already know the answer to this one, but I'd like to see a right-winger defend it.

[Al-CIAda]

13. See ya...

:+ :spray:

[writes2000]

14. Rove Discussed Classified Info w/a Reporter & Lied About It.

He shared secret information about the CIA in an incredibly irresponsible, potentially criminal way.

HE THEN LIED ABOUT IT. To the American people. To the press. And quite possibly to the President himself.

If the safety of our country (and those that fight for us) is supposed to be the number one priority for this Administration, how, how, how could they betray us so recklessly and ask us to stay silent about it now?

[applegrove]

11. Has any nominee ever been "named" over the summer. You know -

when the government's business is not at hand?