CNN's Jamie McIntyre... "Ray McGovern 'claims' to be retired CIA agent."

[Flubadubya]

Did anyone else catch that on Anderson Cooper's show? When talking about the Rumsfeld/McGovern confrontation, McIntyre said that McGovern "claims" to be a retired CIA agent. I should think that McIntyre knows goddamned well that McGovern is who he says he is. Why did he have to say that?

This kind of blatant innuendo and smear tactic is simply outrageous. They will stop at nothing to prop up this rotting regime and attack anyone who dares confront their lies and fraud. Damn these media whores! :grr::mad::argh:

[MADem]

1. It could be that they are being slimers, or it could mean that they did

not pick up the phone, call the CIA and verify the fact personallly. So they took the easy way out. CNN has had some major fact checking issues in the past, so perhaps they are being overly careful.

[shadowknows69]

2. No, if they aren't checking sources as usual

they're being overly lazy and unethical.

[Flubadubya]

3. But it's not like this is the first time McGovern has popped up...

and probably not the first time McIntyre has commented on him. Ray McGovern has come to be known as a player in the anti-war movement. I'll bet you that CNN (and McIntyre) have a complete dossier on the man. Again, I very much doubt that McIntyre did not know McGovern's bona fides here. I believe he did it on purpose just to make him look less credible. Sorry, I'm not willing to give the ass hat an excuse. Moreover, if he really did not know the truth about McGovern's past position, then he is an incompetent reporter. Period.

[MADem]

7. Certainly, but the story was hot, and if he was doing any vetting and

couldn't get an answer as to the specific job description and title of the individual in question before going on the air, that's one way to handle it.

I'm not saying the guy is unbiased, I am simply putting the scenario out there as one possibility for the language.

The best way to handle reporters that appear to be handing out horseshit is to change the channel...

[marions ghost]

21. beg to differ

the best way to handle reporters who appear to be handing out horseshit is not to 'change the channel.'

The best way is to fill their network inbox with specific complaints about the inaccuracy and bias of the reporting.

No way is this acceptable. Use of the word "claims" in this context is an inexcusable putdown--quite intentional as it is too easy to verify. "Claims" pointedly suggests that anything McGovern says is suspect. It is an outrageous journalistic slam. We have to call them on it. Email now:

:nuke: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/cnntv/

[MADem]

22. Do what pleases you

The cables know their target audience, they play to them, but if you think you'll change CNN with email complaints, best of luck to you.

[NavyDavy]

30. That is how the repugs get things chgd, email campaigns.......

yes if people stick with it, it does work......

[ContraBass Black]

35. Welcome.

[marions ghost]

32. excuse me

it seemed to me that you were arguing that the journalists simply did not get their facts straight, and therefore we should give them the benefit of the doubt in this case (and change the channel).

And that is what I was differing about. I say they had the facts and they chose to spin. I think this is just exactly the kind of thing we need to call them on. We have to defend people like McGovern when they are slammed. Of course I realize we're not going to magically "change CNN" under their current management and viewpoint. Of course at the same time we have to use the net to get the truth out. No, I am not so naive to think that CNN will shape up because of my email. But they will know that some are watching their every word. The least we can do is make them uncomfortable, especially when they try to marginalize those whom we support. This is stopgap and the ideal thing is just to develop media alternatives, which is happening...but we aren't there yet. Maybe that's where you're coming from, that we should let the MSM go and put all our energy into developing other alternatives for news, perhaps? But you seemed to be making apologies for CNN and their ilk, rather than suggesting to ignore them and put our energies elsewhere.

[MADem]

37. No, I wasn't arguing that at all

I talked about the vetting process for verification of information. I said that could be a possible explanation for the use of the term. And I find the best way to voice my dissent is to pick up the remote.

If they actually listened to emails, Faux News would really BE fair and balanced. CNN would stop being CIA toadies, and MSNBC would cancel Fucker Carlson.

What really drives them is RATINGS. Not emails. RATINGS. ADVERTISING SHARE. Nothing else. It is all about the dollar with those guys.

Your special talent to see into my brain, and deduce that I am making "apologies for CNN and their ilk" is quite Sherlock Holmsian! Unfortunately for you, it's an incorrect assessment.

Do what pleases you. Just don't insist I go on your wild ride.

[marions ghost]

40. LOL my "wild ride"

I am "insisting" you go on...via a message board. Oh yeah. Email efforts are a wild ride (?!) No, if I said to go over to CNN and storm the place with pitchforks and yell "Give us Blitzer"--now that might be a wild ride.

I just don't believe in being so passive and giving the media the benefit of any doubts about "vetting" procedures. Coming from a media family, I'm aware of the process. If you have any effective ideas about how NOT to just take a passive attitude, I'm all ears. I don't say complaining to them is the best method, but what else have we got. They may ignore it but they DO register it. Numbers count. It is important for them to know they can't isolate someone like McGovern, that we have his back. Besides as I said, supporting the net and alternative media at the same time as we directly express dissatisfaction with the current state of mainstream media -- seems to me to be the most positive approach. Of course money rules, but the function of the media is too important for us to cheerfully allow it to continue as a rightwing mouthpiece. My ideas may sound conventional, but I'm open to more creative ideas too.

Not meaning to tangle with you...but what's your solution? To me, "not watching"--is not an effective solution either. Hearing that is to me, just as frustrating as YOU may feel when somebody says to complain about it.

[MADem]

42. OK, fine, your MILEAGE obiously VARIES

If you don't mean to tangle with me, then don't. If you want to spend your time emailing corporate media, be my guest, knock yourself out.

I'm not saying there aren't times when it is effective, especially when opinions are solicited, but I prefer not to spend my days composing emails about everything on the news that irritates me. I'd be at it all day. The comment of a single reporter about a single story doesn't register sufficently on my outrage meter.

I like picking up the remote and taking my business elsewhere. To me, that is a more practical use of my time. You do what you want, and I'll do the same.

[marions ghost]

44. looking at this whole issue constructively

and putting it in general terms, what is it about people that makes some feel they still have the power to engage the media directly (are they dinosaurs, or delusional?), while others feel there is no hope that way? (are they merely passive, or are they merely realistic?) I mean, I understand the perspective of people who refuse to watch any mainstream media whatsoever, BETTER than I understand those like you (and you are certainly not alone, you may even be the majority)--who seem to believe that how the talking heads say things doesn't matter so much, even if it angers you, and one doesn't need to have a response--is that how you manage to keep on watching? Is it a way of self-anesthetizing?

I am seriously interested in the motivational psychology behind this, as an activist who has had both periods of extreme "attention" and extreme "non-attention" (total isolation from it) myself. Is there some kind of middle ground of coping that still can be productive? I would like to be able to interact with other (liberals) of a different mindset than mine without clashing. I would like to help this situation if possible. This media question is where I sink my teeth, it being more my forte than politics per se. I don't always believe in active resistance but in this case of the media I do. So I don't put you down for minimizing the importance of anything one sees on CNN...but I am trying to understand what's behind the reaction to just let it pass, even while still watching. I'm wondering if there is not an emotional toll in doing that, is all. I mean if you are aware of the problem to the point of getting angry, doesn't it seem like you'd want a place to put the anger? I'm getting into the area of consumer advocacy in a sense. We need some place to channel our collective objections--not just dump them into the wind IMO. I tend to think in terms of support groups & advocacy groups & that sort of thing but we can't do that very well if we don't understand each other.
Media watch groups may actually be able to have some clout. (may...I don't know)

Seriously...I don't have answers. I'm trying to understand different perspectives.

[MADem]

45. But I DON'T 'keep watching'...I change the channel

If the bullshit gets high, I switch. I read the papers, I watch CSPAN, I watch international news channels, and if I want some amusing filtration of my news, I go to Olbermann, Stewart or Colbert.

I vote with my remote. It's a lot easier than the old days, where you had to get up off the couch, march over to the set, and physically wrangle the dial.

Especially with the cables, if no one is watching, they can't charge as much for their advertising dollars. I keep my blood pressure in check by clicking when I smell horseshit. And I deny them a chunk of market share, albeit an infinitesimal one.

[marions ghost]

46. OK

so you would say that your method of coping is to switch to alternatives. But the blip of recognizable spin has still gone into your brain. Do the blips accumulate? Or does switching to alternatives neutralize that? Is it enough. How much of a factor is the idea that you are "denying" them a market share involved in your satisfaction--you yourself say that this is really virtually nil, so it's not a realistic denial? But it may be psychologically important, just as psychologically important as writing an email to CNN may be.

These are not literal questions, just thoughts of mine, so you need not feel obliged to answer. I am just throwing them out as I truly do not have answers, just talking around the issues in hopes of clues to something I see all the time. And I'm wondering if there is a certain self-conditioning or self-discipline going on, and whether it involves a positive or negative coping mechanism in the long run. You seem to have a great degree of certainty that you have power over the cases in which you have a negative response to media. I have a hard time feeling that same way, unless I DO something actively to "correct" that in my mind. Maybe your correction is to watch the alternatives, which I would say is definitely the way to go. But then do we become obssessed with locating the "truth" in the alternatives? And are we satisfied that we find it there? Or do we have to process BOTH forms of input, to understand what is being spun, so we can decide what is not spin. It gets complicated.

I'm just interested in how people are mentally adapting to the total immersion in media input unprecedented in history.

[izzie]

9. Maybe the CIA will not say? New law put in by Bush?

So until he is sure he is an ex-CIA guy he talks of him in that way.

[leftchick]

4. McIntyre has become blatanly biased lately

I noticed it a few months ago. His reporting is like something from fox news. He is becoming one of the worst.

[Supersedeas]

38. another name to add to the long list of SHILLS

[Judi Lynn]

5. It would be so easy for the jerk to find out.

Tons of DU'ers have discussed news concerning Ray McGovern for ages. His name is well known.

I am convinced this snotty insinuation concerning his legitimacy was intentional, meant to mislead the ignorant who don't take time to read or do any thinking.



He's not a terribly intelligent looking guy,
but even he would know Ray McGovern's no liar.

[H2O Man]

6. The administration

is not contesting that he used to work for the Agency. They are questioning if he is "retired." The OVP believes that there is an on-going "war" between them and a core group of senior, often retired officials. Having Ray confront Donald Rumsfeld in the manner he did must have been shocking for them.

[Flubadubya]

11. Yeah, but it's all "public perception"...

Most 'Merkans listening to that hear "claims to be a retired CIA agent" (just what he said). Seed of doubt successfully sown. I think this is media manipulation, pure and simple. Minimize credibility of any administratin detractors... and it's "job well done"! :sarcasm:

[H2O Man]

16. I think it will

backfire. Ray looked very good; Donald looked less than the on-top-of-it-all fellow he attempts to be. Many news programs are noting that Ray used exact quotes from Rumsfeld that are well documented. I think that it is extremely unlikely that there are any people who have become invested Rumsfeld fans because someone on CNN said Ray "claims to be a retired CIA agent."

[Flubadubya]

18. You are completely correct.

It's just the too, too transparent bias that comes across from these media lapdogs. His using the word "claims" doesn't necessarily persuade anyone to Rummy's side, but it certainly could make someone question Mr. McGovern's credentials, and I think it was intended to.

[H2O Man]

19. They are gross.

The people in the media who insert words and phrases in attempts to undercut people like Ray are gross.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

8. Jamie McIntyre claims to be a television news personality. n/t

[NewJeffCT]

33. You beat me to it!

I was going to say that he "claims" to be a reporter.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

47. Ha ha..... great minds think alike!! :)

[Grateful for Hope]

10. Loud Dobbs

had a mild run-in with Jamie last night -- Jamie does indeed seem to want to place a RW slant on his reporting.

[Daphne08]

26. Yes, I saw that, and Jamie was quite irritated. Too bad. n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

29. I know

at least Lou did not allow him to get away with his spin.

[malaise]

12. Jamie McIntyre only exposed his ignorant

ass. Ray's responses to Anderson were brilliant. Jamie will learn because they will now have to welcome Ray to the discussions. He is a gazzilion years ahead of all of them in terms of knowledge, depth and class.

[Missy M]

13. I hear supposed news people do that all the time....

with different stories and it makes me so angry. There is no reason he had to say that so one has to assume he did it to put doubt in some people's minds.

[Disturbed]

14. More Busllshit RW reporter slant.

I just Googled and in a minute I found this.

Ray McGovern bio

"Ray McGovern’s 27-year career as a CIA analyst spanned administrations from John F. Kennedy to George HW Bush. Ray is now co-director of the Servant ..."
faculty.schreiner.edu/tomwells/ray_mcgovern_bio.htm

[Flubadubya]

15. How easy was that?

No sweat off McIntyres back to quickly check it out too. Besides, isn't that part of his job description? No excuse in this "information age" not to be able to vet out the information quite quickly. The creep did this on purpose I tell you. :puke:

[Flubadubya]

17. Update... McIntyre on CNN morning show with Soledad O'Brien...

She was asking him about the Rumsfeld/McGovern encounter and asked him several times and in several different ways whether Rumsfeld really did lie. He danced around the issue like Fred Astaire... amazing. He gave excuse after excuse for the bastard and downplayed McGovern's stature and credibility. I was pretty sure his statement on Cooper's show was biased... now I am convinced. No doubt about it. Period.

[TomClash]

20. Agreed

Hey, Jamie, here's flash: Ray McGovern was an analyst for the CIA.

[Dudley_DUright]

41. additional news flash ---

Ray McGovern was one of the CIA guys who personally gave W's daddy the presidential daily brief.

Today Ray McGovern, the man who used to give George Bush senior his daily intel update, spoke truth to power. Rumsfeld, to his credit, permitted Ray to speak rather than be carried out of the auditorium. In retrospect, Rummy probably regrets that decision.

http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/05/ray_you_da_man.html

[Media_Lies_Daily]

23. Why does this kind of behavior by the media surprise you?

[KharmaTrain]

24. Stockholm/Pentagon Syndrome

Seems to happen to any stenographer that gets a desk in the Pentagon. They get sucked up into all things military and become PR agents for the military-industrial complex. It's as if the building and all the uniforms must really isolate these people in a town that gets more and more detached and isolated from the American people every day.

McIntyre is like Barbara Starr (Rummy's main squeeze), Jim Mikolaciewski and former DOD spokesasshat Pete Williams on GE/NBC all play cheerleader for the politicos in the Pentagon and are quick with a rebuff when Rummy is attacked or lavish praise when another "final victory solution" is announced.

A fitting assignment for these bastidges is to cover the funerals of those who paid the price for their stenography...or to spend several hours a week volunteering at a local VA hospital with returned Iraqi vets whose brains have been scrambled as they've seen several tours of death and desolation.

Ray McGovern IS a known comodity. In fact, do a search on the CNN website and you'll find several articles with his name on it. Too bad McIntyre couldn't even google his own website.

[Judi Lynn]

25. I think there's something more to this! Local Fox-owned news station

in Kansas City had their special correspondent who has been doing Rumsfeld news stories for 5 years did an interview with KCMO 710 a.m. local show host, Van Patrick, and HE also claimed no one had any way of knowing if Ray McGovern was actually a former CIA employee.

It would look as if CNN and FOX both are being told to cast doubt on who the hell McGovern is. Pathetic, isn't it?

By the way, Fox Kansas City show host Van Patrick also made sure he worked in his claim Patrick Kennedy took Ambien, and said there's no way taking Ambien would cause anyone to drive poorly, or seem disoriented. He didn't acknowledge Kennedy's story clearly indicates TWO drugs were involved, even though the Fox hourly news report mentions it.

These guys really start early in the day going after all the points that would advance their cause, substituting lies and half truths to favor the Republicans. Reminds me of the trolls who pass through D.U. continually.

[Flubadubya]

27. Amen Judi Lynn...

It really is all so disgusting. Someone just asked me in a post above why I was surprised about this. Well, fact is, I'm not suprised in the least... just sickened by what I have come to expect to be the norm in M$M reporting. They all should go to hell! :grr:

[insane_cratic_gal]

28. I stopped watching Cnn right shortly after Katrinia

When they started to whore themselves right back out again to BushCO.

[DemonFighterLives]

31. And this clown claims to be a reporter

:+ :silly:

[Kansas Wyatt]

34. Are CNN's reporters getting pissy

Because people, other than reporters, are finally getting close enough to ask the right questions and the questions CNN's propaganda catapults should have been asking all along?

Boo fucking hoo catapults, get a real job in your wonderful economy. Oh that's right, being a propaganda catapult is the only stable work available under Republican Rule.

[leesa]

36. Same game with Valerie Plame...discredit the messenger

They are wrong of course, but THAT message will be soft peddled. It's ALL about marketing.

[symbolman]

39. I was in the basement of the capitol

Filming the Downing Street Memo's Hearing, and Ray McGovern had to STAND UP and TAKE THE OATH as did Cindy SHeehan, and Joe Wilson, and I have it all on FILM - HIDEF, Would Ray McGovern LIE under Oath to a room full of Congressmen?

Hardly. He went into excrutiating detail as to his job in the CIA and for how long he did it, even preparted PDB's for other Presidents.

Here's a clip from that hearing, where Mr McGovern has a few words about that BIG JOKE when Bush looked for WMD under chairs at the WHCD (before Colbert set their tails on fire), while the media there STOOD and APPLAUDED for Bush.

Ray is THE MAN.

Here's the clip:

http://www.tbtmradio.com/video/wmd.wmv

[Marr]

43. There's really no excuse for that statement.

It's just sloppy. He's the fucking reporter. He should've followed up on the man's "claim" by now.

He should be asked that- "what do you mean 'claims to be'? You haven't checked it out? Are you a reporter or a PA system?"