MSNBC devotes ten segments to Clinton "enemies list," despite NYT article's absence of evidence

[DeepModem Mom]

Media Matters for America: Thu, Jun 12, 2008
MSNBC shows great interest in purported Clinton "enemies list," despite NY Times article's absence of on-the-record evidence



Despite reporter Mark Leibovich's inclusion in his June 11 New York Times article of a flat assertion by a Clinton spokesman that "there is no list," despite Leibovich's acknowledgment on-air that "there is not a formal document," and despite the absence in the article of any named source asserting or confirming the existence of a Clinton "enemies list," MSNBC interviewed Leibovich twice on June 11 and devoted at least 10 segments to his article between 6 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET.

Moreover, while Leibovich asserted -- citing three anonymous "Clinton associates and campaign officials" -- that "the lists of people Clinton loyalists regard as some variation of 'ingrate,' 'traitor' or 'enemy'" have "swelled," the term "enemies list" does not actually appear in the Times article. Nor did Leibovich quote any source, named or otherwise, saying that Sen. Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton or their supporters would punish those who did not support Hillary Clinton's campaign. Nonetheless, MSNBC used the caption "'enemies list'" -- in quotes -- at least twice, and Leibovich referred on-air to a "so-called enemies list."

Leibovich quoted no named sources asserting or confirming that the Clintons or their aides keep a list or lists of "enemies." He reported that Doug Band, an aide to Bill Clinton, "keeps close track of the past allies and beneficiaries of the Clintons who supported Mr. Obama's campaign, three Clinton associates and campaign officials said. Indeed, he is widely known as a member of the Clinton inner circle whose memory is particularly acute on the matter of who has been there for the couple -- and who has not. But, according to Leibovich, Band "declined to comment." Leibovich further wrote: "While Mrs. Clinton has a short list of people who disappointed her, Mr. Clinton, who reportedly has an encyclopedic memory of all the people he has helped, employed or appointed over the years, apparently has a far longer one, the campaign officials said." In other words, the Times devoted 860 words, and MSNBC nearly 25 minutes, to the unremarkable disclosure that the Clintons remember who stood by them and who they think did not.

Moreover, the Times quoted only one named source stating any consequences of this memory -- and that consequence was positive.

Leibovich wrote:

"The Clintons get hundreds of requests for favors every week," said Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign. "Clearly, the people you're going to do stuff for in the future are the people who have been there for you." Mr. McAuliffe, who knows of Mr. Band's diligent scorekeeping, emphasized that "revenge is not what the Clintons are about." The accounting is more about being practical, he said, adding, "You have to keep track of this." According to McAuliffe, as quoted in the article, the Clintons want to remember who are "the people who have been there for you" because they are "the people you're going to do stuff for in the future."...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200806120009?f=h_latest

[gateley]

1. I'm not sure why this is "NEWS!"

It's stupid.

[DeepModem Mom]

2. I didn't post this in Late Breaking News; I posted it in this quiet little forum...

Politics and Campaigns. Sorry if it offended you. You might have just skipped clicking the link.

I have an interest in media, especially in fairness and accuracy in media, and this interested me. If you looked over my posts, I assure you, you would find me posting links correcting inaccuracies in the media about the Obamas also, and all Democrats.

[gateley]

5. Why are you reacting that way?

My post wasn't a criticism of YOU, it was a criticism media coverage. And the media coverage indicates they are treating this as NEWS.

:shrug:

[DeepModem Mom]

6. Please accept my apology! I thought we were back to primary wars!

I see what you mean now, and I agree. I didn't even look to see who was posting before I responded. I'm sorry, gateley.

:pals:

[gateley]

7. It's okay --

when I went back and re-read it, I could see how you would have taken it the way you did.

One of the pitfalls of "talking" online. I don't think we have the right emoticon to express what my intent was. I should have been more clear.

:pals:

[DJ13]

3. The story (real or not) reflects how the Clintons operated when Bill was President

Its not out of the question that they still operate that way now.

And seriously, who would expect anyone still well connected to the Clintons to admit there was a list if it exists?

Thats silly.

[Cha]

10. Right..they're gonna say..

"yeah, we have a list and you're on it."

[LisaM]

4. Calling it (if it even exists) an "Enemies list" is a clear attempt

to link it to Nixon and his enemies list, which was pretty nefarious, and which he used to overreach his governmental power and wreak revenge on those he didn't like.

[xchrom]

8. call it the Clenis Reflex.

if it's about the clitnons -- and it's bad -- then media outlets will make hay with it -- regardless of accuracy.

[question everything]

9. MSNBC, and Cafferty, and the Newsweek crowd that visit Olbermann

are afraid that without bashing the Clintons they would become irrelevant. Out of a job.

The more they continue to trash the Clintons, the smaller they are. This is why I keep saying that Olbermann, for example, is a mirror image of O'Reily. One does not have to watch either to know what will be said, with a lot of hot wind and self indignation.