‘Are you kidding me?’: Reporters slammed for panning Biden’s anti-fascism speech

 David Badash, The New Civil Rights Movement from Raw Story

President Joe Biden Thursday night delivered a 23-minute primetime address urging Americans to choose democracy over fascism, while calling out, by name, Donald Trump and his MAGA Republicans.

Historians, political scientists, and journalism and extremism experts are praising the President for standing up for American values in the face of rising far-right threats of political violence. President Biden in very clear terms warned Americans they must "defend" and "protect" democracy against the fascism of the far-right – which is not a political speech, but a speech about, as Biden said, the "soul of the nation."

As expected, many Republicans expressed outrage over President Biden calling out the portion of the GOP that identifies as "MAGA," even though he made clear his criticism was not of mainstream Republicans.

One news network's coverage in particular is being highly criticized as several of its reporters took umbrage with President Biden delivering what they wrongly characterized as a "political" speech, while criticizing that two uniformed Marines were standing behind him.

CNN Chief National Affairs Correspondent Jeff Zeleny tweeted a photo of the President in front of the Marines, saying: "There’s nothing unusual or wrong with a President delivering a political speech — it’s inherent in the job description — but doing it against a backdrop of two Marines standing at attention and the Marine Band is a break with White House traditions."

Journalist Jamison Foser observed that "Biden is talking about defending democracy and the rule of law from assault by a fascist movement that staged a deadly insurrection. Marines take an oath to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.' Pretty compatible!"

Former U.S. Senator Claire McCaskil (D-MO) slammed Zeleny.

"Are you kidding me Jeff? The last President did official Republican political events at the White House! And used the National Park Service as political event planners. How about political interview inside the Lincoln Memorial? Those are all examples of demolishing WH traditions," she wrote.

U.S. Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) asked, "Didn’t TFG," referring to Donald Trump, "accept his nomination on the White House lawn?"

"I recall a certain president giving a political speech on a damn aircraft carrier," blasted national security attorney Brad Moss. "I recall another president accepting his political nomination at the WHITE HOUSE. Ask me how little I care about the two marines deep in the background."

The former Communications Director for Senator Amy Klobuchar, Tim Hogan, corrected the record with photographic evidence:

Zeleny was not the only CNN journalist to instigate the ire of Americans watching the President's speech.

"Whatever you think of this speech the military is supposed to be apolitical. Positioning Marines in uniform behind President Biden for a political speech flies in the face of that. It’s wrong when Democrats do it. It’s wrong when Republicans do it," tweeted CNN host Brianna Keilar.

University of South Carolina Political Science Professor David Darmofal corrected Keilar, saying: "It was a speech about defending democracy."

Mary Trump, the former President's niece who is a psychologist, added: "I see everyone at CNN got their talking point. This was NOT a political speech (unless you think condemning fascism and encouraging people to vote are political positions in which case--that's what we call a tell).

CNN wasn't the only news outlet with reporters attracting anger.

CBS News' Ed O'Keefe was also criticized for equating a call to fight fascism and defend democracy as a "political" speech.

O'Keefe characterized the fight for civil rights as partisan politics, which it is not.

Marquette University Political Science Professor Julia Azari, who teaches about the American presidency, American political parties, and the politics of the American state blasted O'Keefe: "This frame undermines both democracy and journalism."

White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain graciously challenged O'Keefe:

Dan Froomkin, one of the most credible media critics also slammed O'Keefe.

"Biden is describing a major democratic crisis that actually exists. But political journalists only see a Democrat saying negative things about Republicans and so, you know, both sides," he wrote.

The White House Deputy Press Secretary, Andrew Bates, summed up what many were saying: "Democracy is not a partisan or political issue."

How Mainstream Media Spread The GOP's False Harry Reid Cancer Story

OLIVER WILLIS/Media Matters For America

Mainstream media outlets echoed a deceptive framing, created by the conservative media and amplified by House Republicans, of comments by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), leaving the false impression that he dismissed the plight of cancer-stricken patients denied care by the government shutdown.

Reid Pushed For Full Government Funding Over Piecemeal Legislation

House Republicans Adopt Piecemeal Strategy Of Funding Only Some Government Agencies, Including National Institutes Of Health. From The Washington Times:

House Republicans plan to keep trying their new piecemeal approach to solving the shutdown, setting up yet another round of votes Wednesday on bills that would fund veterans affairs and national parks -- and adding new bills to fund the National Institutes of Health and to pay the National Guard and the military reserves.

But the White House budget office said President Obama "strongly opposes" those bills and would veto them if they were to reach his desk. [Washington Times, 10/2/13]

Reid Responds: "Why Would We Want" To Pit Groups Against Each Other For Funding? During an October 2 Senate press conference, Reid decried the idea that legislators should "pick and choose" which parts of the government should be funded, reiterating his desire for legislation to fully fund the federal government without strings attached. After a reporter followed up by asking, "if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn't you do it?" Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) interjected, asking"why pit one against the other?" Reid then chimed in, "why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting home. They have a few problems of their own." From the press conference:

DANA BASH (CNN): You all talked about children with cancer unable to go to clinical trials. The House is specifically going to pass a bill that -- (off mic) -- given what you said, would you at least pass that? And if not, aren't you playing the same political games as Republicans are?

SEN. REID: Listen, Senator Durbin explained that very well. And he did it here, and he did it on the floor earlier, as did Senator Schumer. And it's this. What right did they have to pick and choose what part of government's going to be funded? It's obvious what's going on here. You talk about reckless and irresponsible. Wow.

What this is all about is "Obamacare." They are obsessed. I don't know what other word I can use. I don't know what other word I can use. They are obsessed with this "Obamacare" thing. As has been pointed on the floor the last few days, they did the same thing on Social Security. They did the same thing on Medicare. Now they're doing it on this.

It's working now, and it'll continue to work, and people will love it even more than they do now by far. So they have no right to pick and choose.

BASH: But if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn't you do it?

HARRY REID: Listen (INAUDIBLE) what do --

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: Why pit one against the other?

REID: Why do they -- why -- why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force Base that are sitting home. They have the -- they have a few problems of their own. [Senate Press Conference, 10/2/13, via Nexis]

Reid: "Why Would We Have" Speaker Boehner "Cherry Pick What Stays Open And What Should Be Closed?" Reid later elaborated on the exchange. From an October 2 article in The Hill:

Later, in an interview with The Bill Press Show, Reid elaborated on the exchange.

"The whole answer is this -- why would we want to have the House of Representatives, John Boehner, cherry pick what stays open and what should be closed?" he said. "Listen, I gave a speech on the floor talking about the babies, 30 babies, little kids who are not going to have clinical trials. Of course I care about that. I have 16 of my own grandchildren and five of my own children."

Reid said that there are other agencies, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that are just as important to fund and that he's working to get everything back online.

"What I told Dana Bash, who is a fine reporter, is that we care about all of these things," he continued. "We care about our state parks; we care about our veterans, but we can't fall into the trap ... of Cruz-led Republicans. That is this ... we'll cherry pick ... and finally at the end, everything will be open except for ObamaCare." [The Hill, 10/2/13]

Conservatives Distorted Reid's Comments

Free Beacon Deceptively Edits Transcript, Claims Reid Asked Why Democrats "Would Want To Fund The National Institutes Of Health To 'Help One Child Who Has Cancer.'" In reporting on the exchange, The Washington Free Beacon deceptively removed Schumer's interjection, suggesting that Sen. Reid was directly responding to Bash's question. From an October 2 post on The Washington Free Beacon:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) asked why Senate Democrats would want to fund the National Institutes of Health to "help one child who has cancer" Wednesday when asked that question by CNN reporter Dana Bash.[Washington Free Beacon, 10/2/13]

House Republicans Amplify False Framing And Edited Transcript. The website of House Speaker John Boehner published a post titled "Top Senate Democrat on Helping Kids With Cancer: 'Why Would We Want To Do That?.'" The post featured the following deceptively edited transcript:

CNN: "If you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn't you do that?"

Sen. Reid: "Why would we want to do that?" [Speaker.House.Gov, 10/2/13]

Some Media Adopt GOP's False Framing Of Reid's Comments...

CNN's Carol Costello: "What Harry Reid Said Was Awful." On the October 3 edition of CNN Newsroom, anchor Carol Costello aired video of the exchange and had the following remarks:

COSTELLO: Okay so Jason I'll start with you. So, the Democrats aren't they being a little hypocritical here because they passed a resolution to pay servicemembers?

JASON JOHNSON, HLN CONTRIBUTOR: I don't think so, look the whole point is that -

COSTELLO: But what Harry Reid said was awful.

JOHNSON: I'll never defend Harry Reid for anything. [CNN, CNN Newsroom, 10/3/13]

CBS' Nancy Cordes: Reid's Response To Funding Cancer Research "Was 'Why Would I Do That?'" From the October 2 edition of CBS Evening News With Scott Pelley:

CORDES: Senate Democrats say the only funding they'll agree to is a bill that funds the full government, no strings attached. In fact, Scott, today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was asked if he would be open to funding cancer research for kids only and his response was, "Why would I do that?" [CBS, CBS Evening News, 10/2/13, via Media Matters]

... While Other Media Outlets Explain Reid Is Being Taken Out Of Context

NY Times: Contrary To GOP Claims, Reid Was "Ineloquently Making A Point About The Need To Fund The Entire Government." From an October 3 New York Times article:

Mr. Reid's tendency to speak without inhibition or filter has created no shortage of complications and may have so alienated Republicans that they see no incentive to work with him. On Wednesday, Republican press offices, including Mr. Boehner's, and Tea Party groups circulated remarks from Mr. Reid in which he appeared to be dismissive of cancer-stricken children. (In fact, he was ineloquently making a point about the need to fund the entire government, not just parts that Republicans have selected for special appropriations bills as a way to ameliorate the effects of the shutdown.) [NY Times, 10/3/13]

Politico's Byers: "Even If You Got Rid Of Sen. Schumer's Remark, You'd Still Run Into A Little Thing Called 'Context.'"From an October 2 blog post by Politico's Dylan Byers:

I can't imagine the intellectual leaps and bounds you'd have to go through to arrive at the conclusion that Sen. Reid doesn't care about cancer patients. Even if you got rid of Sen. Schumer's remark, you'd still run into a little thing called "context." After getting rid of context, you'd probably run into the inconvenient fact that Sen. Reid's wife was diagnosed with breast cancer just two years ago.

...

The problem with separating quotes from context is that the effort usually comes back to bite you. Before you know it, you end up being depicted as someone who has to invent controversy because you're no longer capable of debating on substance. [Politico, 10/2/13]

The Atlantic: "It's Clear That Reid Was Responding To The Point Brought Up By Schumer." From an October 2 article inThe Atlantic:

In the video, it's clear that Reid was responding to the point brought up by Schumer -- why fund kids with cancer, while ignoring, say, other vulnerable kids, or other populations impacted by the shutdown? Why choose? This has been the Democrats' stock response to variations on this question, usually from Republicans on the House floor. But Reid's answer, with a testy tone and a follow-up insult to a reporters' intelligence, caught on. [The Atlantic, 10/2/13]

The Press Lets Darrell Issa Turn IRS Story Into Another Partisan Pursuit

 ERIC BOEHLERT/Media Matters For America:

Answering reporters' questions in the White House Rose Garden last month, President Obama vowed to address the just-uncovered IRS controversy, in which the agency inappropriately targeted conservative groups that were applying for tax-exempt status. "We will be putting in new leadership that will be able to make sure that we...hold accountable those who have taken these outrageous actions," Obama said on May 16.

Obama announced that the acting IRS director was leaving, and pledged to work with Congress and institute new safeguards, in part by implementing some of the recommendations included in the newly released inspector general's report.

"The good news is it's fixable," Obama said. "And it's in everyone's best interest to work together to fix it." At the time, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said that the president "set exactly the right tone."

Less than three weeks later, Issa appeared on CNN and called White House Press Secretary Jay Carney a "paid liar." He also dangled for journalists some cherry-picked excerpts from Congressional interviews with a handful of IRS workers, stressed he was convinced the IRS targeting had been done "in all likelihood" for political purposes, and assured viewers it was just a matter of time before he uncovered enough evidence to prove his claims. ("We're getting to proving it," he said.)

In other words, what started out, briefly, as a bipartisan effort to fix a serious federal government problem, and what started out with Obama admitting that mistakes were made and committing to holding people accountable, quickly degenerated into the latest partisan pursuit inside Washington.

The focus of Issa's hearings is no longer fixing a problem. It's been shifted to affixing political blame. Rather than asking how the IRS mistake can be avoided in the future, the questions now being asked revolve around politics and the process.

And it was Issa's June 2 CNN appearance, where he uncorked wild charges about the IRS story (charges often based on his "gut" instincts), that signaled to the press that Republicans were, without question, treating the IRS story as purely a political and partisan endeavor. And it was Issa's rhetoric that helped mold the larger media narrative surrounding the story: GOP targets the White House in IRS probe. That in turn produces puts Democrats on the defensive, forced to disprove Republican charges, even though the allegations aren't grounded in fact.

Much the same way the press followed Republicans' lead and allowed the terrorist attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi to be turned into an almost an exclusively partisan pursuit, the same pattern has emerged with the IRS story.

Despite the fact the IRS commissioner at the time of the targeting scandal was appointed by President Bush, and despite the fact the inspector's general report stressed there was no proof the White House or the Obama administration or his re-election campaign in any way urged IRS workers to single out conservative applicants, Issa has adopted the Fox News approach to scandal investigating: Announce Democrats are guilty and then set out in search of the evidence.

It's almost the Alex Jones approach to fact-finding. Issa throwing out allegations based on his "gut" leads to headlines like these: 

Politico: "Darrell Issa charges Washington involvement In IRS scandal"

Atlantic Wire: "Issa Says IRS Scrutiny Was Directed By Washington"

Christian Science Monitor: "Smoking gun in IRS Scandal? Rep. Darrell Issa Says He's Close"

Following Issa's cable TV appearance, the New York Times eagerly portrayed Issa's hollow allegations as newsworthy:

Mr. Issa ratcheted up the pressure over the weekend with the selective release of excerpts from continuing committee interviews with I.R.S. employees in Cincinnati involved in the added scrutiny of Tea Party groups and other conservative associations.

It wasn't until the 24^th paragraph that the Times conceded none of Issa's claims "constituted evidence of wrongdoing at the White House."

With Benghazi, Republicans Recruit Beltway Press For Another Whitewater Production

ERIC BOEHLERT/Media Matters For America

Reporting on ABC News' story about how administration talking points about the September 11 terrorist attack on a U.S. diplomatic facilities had gone through an inter-agency editing process, World News Tonight anchor Diane Sawyer on May 10 introduced the program's coverage by claiming the White House had been "challenged today during a leadership crisis." Sawyer reported the latest round of Benghazi questions and allegations about the talking points revolved around "what the president did on Benghazi" eight months ago, the night four Americans were killed.

Neither claim was true. There's no indication Obama played any role in the crafting of the talking points, which had nothing to do with what the president did during the attack. But for ABC, the editing process for a sheet of talking points is now considered a "leadership crisis."

As wildly inaccurate and misleading as Sawyer's brief introduction was, it helped in terms of marking how deeply the mainstream news media have ventured into the GOP scandal culture in order to help legitimize the right-wing effort to turn Benghazi into full fledged political firestorm at home.

With Republicans working in tandem with Fox News to prop up Congressional hearings that have provided aframework for news coverage in recent weeks, the Benghazi story has taken on a nostalgic, 1990's feelrecalling a time when the same Republican Party and the same conservative media noise machine hounded a Democratic president with endless allegations of wrongdoing. Punctuated by hearings, the wild allegations were excitedly churned through news cycles by reporters and pundits in hot pursuit of "scandal." (And used by conservatives to raise campaign cash.)

It's especially reminiscent of Whitewater, the octopus-like investigation that stretched on for years, cost tens of millions of dollars, and even branched out into scrutinizing President Bill Clinton's sex life.  Over time, the vast majority of those endless Clinton allegations were proven to be hollow. But aidded by some regrettable journalism, the relentless scandal culture took hold and managed to damage to the Clinton administration. Now it's time for a rerun. ("Getting the band back together," is how Esquire's Charles Pierce describes the right-wing's obvious re-assembling of its `90s scandal machine.)

As the Beltway's Benghazi witch-hunt gathers momentum, and questions about relatively minor events, such as the inter-agency drafting of national security talking points, are portrayed as deeply disturbing news revelations (while previous, disproved Benghazi allegations get quietly shelved), it's uncanny how the storyline more and more resembles the early days of the Whitewater fiasco, and other ancillary Clinton pursuits.

Note how the formerly Whitewater-obsessed Wall Street Journal editorial page is calling for the creation of a Select Committee to investigate Benghazi. The paper insists it's the only way "for the U.S. political system to extricate itself from the labyrinth called Benghazi," when a Select Committee could accomplish the opposite and drag the story out for years. Indeed, the whole point of the GOP's Whitewater model is to create a political labyrinth for the White House, and to then wallow in it and hope the press does, too. That's the Whitewater model; to launch a "scandal" that can sustain itself through endless investigation for months and years on end.

Like Whitewater, look at how the Benghazi production now comes complete with dubious claims about whistleblowers (and their unreliable advocate), controversial talking points, and leaked Congressional testimony used to whip up media anticipation. But it's testimony that ultimately failed to advance the story.

Bill Clinton and his former senior advisers must be suffering severe bouts of déjà vu these days.

"All of this is a grotesque over-reaction - for transparently political purposes," wrote blogger Andrew Sullivan in a recent Benghazi-related post, headlined "Whitewater Round II."

In fact, Whitewater seems to be enjoying a renaissance of sorts within far-right circles and might now be considered a model of partisan attack. This week, Fox's Megyn Kelly referred to Whitewater as "one of the biggest scandals that we've seen in recent years." Kelly then introduced former Whitewater deputy counsel Robert Bittman to comment on the possible need for an independent prosecutor to investigate Benghazi. (In the real world, Whitewater is often used as shorthand for a waste of money and a pointlessly partisan and incompetent investigation.)

The key to the Whitewater formula for Republicans is to get the press to play along and to get the press to hype stories beyond their importance while simultaneously not penalizing Republicans when their previous,laundry list of allegations fall flat. In recent days, that formula has been working for the GOP.

Recall that over last eights months, Republicans, with Fox News and the right-wing media is their amplifier, have claimed Obama never called the Benghazi attack an act of terror. They suggested  former CIA director David Patraeus was forced to resign because of Benghazi, that the White House had demanded changes in the original Benghazi talking points. That Obama watched Americans die in real time last September 11 andrefused to send help. That so-called whistleblowers were blocked from testifying about the Benghazi, along with Benghazi survivors. Also, that Hillary Clinton was to blame for security cutbacks at the Benghazi facility, and faked a concussion in order to avoid testifying about the terror attack.

False, false, false, false, false, false, and false.

But has that established record of shoddy misinformation slowed the press from embracing Benghazi as a stirring controversy? No. Just like it rarely slowed down the Whitewater coverage, which for years allowed Republicans to swing and miss without ever being called out.   

In terms of hyping Benghazi stories beyond their importance, the New York Times conceded in its May 11report about the fresh controversy surrounding the drafting of the talking points, "the e-mails do not reveal major new details about the attack or other discrepancies in the administration's evolving account of it." But that didn't stop the paper from pushing the article on page one.

Why? Because like the new ground rules that the press established for Clinton, it's the appearance of impropriety that makes it a news event. That, and the fact that Republicans are deeply, deeply troubled by thatappearance of impropriety.

At the same time, the scandal culture is reinforced by dubious journalism and commentary that hardens erroneous GOP talking points, such as when NBC's Tom Brokaw claimed on May 13 that United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice went on the Sunday morning talk shows immediately following the Benghazi attack and "in a very emphatic way" she said "it was not a terrorist attack." In truth, Rice stressed during her September 16 appearance on Face The Nation, "it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence" at the diplomatic facilities in Benghazi.

The Benghazi circus, created by Republicans and their allies in the right-wing media, has been punctuated by eights months of steady lies about Obama and his administration.  For the press to now ignore that avalanche of falsehoods and to then wildly overhype the issue of edits to a sheet of talking points is to return to the dark journalistic days of Whitewater. It's to return to a time when the Beltway press enabled and promoted a dishonest smear campaign.