Friday, April 02, 2004
What's significant about the flap--and what demands scrutiny--is CNN's behavior. Specifically, viewers deserve an account from CNN of:
1) How it came to report--twice--that the White House was calling Letterman's clip doctored footage.2) The process by which the network decided, ultimately, to retract that characterization of the White House's position.
To this point, CNN has said only that the reporting was the result of a "misunderstanding among our staff." And just about everyone in the mainstream press--except Paul Krugman--has accepted that characterization.
Consider the following headlines:
CNN's goof leads to slip by Letterman
Bush speaks, a boy yawns, and then Letterman and CNN get confused
CNN errs on reporting Bush-Letterman bit
Letterman, CNN Involved In Comedy Of Errors
Letterman bit mixed up when CNN gets involved
All of these headlines, it's worth noting, were used by editors to plug the same underlying AP story. And that story appears not to include any original reporting on CNN's claims--AP scribe Frazier Moore appears just to take CNN's explanation at face value.
Problem is, CNN's explanation stinks.
To be more specific:
If CNN's erroneous reporting was truly the result of a "misunderstanding among [CNN's] staff," ("Not 'according to the White House,' Kyra. I said 'according to Clyde Strauss.'"), then why did the network first report:
We're being told by the White House that the kid, as funny as he was, was edited into that video, which would explain why the people around him weren't really reacting.
and then two hours later switch to:
We're told that the kid was there at that event, but not necessarily standing behind the president.
before finally dropping the claim altogether?
Isn't the more plausible explanation something like this:
White House--irate about CNN's decision to air the clip--phones the network. Scolds CNN for running "fake" late night comedy footage. Producer rushes clarification to newsroom.
Hours pass.
Producer starts to hear information contradicting White House claims. Producer phones White House, which changes its story. Somewhat.
Hours pass.
CNN realizes White House had story wrong.
Producer wants to protect important White House source. Points out that his original discussion, now that he thinks about it, was sorta kinda off-the-record.
CNN comes up with the "misunderstanding among our staff" explanation, and runs with it.
Now. I have exactly zero independent corroboration for this version of events.
But doesn't believing this version make more sense than accepting that CNN, over the course of an afternoon, twice interrupted its regular programming for the sole purpose of correcting the record on the Letterman clip--and the White House's characterization of the footage--and that no one ever in fact spoke to the White House?
One Final Point: Howard Kurtz gets a lot of heat from bloggers for being both the Washington Post's media critic, and the host of a show for CNN, a network he's supposed to be covering.
Kurtz's willingness--or failure--to dig below the surface of Lettermangate will speak volume about his ability to balance the two commitments, and about his integrity more generally.
UPDATE: Frazier Moore retreats a bit in his latest dispatch for the AP. While in his previous article on Lettermangate he proclaimed:
The truth was: The White House never complained, and the footage was real.
the story that will run in tomorrow's papers takes a slightly different tack:
Later the network said Bush administration officials hadn't complained. (Emphasis added.)
Good to see Moore has decided to adopt a neutral tone. Still he's not exactly dripping with skepticism...
UPDATE UPDATE: CNN has provided Campaign Desk with a more nuanced version of its original explanation. However, that bit of elaboration notwithstanding, the network has still not answered the key questions.
