March 29, 2004 by s.z.

We Have Ways of Making You Not Talk Oh, and the rest of Howard Kurtz's column for today is about Fox News saying it's okay to out your "background" sources if they later write books critical of the White House.  Per "Fox News correspondent Jim Angle," after Richard Clarke begain "assailing" President Bush's anti-terrorism record, he [Angle] recalled a 2002 tape of Clarke defending the administration's actions.  It was just sitting there in a drawer, lonely and forgotten.  Of course, the briefing was done "on background," so Angle asked the White House for permission to "put it on the record."  And they readily and happily waived "the confidentiality rule that had shielded Clarke's identity when he was spinning for Bush." "They knew zip," Angle says. "They didn't know when it happened, that it happened or who was on the call." But wasn't this an unfair outing of Clarke, who was blindsided? Former senator Bob Kerrey, a member of the 9/11 investigating commission, grumbled that "Fox should say 'occasionally fair and balanced' after putting something like this out, because they violated a serious trust." But Angle, who says he left two messages for Clarke, says: "It wasn't his rule. It was an easy call," and that he would have done the same story if he were still working for ABC. What the heck is Angle talking about?  Kurtz provides two direct quotes from the guy, and I can't understand either one of them?  Doesn't Kurtz ever ask people to explain themselves? I'm guessing that the rule Angle is referring to is, "You don't out sources to whom you've promised confidentiality," but who exactly is Angle claiming doesn't own that rule?  Kerrey?  Clarke?  Angle?  Kurtz?   (It clear who DOES own that rule: The White House.) And I think that maybe the "they" who knew "zip" are the Bush Administration.  Apparently, per Angle, they didn't know, either in 2002 or now, that Clarke had done a background interview for Fox defending their anti-terrorism record.  Well, they didn't know until Angle told them.  But if they didn't know about it, how could they rescind the confidentiality which they had never asked for, because they didn't know about the interview?  And didn't Angle already blow Clarke's confidentiality when he told the White House that was Clarke who gave Fox the 2002 info?  Also, if this "waiving" for somebody else is okay, why can't George Bush, who really wants the Plame case solved, tell Novak that the White House is waiving the confidentiality of that source who outed Mrs. Joe Wilson? And I the only one who finds everything Angle said confusing?  But let's hear from Scottie McClellan, who is always as clear as a tack: What about the administration's extraordinary waiving of confidentiality to discredit a critic? "It's important for the American people to have the facts," says White House spokesman Scott McClellan. Clarke had made "comments that contradict what he was now asserting publicly. It was very much in the public interest." (Clarke says he would have been fired had he criticized the president as a White House aide.) It's important for the American people to have the facts, but not if it means that Condi Rice has to violate the tradition that National Security Advisers don't testify on the record unless they feel like it. And whenever there are confidential comments from the past which contradict what somebody later asserts publically, then the public has a right to know about those formerly confidential comments.  You know, like what Bush was told about al Queda terrorist threats in the President's Daily Brief in August 2001. McClellan says the administration has put such background comments on the record before, though he concedes it "may be something of a unique situation" to do it so long after the fact. To "be fair to all reporters," he says, the White House notified the other network correspondents who had heard the Clarke briefing that it was fair game. Only Fox went with the story. You know, just like Karl Rove called everybody and told them Valerie Plame was fair game after Novak outed her.  What a nice, fair, Administration they are.  But at least none of the other networks went along with the dirty, little game.  But I'm sure all White House officials still currently employed are getting the message about what happens to people who cross Don Bushone. 7:56:26 AM

Reliable Howard Kurtz Today's Howard Kurtz column, That's Incredible, is about the Jack Kelley story, and how everybody was fooled by Kelley because he seemed so trustworthy and brave. The rise and spectacular fall of USA Today's star foreign correspondent raises a host of difficult questions: Why did Kelley fake and embellish his stories when he was devoting huge energy to reporting from world trouble spots? Why did editors fail to question the dramatic scenes -- from the supposed drowning of Cuban refugees to Israeli settlers ostensibly firing on a Palestinian taxi -- that only he seemed able to get? What demons were driving a man who told Christian Reader magazine that he was a journalist "because God has called me to proclaim truth"? Howie quotes several journalists who say that they always thought that there was something wrong with Kelley's stories, but everybody else seemed to believe him so they didn't say anything: and besides, the other journalists would have "ostracized" them if they'd said raised a fuss about one their own.  So, peer pressure among journalism is a powerful thing -- is that the underlying message that Howie wants you to get from this piece?  You know, so you'll understand why he never asked any critical questions about Kelley (despite that being his job) until after USA Today had outed the dashing reporter as a fraud and a liar?  I don't know.  I'm just asking questions. But Howie sure didn't "question the dramatic scenes" in Kelley's Pulizer-nominated piece when Kelley was a guest on "Reliable Sources" back in 2001.  Let's roll the transcript and do some "20/20 hindsight" investigating: CNN RELIABLE SOURCES  -- August 18, 2001 HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: A brush with death. An American reporter barely misses being blown up in Jerusalem, and then has to report on another tragedy in the escalating Middle East violence. We'll talk with "USA Today's" Jack Kelley. Welcome to RELIABLE SOURCES, where we turn a critical lens on the media. I'm Howard Kurtz, along with Bernard Kalb. [snip] KURTZ: "USA Today" reporter Jack Kelley joins us now from Jerusalem. On the day of the blast, you were going to have pizza for lunch in Jerusalem. Tell us what happened, briefly, and also, is it difficult to cover such a heart-rending tragedy when you're right there? JACK KELLEY, "USA TODAY": Sure. Let me just say, it's great to be here, thank you. We had walked into the Sbarro Pizza restaurant. We thought, let's get a quick slice of pizza and the line at that time was extremely long. There were lots of young mothers with their children and there were two strollers in front of the restaurant, so we walked out. I turned, and there was a gentleman who would be the suicide bomber in front of me. I said excuse me and walked about 30 yards right down the street when, kaboom, the blast went off. It knocked me and the other gentleman who I was with right to our, right to our knees. We turned and the first thing I remember seeing were several bodies just hit the ground and decapitate. And then I turned and I saw several people with nails in their eyes, nails in their chest, nails in their arms. And it pretty much went downhill from there. Yeah, those heads from the people whom Kelly saw get decapitated just rolled down the street!  And their eyes were still blinking! Okay, the "blinking eyes" never made it into print, as they were deleted by either Kelley or his editor, but the three severed, rolling heads were in Kelley's story as it appeared in USA Today.  So, some questions Howie could have asked at this point: "You saw several people get decapitated.  You saw heads rolling down the street?  How come the police reports say no adults were beheaded?  How come the photos don't show any severed heads?  Oh, and  the bomber was right in front of you; you even spoke to him.  So how come your story doesn't mention the guitar case he was carrying -- the one that contained the bomb, per authoritiest?  And how come you're always bumping into suicide bombers, Chechen Mafia members, Haitain hit squads, and people like that -- isn't it rather improbable that one guy could have so many adventures? Okay, maybe Howie wouldn't have had enough info at the time to ask most of these questions, but I would posit that he still could have done enough prep for the show to ask about the guitar case.  You'd think the guy who played such a big part in exposing Jayson Blair would have showed more curiousity about the unusual aspects of Kelley's story. But let's move on: BERNARD KALB, HOST: Jack, do you ever reach a point as a journalist, and we've all been in combat war experiences and so forth, where in fact you put down the notebook, the famous notebook, and administer as much first-aid as you possibly can? KELLEY: On this case, I actually went into auto-pilot. The very first thing that I did was look and find a clock to see what time the actual blast took place, and I ran and I was right in the middle of the flesh and blood. And I can remember looking around and there was one moment when I just wanted to drop the notebook and try to do as much as I could. There was an injured gentleman on the ground and his legs had come off and he was bleeding profusely from where his genital, from where his genitals had been, and he turned to me and said, "please help me, mister" and there was nothing that I could really do. And I just watched as he bled to death. And that happened at least one other time. Some questions that seem natural at this point: "So, one of the victims actually talked to you, and you watched him die before your very eyes.  And this has happened to you 'at least' one other time before.  Can you be more specific about the number of times this has happened to you?  What would you say if we told you we reviewed your stories and found you reported watching TEN people die?  Don't you find it odd that you have nearly a dozen people die in your presence, while most of the other foreign correspondents we talked to said that while on a story, they haven't seen even one person die?" But that's not what Howie asked.  He asked how this all made Kelley feel. (It made him feel bad, and drove him to Diet Coke.) Now on to a new topic: KURTZ: Some columnist are saying now, Jack Kelley, that there is a false balance in the media in which both sides in this conflict are portrayed as being equally responsible for the violence, when in fact the Palestinians are, they say, murdering innocent civilians, Israeli civilians and children. The Israelis retaliating, mainly against military targets and terrorists. Do you think there is any pressure on Western reporters to describe this story as one in which there is some kind of false balance, meanwhile the tactics are very different on each side. KELLEY: Let me give you one example. I wrote a cover story on suicide bombers last month. We've gotten, I guess, more than 2,000 e- mails, of which they are 50/50. 50 percent of the people saying we like the story; 50 percent, we didn't. I've gotten several calls since the Sbarro bombing story has come out saying how dare you only report one side of this story. So, we're inundated. I feel a great deal of pressure every single time that I write a story. Before I press that button to send that story back to Washington, I sit there and think, is this story as objective as I can possibly make it? How would an Israeli see it? How would a Palestinian see it? There are several pro-Israeli Web sites back in the states, pro- Palestinian Web sites, and they watch everything I write and everything my colleagues write. So, you feel a tremendous amount of pressure. So, there are people watching Kelley on the web, keeping the pressure on him to be fair and accurate.  You'd think maybe a thing would make a guy worry about making stuff up.  But NOOOO! Just a month later, Kelley gave us his famous story about "Avi Shapiro," the Jewish settler on the West Bank who let Kelley hang out with him and his friends as they waited in a ditch to ambush passing Arabs in cars.  Heck, Kelley even heard Avi order his group to "open fire" on a taxi, and kill as many of the "blood-sucking Arab" passengers as possible.  Yes, Avi was a colorful figure, calling his foes things like "sons of Arab whores" and "Muslim filth."   But nobody (Israeli officials, USA Today investigators) found any any evidence that Avi ever existed.   However, the investigators did find a letter on Kelley's laptop in which he asked to pretend to once again be a source named "David," and to tell a reporter investigating the story that "Avi" can't be questioned because he isn't in Israel anymore.  ("David" was also supposed to be the Israeli intelligence officer who was with Kelley at the time of the explosion in Jerusalem -- however, he told USA Today that he's just a businessman.)  Back in his January article, Howie wrote, "Sources familiar with the inquiry say an Israeli official has confirmed the incident to USA Today."  I'd imagine that the "official" who confirmed the "Avi" incident was "David."  But Howard has never told us anything more about his gullible sources. However, there were questions about the "Avi Shapiro" story at the time: other reporters familiar with the West Bank doubted the incident ever happened.  Hebron spokesman David Wilder says he wrote a rebuttal to Kelley's article, and sent letters of protest to the USA Today editorial staff, but never got a response.  So, the whole world didn't find the story credible.  But let's see what Kelley had to say about the fallout from the piece when he was on "Reliable Sources" in April 2002, and let's learn what follow-up questions Howie asked about the whole drama Kelley was describing: KURTZ: Michael Holmes, we'll come back to you in a moment. Jack, do you want to make a point? KELLEY: Yes, one of the things that seems to me that has taken place was that both sides now tend to see reporters as the combatants. That is the only way you can possibly express why it's become open season on people like Michael Holmes and people like myself and several others. Kelley has interrupted Micheal Holmes, who was telling about how the Israeli military used stun guns and rubber bullets on some Western journalists in Ramallah.  Even though Kelley was in Washington at the time, it seems that he too was a victim.  Who was gunning for him?  What did they do to him?  We don't know.  We don't know because Howie never asks.  So, let's jump ahead a bit. KURTZ: Jack Kelley, I see you shaking your head. KELLEY: Sure, look, I've been shot at. I've been punched. I've been knocked. I've been -- I mean hit -- once hit with a stun gun from both sides. But let me just give you one example. Last August, I wrote one cover story on Jewish vigilantes in the West Bank and how they fired on a taxi carrying Palestinian women and children, received 3,000 e-mails per day for 10 straight days. After that we had to switch my e-mail address. Got seven death threats and got a bouquet of white funeral flowers right -- sent to our building. Now I got -- I got the message right there. It basically says if you write something we don't like, you will pay a price, and Israel right now is shooting itself in its foot. You don't go after the messenger. Kelley got seven death threats (presumably from Jews) because of that Avi Shapiro story? Wow, since he apparently made the whole thing up, you'd think that would have taught him the folly of lying.  But he undoubtedly made up the death threats too. Howie didn't ask Kelley any questions -- he went to another guest.  But what should Howie have asked Kelley here?  Personally, I would have liked to have known something about those times Kelley was "hit by a stun gun" by both the Israelis and the Palestinians.  I can't find any Kelley story which mention stun guns -- and you'd think that a thing like that would make great copy.  I wonder why he never told anybody but Howie about it? And 3000 emails a DAY for TEN STRAIGHT DAYS?  That's 30,000 emails.  (He only got 2000 emails total about that piece on suicide bombers in July 2001).  And it was only after he got 30,000 angry emails about the story that USA Today thought to change his email address?  Wow, that's incredible!  You'd think Howie would have asked something about that.  And if he didn't have time to grill Kelley on the air, it might have been something he could have followed up for his column.  But I guess he had other things to do.  You know, it sure sounds like Howie didn't ever ask Kelley any critical questions at all.  I guess he was fooled too -- which he will surely acknowledge sometime, right? I mean, he's written about the story, what, four times now, and surely someday he'll mention how he got the wool pulled over his eyes.  He's the Reliable Sources guy, n'est-ce pas? Oh, and if you want more tales of Kelley's derring-do, he's told some great stories in his speeches to students at various colleges.  Here's a bit of what he told Baylor students in September 2003: Kelley’s career has given him plenty of his own life-changing experiences, some of which were so horrifying he said he sometimes relives them in nightmares. During Kelley’s 22nd visit to Israel in August 2001, he met a friend for lunch at a Sbarro pizzeria. On his way out of the restaurant, Kelley looked straight into the eyes of the man who moments later would detonate the explosives hidden under his clothing, killing 15 people and injuring more than 90. Wow, this time Kelley looked right in the bomber's eyes -- and that happened just moments before the guy detonated that bomb hidden under his clothing (which is probably where he was hiding the guitar).  And even though authorities say that the guy Kelley described wasn't the bomber (and Kelley was too far away from the bomber to have been able to see him), doesn't give you a tingle the way Kelley tells it?  If so, his work was all worth while. And why does he continually put his life at risk? “I’m very passionate about reporting the truth,” he said, “And I will not allow anyone to tell me what to write or what not to write.” Not even suicide bombers who fail to actually be suicide bombers. 2:27:12 AM