Is Mark Halperin Really The Best "Public Face" for Time Magazine?

Carnival barker at the Vermont State Fair - 1941

On May 20, Time magazine's Swampland ran a piece about Nancy Pelosi called Pelosi Probably Right. In that piece the reporter, Jay Newton-Small, put to shame the establishment media's more "experienced" reporters by actually reading the statements of Porter Goss, Richard Shelby, Nancy Pelosi, Leon Panetta and Bob Graham and comparing them. You know, something anyone who knows anything about reporting would do before jumping to conclusions in order to create a narrative that agreed with their own political bias.

When Ms. Newton-Small read those statements she reported that even Porter Goss was parsing his language in his op-ed piece and was not directly contradicting Pelosi. Her conclusion after reading all of the statements was that Pelosi was probably telling the truth. Now for those of us who no longer trust our establishment media, the story in Swampland was nothing new to us. We've known about how carefully Goss chose his words in his Washington Post op-ed and we've known about how all of the statements and other evidence did not support the establishment media's narrative that assumed that  Pelosi was not telling the truth. We knew it because of the wonderful reporting done by Marcy Wheeler and others that have focused on reporting facts.

What's also notable about this piece in Swampland is that Time's Mark Halperin evidently didn't bother to read the Pelosi, Graham, Goss or Shelby statements like Ms. Newton-Small did because he's been reporting this story incorrectly since it started. He also evidently doesn't read his own magazine because he appeared on the Morning Joe show the day after the piece in Swampland was reported yet he never bothered to set the record straight during the two segments on Morning Joe where Pelosi was trashed. He never mentioned the Newton-Small story that Time includes in the MUST READS section on the front page of it's website. 

The day after Pelosi's initial press conference, Halperin wrote this piece in Time. Two of his three things "to watch for" were about Pelosi:

Mark Halperin's three things to watch for in politics for Friday, May 15.

1. Watch to see how House Speaker Nancy Pelosi handles herself today. The press conference she had yesterday on what she knew about the government's enhanced interrogation techniques got her into more trouble, so watch to see if she's willing to answer more questions today to clear up some of the contradictions and allegations swirling around her.  

2. Watch to see how people around Pelosi treat her. See what liberal bloggers, her constituents, the White House, Republicans and Democrats say about her today and whether there seems to be a strong sense that she's really in trouble. In particular, watch to see whether any prominent Democrats raise questions about her credibility on the briefings and in general. (Halperin reported on plenty of Republican comments, a few comments by a select group of Democrats, the WH, no liberal bloggers, no constituents).

Mr. Halperin never revised his "things to watch for" on Pelosi (like whether maybe Pelosi was truthful) and he obviously never reported what liberal bloggers were saying or he would have reported what Newton-Small reported even earlier than she did.  Halperin started out with the premise that Nancy Pelosi was in trouble on this issue because he assumed she did not tell the truth and that's how he's covered it, both on Morning Joe and at Time. It's clear from his "reporting" that he never changed his initial narrative and when facts were reported that supported Pelosi's comments he just didn't report them because they didn't fit his narrative. He was evidently more concerned with selling entertainment and a political view than he was in reporting all the facts so that readers and viewers could make an informed decision about the story. Here are the pieces he did for Time since he laid out his narrative, beginning with the most recent one that he reported on today that shows that even two days after the Newton-Small piece in Time he's still ignoring the facts she laid out and is still working off his "narrative."

Stonewall

House Dems Shut Calls for Pelosi Probe

Potus Praises Pelosi

Speakers Brawl

Penn to Pelosi: "Close the Door" on CIA Controversy

Boehner: Pelosi Needs to Come Clean

Pelosi Wants to Move Forward

Panetta: CIA Didn't Lie

Pelosi Newted

What Now?

Pelosi on Waterboarding: CIA Misled Me

Thank goodness Ms. Newton-Small doesn't use the Mark Halperin method of reporting. Rather than creating a narrative about Pelosi and then reporting on what fits the narrative, she reported on the facts in her story (substance)  even if they led in a direction that contradicted the widely used faux narrative of people like Halperin. 

Maybe Time magazine needs to question the wisdom of lending Mr. Halperin to Morning Joe in light of the fact that he's not a very good emissary for the magazine. His bias and sloppy work is being noticed by average Americans and that certainly won't help Time's image.  Maybe Time needs to place Mr. Halperin on a shorter leash so that instead of making TV appearances where he can yuck it up with his buddies he can have more time to sharpen his basic reporting skills. Maybe they can have him sit with his colleague, Jay Newton-Small, and let her educate him about basic reporting that he's either evidently forgotten or never learned in the first place. Or better yet, why don't they hire Marcy Wheeler to replace Mark Halperin. She's obviously a much better reporter on her worst day than Halperin is on his best. 

Here are two videos from Thursday's Morning Joe show where Nancy Pelosi was repeatedly trashed yet Halperin never mentioned the facts laid out in the Newton-Small piece. 

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I'll continue to watch for Halperin's appearances on Morning Joe to see if he ever sets the record straight on the Pelosi story or if he sticks to his "narrative," come hell or high water.

Ron Paul Wants More Information on Torture - David Gregory Wants Less

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

David Gregory jumps into the Nancy Pelosi/CIA story this morning on Morning Joe. As usual Gregory leaves out facts that don't support his view that there should be no accountability for torture and distorts facts to make them fit into his view.

Gregory: She either wasn't fully apprised personally of what was happening or she decided not to push back so that's the reality of the public record that we have so far. Now maybe if we go down this road maybe we will learn more, maybe we'll get a fuller accounting of what was contained in that briefing but what you've got right now are other people who were there..Republicans who were there saying look it was clear as day what they were asking for and what they were already doing.

According to the CIA log the only Republican that attended the briefing that Nancy Pelosi was in was Porter Goss. Yet in the above quote Gregory states that there were Republican(s) in the briefing that Nancy Pelosi received. Who are these other Republicans or is Gregory just trying to give the viewers the false impression that there are multiple people who attended her briefing who disagree with what she said the CIA told her? And why didn't Gregory bother to mention that Bob Graham also disputes what the CIA briefed him on? Or why didn't Gregory bother to mention that even Republican, Porter Goss, in his Washington Post op-ed didn't back up the claim that the CIA briefed them that waterboarding was already being done, as this excellent analysis by Emptywheel makes clear.

Porter Goss says Pelosi should have known "the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed." But he doesn't say she should have known "the techniques on which they were briefed had already been employed." Which is a critical part of her complaint--that CIA did not tell Congress that waterboarding and other techniques "were used" ... that "they were using that." This briefing is always described as occurring in "fall 2002." Even interpreting "fall" broadly to include all of September, that means the briefing took place after they had already waterboarded Abu Zubaydah 83 times in a month.

So whether or not Pelosi is arguing "waterboarding" was mentioned or not, even Goss appears to confirm one of Pelosi's main points. The CIA did not reveal this was already taking place. Even Goss' understanding, they revealed only that waterboarding "was to be employee' -- in the future.

While I think David Gregory makes numerous misrepresentations in this video clip (like he always does) his point about the Obama White House not wanting investigations into torture appears to be on point although I'm sure even here he exaggerates because he's an advocate for this same view.

Gregory: In 2002 there were no Democrats who were willing to stand up to the White House. Even Republicans - some Republicans I've spoken to who are sympathetic to the criticism about the treatment of these detainees say we know everything we need to know about what happened. There's nothing more that we actually need to discover...lets just move on.

While I don't agree with the Obama administration doing everything in their power to shut down an investigation into torture I can at least understand the political motivation behind it, misguided though it may be. What I find incredible and what I simply don't understand is how so many supposed "journalists" like David Gregory are also going out of their way to bury this issue. Our Press is supposed to be interested in ferreting out the truth but there are far too many "journalists" in our establishment media who obviously don't want the entire truth to come out. They actually get agitated even thinking about the possibility that a full investigation will be conducted. Just look at how Gregory reacts  when he is asked a simple question about what are the chances that there will be a full investigation into what happened. His reaction is not a dispassionate reaction it's the reaction of an advocate of a particular position.  We saw an even more forceful example of this reaction when Gregory interviewed King Abdullah  and Abdullah did not give Gregory the answers that supported Gregory's position.

Carlos: Hey David even though the Obama White House would rather this not be the conversation what in your mind would be one or several tipping points that would move this towards a full investigation where we spend a summer like we did back in the late 80s talking about the Oliver North hearings. What might lead to that scenario in your mind?

Gregory: How about nothing. How about if the White House has ....Look if the White House has the kind of political capital that it appears to have they're going to make it clear that they do not want this to be the discussion. They've got a lot of other things they want to talk about...

This is not the dispassionate answer of an objective reporter. This is an answer of an advocate who is hiding behind the White House in order to cloak the fact that he is actually advancing his own point of view.

Another interesting segment on the Morning Joe show this morning was when Republican Ron Paul was asked about Pelosi and the CIA issue.  This was part of his response:

...but it's also beneficial in trying to find out what's going on...but just think we wouldn't have this discussion if we had just followed the law. Our law prohibits torture as well as international law. But the fact that this discussion is here and who said what is good. I have no idea who is telling the truth but I know it's very good for the country to get to the bottom of it.

You're right, maybe this will not lead to getting to the bottom of it because the administration is not all that interested in prosecuting the people who broke the law.

After he said this - surprise, surprise...Joe Scarborough changed the subject. While we had 6:11 minutes of David Gregory talking about this issue and 7:43 minutes of Kit Bond talking about this issue...We only had 1:30 minutes of Ron Paul's view on this topic. Of course Ron Paul was the only one of the three to actually talk about prosecuting people for lawbreaking and that doesn't agree with our establishment media narrative on torture so it's no surprise that they changed the subject. I guess we should all be grateful that at least they kept this part of the Paul interview in the video they posted online. When Doris Kerns Goodwin went off the reservation, like Ron Paul did today, they just eliminated her words from the online video.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Matt Drudge: Establishment Media's Go-to-Guy For "News" Ideas

Photo: Magic Lantern slide of a dog jumping through a hoop/Nat'l Media Museum

Once again we have confirmation that Matt Drudge is the go-to-guy for "news" ideas for our establishment media. 

Gabriel Sherman from The New Republic was  on the Morning Joe show this morning talking about his new piece about Matt Drudge called Underground Man, that appears in The New Republic. Sherman gushed about Matt's tabloid style and how valuable he is to mainstream media. Boy, you just can't make this stuff up. GROAN. 

Of course everyone on the Morning Joe show just loves Drudge. Yeah, we can tell. Big surprise. 

My god, how can such clueless people get these jobs?

Here's a snippet from the Underground Man 

Drudge remains one of the most powerful figures in journalism. In the Web 2.0 era--with media outlets unveiling increasingly complex sites that feature multiple avenues for readers to contribute, from comments to Tweets--the Drudge Report doesn't look like much: just an old-fashioned layout consisting mostly of links to articles in other publications, alongside the occasional breaking news story of its own. And yet, because it draws up to 20 million hits per day--and, more importantly, because it is read religiously by Washington's reporters, political operatives, and cable news producers--the site retains a striking ability to dictate what appears in the mainstream press. Indeed, one of journalism's unofficial parlor games these days consists of mining Drudge's site for clues to his proclivities--so that one might figure out how to gain his favor and earn a valuable link.

Drudge owes both his stature and his accompanying fortune--sources believe he makes millions per year off his site--essentially to one thing: his appetite, during the Lewinsky era and afterward, for rummaging further into the lives of public figures than mainstream journalists were willing to go. And that's ironic when you consider the reason that his appearance at the Clinton concession speech created such a frenzy: For the past few years, Matt Drudge has gone almost completely underground.

After reading this piece I think that maybe the New Republic should seriously consider bringing back Stephen Glass, what do you think?.