NBC changes official transcript of Andrea Mitchell interview...

[im10ashus]

..deletes reference to Bush possibly wiretapping CNN's Christane Amanpour.

This is from ameriblog:

Well this is getting interesting. NBC just delete two paragraphs from its Andrea Mitchell interview, the paragraphs that talked about whether Bush was wiretapping ace CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour (kudos to Atrios for spotting this).

Here's what the NBC "official" transcript used to say (I copied this text from NBC's own page only 2 hours ago):
Mitchell: Do you have any information about reporters being swept up in this net?

Risen: No, I don't. It's not clear to me. That's one of the questions we'll have to look into the future. Were there abuses of this program or not? I don't know the answer to that

Mitchell: You don't have any information, for instance, that a very prominent journalist, Christiane Amanpour, might have been eavesdropped upon?

Risen: No, no I hadn't heard that.
Here's what it says now:
Mitchell: Do you have any information about reporters being swept up in this net?

Risen: No, I don't. It's not clear to me. That's one of the questions we'll have to look into the future. Were there abuses of this program or not? I don't know the answer to that

Mitchell: You are very, very tough on the CIA and the administration in general in both the war on terror and the run up to the war and the war itself Â? the post-war operation. Let's talk about the war on terror. Why do you think they missed so many signals and what do you think caused the CIA to have this sort of break down as you describe it?

Risen: I think that, you know, to me, the greater break down was really on Iraq. It's very difficult to have known ahead of time about these 19 hijackers. They were, you know, probably lucky that they got through and they did something that no one really assumed anybody would ever do. And I think that made 9/11 a lot like Pearl Harbor. That even when you see all the clues in front of you that it's very difficult to put it together.
Since when is NBC in the business of deleting entire paragraphs from their official transcripts? What's going on here?

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/nbc-changes-official-transcript-of.html

[Benhurst]

1. History is not history until it is rewritten by NBC. NT

[leveymg]

2. If copy&paste had been around in 1984, the Memory Hole would have been

next to useless. Think of all the trouble and government expense the Ministry of Truth would have saved in dealing with Winston Smith.

Amazing catch.

[im10ashus]

4. This is not a good precedent.

We need to make sure we point this out to NBC. I know I am doing an e-mail to them now.

[leveymg]

7. Tell them you're about to Cc it to Editor & Publisher if they don't

respond with a statement in ten minutes. Give them half an hour, and then send it.

If they respond, make sure you share it with us. :7

[FreedomAngel82]

21. Don't forget to Email Mitchell

Maybe if she has enough pressure with this she'll raise some hell too.

[Lex]

3. More proof that NBC is covering for White House. nt

[jbonkowski]

6. I wouldn't go that far

The spying on reporters thing is just a rumor so far.

Good journalism doesn't involve rumors and speculation. It was probably a mistake for Mitchell to ask the question that way, or at least to mention a particular journalist in the question. Now, if she had a credible source for that claim, and cited it, it would have been passable journalism. At least she could have said "Can you comment on rumors that...".

If Mitchell or NBC regret the question, they should put forth an apology, not try to erase it from the record.

jim

[Lex]

8. If it were an honest mistake, then NBC would treat it as such

as you say, "If Mitchell or NBC regret the question, they should put forth an apology, not try to erase it from the record."

The tactic of erasing it from the record is what scream 'covering for' someone.

[Doctor_J]

52. Heh heh

"Good journalism doesn't involve rumors and speculation". Riiiiiiiiight. How about lying, propagandizing, and erasing paragraphs from transcsripts to cover for the criminals in the White House?

[lovuian]

5. How did Andrea Mitchell know about Christiane Amanpour???

just like she knew about PLAme ... Judith Miller has Mother!!!

[FreedomAngel82]

26. Or maybe in this case

Amanpour and her are friends and she was asking on behalf of Amanpour to find out if she was being tapped (more than likely yes I think).

[HereSince1628]

41. As far as I can tell she didn't say she knew Amanpour was being monitored

And NBC may have felt that the question was too suggestive to leave up where it could cause a stampede among the tinfoilerees

However. You gotta believe that Amanpour has made telephone calls with Al Jazeera and you gotta believe that Al Jazeera is considered to be communicating with Al Qaeda. I think that would almost guarantee that Amanpour's phone calls had a very high probability of meeting the NSA/Bush/Cheney profiles for what makes a phone call worth monitoring.

[Eric J in MN]

9. Is this the transcript of a broadcast? If so, which broadcast?

nt

[NightOwwl]

10. Stupidest thing NBC could have done.

Website of original transcript has already been cached, with Mitchell's question on record.

Deleting the "offending" statement will not make it dissappear. In fact, I suspect this dumb move on NBC's part will only raise more concerns and questions about Bush's "spy" program.

NYTIMES MUST PRINT THE LIST OF NAMES NOW!

[BuyingThyme]

13. Yep. This is a huge deal, here.

[shaniqua6392]

11. On Sundays Meet the Press.....

William Safire (Republican) told Tim Russert that his office and home phone were tapped by the NSA. He was extremely unhappy about that. It was interesting to see him be so upset. He would have probably been on the side of Bushco, if it had not happened to him personally. Very funny. I will have to look for a transcript of the show and see if it was changed at all.

[babylonsister]

12. That's one journalist; I wonder how many others have been

spied on? I'm sure it's making all the journalists anxious.

[in_cog_ni_to]

16. ALL of them have been wiretapped.

That's why they all kiss his ass and shill for him on a daily basis.

on edit...and if they were SMART, they would ALL stand together and tell this fascist regime they aren't going to take it anymore.

[txindy]

18. That's probably very true.

There has to be an explanation for it and that sounds just right. Remember how miserable they all looked on the night of 11/4/04 when the votes 'mysteriously' began to shift Junior's way and the exit polls were so far wrong? Andrea Greenspan looked like she wanted to cry.

[in_cog_ni_to]

22. Yup. They were all thinking, "oh no! another 4 years of THIS regime

and KKKRove breathing down our neck."

I remember reading an article about CNN reporting the Bush AWOL story during the 2000 primary election and KKKRove called CNN and told them they had better never run that story again or the FCC would be paying them a visit. They never ran the story again. I've also read many articles about KKKRove or OTHER administration officials who have called networks and complained/threatened them about a story they ran. These people are dangerous. There's no doubt in my mind that every politician and all journalists of any importance, have been wiretapped.

[txindy]

24. I'm afraid you're right.

I'd include the major editors, publishers, and producers in that list. The talking heads aren't the only ones being threatened. We keep hearing rumblings about how the reporters on certain papers (**cough** NYTimes **cough**) grumble about bringing revealing info. to their bosses, but their story ideas are quashed and they're not permitted to write them. Or that major revelations are delayed for more than a year, until well after the election.

This certainly explains it. Perfectly, in fact.

[babylonsister]

31. And remember Russert, caught up in the Plame investigation?

HE surely was 'handled' by the wh; they also wanted him to lie about it.

[shaniqua6392]

19. If someone did that to me

I would turn on them like a snake! I do not understand how they bow down to Bushco instead of rebelling. Friggin cowards. I would love to see them get really mad and start reporting the truth.

[txindy]

29. Sounds like they need to get together and report the truth all at once

What would the response be? A litany of revelations about every single journalist, talking head, or executive in the MSM? Who would have the time? KKKarl and his thugs would be too busy defending themselves from the charges. Little Scottie's head would be spinning even faster than it is now during gaggles.

That's the answer, right there, media folk. Report the truth. All at once. Let the criminals deal with the truth from every source there is. Don't report the resulting smears against your fellow MSM. Cover each other's backs. If they smear and no one reports it or airs it, who's to know? You've covered the criminals' backs for years now. Take what you've learned and roll.

[babylonsister]

33. The problem is, their bosses are just as trapped.

Everyone's bottom line is their pocketbooks. If the journalists aren't reporting what they're told to, I imagine they wouldn't have jobs. But when does a conscience or morals enter into any of this?

[txindy]

36. That's what I mean. The bosses need to get together and coordinate.

There are far fewer of them than there are journalists, so it's doable, physically. Will they do it? It depends on their current motivation, I would imagine. If they fear this admin., then they may tell the truth if the others do, as well. However, if they are like Ailes, they agree with the criminals and they will not break ranks.

The ones who have been threatened are the ones who need to get together.

[AbbyR]

57. I've thought the same thing many times...

I'm a reporter for a fairly small newspaper, and if anyone did something like that to me I would out them so fast it would make their head spin. I honestly can't understand these "important" journalists - I work so hard to get the facts right and to get them out. It makes no sense at all to me.

[FreedomAngel82]

35. I don't know

if people who write for local papers and the like have been but I wouldn't be surprised if even Mitchell has been spied on and others like her who get around.

[FreedomAngel82]

27. That's how it always is

Makes me wonder about Bob Barr. :shrug: I was listening to yesterday's Stephanie Miller's show and she was reading something Barr either wrote or said and he said that there needs to be a democratic Congress. :crazy: Maybe he was tapped too. :shrug:

[bananas]

43. I felt this deserves it's own thread

so I started one.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2349656

[leeroysphitz]

14. Down the memory hole into the furnaces deep within

the Ministry of Truth (minitru).

[txindy]

15. Whoopsie. Mrs. Greenspan went off the reservation. Her Overlords hate that

Poor Andrea. Years as a tool and what has it gotten you? Fear of them and loathing from us. You've earned both.

Sucks to be you. :toast:

[Catherine Vincent]

17. Is this really a big deal? Changing transcripts...

Remember back on CNN a show with Bill Press and Novak (I believe), I don't think it was "Crossfire" but the guest was Larry Flynt and he was discussing how he had info on Bush's girlfriend's abortion. CNN erased that part from their transcripts. It was talked about much on DU but nothing ever happened.

[txindy]

23. Did Flynt wiretap to get the info.? Was he president at the time?

No, I didn't think so.

We're talking about the gov't. spying on journalists. When a journalist (to be kind) brought up that possibility with a name attached to it, her question and the response disappeared. It's not a transcript if it isn't complete. This isn't Reader's Digest. They aren't allowed to abridge facts.

[renate]

28. actually, changing transcripts probably IS a big deal no matter what

I'd have thought that it's perfectly okay not to post an interview etc verbatim, but if something relevant or important is left out and there's no indication of that, it's inaccurate not to indicate that there was editing.

I'm not a journalist so maybe I'm wrong, but in science, you can't just leave out data on a whim and you certainly can't leave it out without an explanation.

[FreedomAngel82]

37. This raises the question I think

of WHY did NBC fill the need to edit this out? I'm sure if Mitchell didn't want it there she wouldn't have asked the question, so she obviously felt it a necessary part of the interview by asking the question.

[FreedomAngel82]

30. Is it a big deal?!

Okay that is the dumbest question. Sorry but YES!!!! It's erasing info and could be important! Especially with the Larry Flynt thing with Bush because it shows the hypocrite Bush is and could've changed everything that we know now. Maybe I'm overexerting that but we'll never know now will we?

[Catherine Vincent]

32. Well if it was a big deal then why didn't CNN get in trouble for it?

[FreedomAngel82]

38. Well gee

let me go and pop on over and ask CNN and let me act like I run the place. :eyes: Gee, you think I know why CNN didn't get in trouble for it? Why does fox not get in trouble for their outrageous lies and manipulation as a company?

[Catherine Vincent]

42. Wait. I think you're reading me wrong.

I'm just wondering why CNN didn't get in trouble back then for changing the transcripts. I feel NBC won't get in trouble either. It's the same thing (transcript erasing) although the topics are different.

[FreedomAngel82]

20. Wow

I wonder if Mitchell will speak up. I remember she was on some show on MSNBC and she was asked if she felt fear or anything like that in the newsroom after Dan Rather said he did and she said "no" so it'll be interesting to see if she makes any noise about this.

[H2O Man]

25. Interesting.

Nominated. It is important that we are aware of the level of manipulation in the corporate media.

[im10ashus]

34. I've yet to hear back from the e-mail I sent.

Not surprisingly, however.

NBC is owned by GE. GE is profiting from the war in Iraq. I think there's not enough talk about the corporate media and their involvement in misleading the public. But I digress. Thank heaven for the blogosphere.

[Cooley Hurd]

39. Begging the question - did they bug the phone of a Kerry advisor?

One who happened to be married to Christiane Amanpour?

If that ever got out, there'd be hell to pay (the term "Nixonian" comes to mind).:popcorn:

[im10ashus]

40. You are thinking of her husband who worked for Clinton.

James Rubin.

http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/biographies/rubin.html

[girl gone mad]

49. He worked on the Kerry campaign, too.

He was Kerry's senior advisor for national security affairs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x52317

[im10ashus]

50. Good to know. n/t

[robbedvoter]

51. Rubin also worked on Clark's campaign - foreign policy consultant

So, if their phone was tapped....
Clark:
My views on Iraq were very clear. You've heard them expressed on this show many times, Judy. And you yourself know very well how I felt about Iraq.

That's the reason I was attacked all through the war by guys like Dick Cheney for being an armchair general, because they knew I was against what they were doing. And they were right. And now we see why everybody should have been against it.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/12/ip.00.html

[bpilgrim]

44. being swept up in this net is much more generic and better for roves plans

let EVERYONE know they might get swept up in this net if you don't watch what you say ;->



peace

[im10ashus]

45. No place is safe.

We can run but we can't hide. Hideous, yes?

[bpilgrim]

46. apparently, only the caves where bin forgotten is hiding

or cheney's secure location, in a bigger, badder cave... or so i'm told :evilgrin:



peace

[im10ashus]

47. Isn't it the truth.

No mention of Osama in I don't know how long.

[BuyingThyme]

48. kcik

[RSchewe]

53. AMERICAblog: NBC confirms it's investigating whether Bush spied on CNN's

Christiane Amanpour

(snip)

Via Atrios and MediaBistro:

Unfortunately this transcript was released prematurely. It was a topic on which we had not completed our reporting, and it was not broadcast on 'NBC Nightly News' nor on any other NBC News program. We removed that section of the transcript so that we may further continue our inquiry.

more...


http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/nbc-confirms-its-investigating-whether.html

[Straight Shooter]

54. Follow-up link: Amanpour's connections to Kerry, Clark, and Clinton

What it means to John Kerry, Wesley Clark, and Bill Clinton if Bush wiretapped CNN's Christiane Amanpour: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/what-it-means-to-john-kerry-wesley.html

<snip>

1. Such a wiretap would likely include her home, office, and cell phones, and email correspondence, at the very least.

2. That means anyone Christiane has conversed with in the past four years, at least by phone or email, could have had their conversation taped by the US government.

3. That also means that anyone who uses any of Christiane's telephones or computers (work or home) could also have had their conversation bugged.

4. This includes Christiane's husband, former Clinton administration senior official Jamie Rubin, who was spokesman for the State Department.

<snip>

As H20Man said, interesting. Very interesting, indeed.

[im10ashus]

56. Thanks for that information.

I was wondering what their "reason" would be.

[BuyingThyme]

55. kcik

[BuyingThyme]

58. kcik

[im10ashus]

59. Thanks! n/t

:hi: