WagTheNews

Dan Rather has the solution. “American journalism has lost its spine and we need a spine transplant.”  As a journalist who grew up to “The Camera Never Blinks,” I’ve always rooted for Rather, yet as his 77 years have slowed him a bit, he still presents bigger than life, polite as ever, even shaking hands with reporters before they turn that non-blinking camera on him.

Yet it was somewhat surprising when Rather refused to answer my question at the National Conference for Media Reform. Surprising since a lot of the discussion that preceded him centered on the media’s complicity and silence to the Bush Administration’s build up to the Iraq War.

Question: “Everyone knew that George Bush was AWOL from National Guard duty, yet you still pursued (the story) and your one decision basically put a freeze on the press being critical of the Bush Administration. Why did you continue to pursue a story that conventional wisdom already knew the answer to?”

Rather response: “You’re entitled to ask a question. I respect the question. I hope you respect I’m here to talk about free press, the quality of journalism, the integrity of journalism and some other time if you want to talk about the lawsuit I’m engaged, perhaps I can do it but right now, again, with great respect since you asked the question, this is not the time to answer that question.”

Surprising response since the movement for media reform has everything to do with transparency and to learn from the media mistakes of the past.

So what will it take for true media reform? Spending the first two days at the National Conference has left me hopeful but a bit mixed up. Inspired by Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake.com who says we should be somewhere between activism and journalism. Or Rather’s comments for a call for “patriotic journalism.” Or the line between “advocacy and purpose that takes us across political boundaries” as Jefferson Morley of the Center for Independent Media put it.

The public was left in the dark for the most important issue of our time. Mainstream media worked with the Pentagon and allowed its voices to infiltrate the airwaves, reciting 4500 times the pre-war lies on all the major networks and even NPR. CNN’s Eason Jordan asked the Pentagon for input on which retired military flacks to hire as commentators and “got a big thumbs up for all of them.”

I'm inspired by Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine, who shows how mainstream is ignoring the huge story of the “new economy of wartime.” Homeland Security is a $200 billion global industry that needs to be examined on par with the dot com economy. And many of the corporate media owners have a stake in this new economy, as evidenced by General Electric logos on the side of airport screening machines.

And it’s not just the war where mainstream media has let go of its responsibility. Larry Lessing of Stanford Law points to global warming. In the 1990’s, when 0% of the people disagreed with the facts of global warming, 53% of media articles questioned the findings because of “junk science” funded by the energy lobby. “In all these 2+2=4 questions, the government gets them wrong.”

Lobbyists have doubled since 2000 as Bush’s chief lobbyist says “People in industry are willing to invest money because they see opportunities here.” Yet the media all but ignores this.

The mainstream is noticeably absent fro this conference on media reform. Is it because they are embarrassed by how they let down Americans and the world? Hardly. “Iraq has largely disappeared from mainstream media. We’re not seeing news coverage because of this projected disinterest by the public,” says Klein.

Sonali Kolhatkar, author of Bleeding Afghanistan even says NPR shortchanged the public when it canned an interview with an Afghani woman “because her accent was too thick.” Klein said it best:  “I just want to say we cannot single out one network. The leading newspapers and the leading networks of our time, they all failed us.” And with this, I'm off to listen to Dan Rather once again.                                                                            6/7/08 

Day one winds down and Bill O’Reilly, whose ratings are tanking, gets the most mentions at the Minneapolis Convention Center. Is that a good thing at a conference that should focus on media reform? Even though the conference is sponsored by Free Press, a national, non-partisan group, Bill-O is the lightning rod. And he must love it. FOX has a crew on the scene, and Free Press put out its first e-mail alert of the day stating FOX cameras are here to ambush the conference. It’s this thinking that has the media turned upside down, letting a cable TV spectacle, who decimal points watch spew his hate, dictate the tone and talking points of the nation. He must have loved Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films starting his session by pointing out the FOX camera crew in attendance. "The liars, distorters, the people at FOX News, and a word to bully Bill O'Reilly who’s too (something) to come out and do his own dirty work..Hi Bill."

It’s crystal clear that those at the National Conference for Media Reform are partisan and looking for a change. They hope to ride Barack Obama’s message and coat tails for a clue on how to seize ts own lighning in a bottle.

The partisan FCC is here too, though it is the dissenting voices of the federal regulatory group present, with even less power in these halls than it has in Washington. One Commissioner telling me at a press availability, “The FCC has dropped the ball.” No-duh. When pressed that his regulatory agency is like many others in the Bush Administration, and enforces no regulations, Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein says it will take a partisan change in the White House to accomplish more. When he states the agency is "hoping" for the corporate media to improve on its own, I remind him that “hope is not a strategy, that local stations, where most Americans get their news, have little to no public affairs programming, that the FCC regulates the media with a fine after Janet Jackson exposes herself because about 13 people filed a complaint and orchestrated a letter writing campaign, yet does nothing to hold the media responsibile to the public. When Adelstein says they’re encouraging stations to go online and share how they program in the public’s best interest, I remind him that stations pay attention only during license-renewal time and even then it’s to make sure a local advocate has access to public files in a General Manager's secretary’s cubicle.

So we end day one a bit deflated from how the day started.  Josh Silver, Executive Director of Free Press, the conference organizer, pumped up the audience quickly. “We now know the media rolled over for Bush not just over the war but for every major issue facing the nation. We now know our leaders prey on our fears with a campaign to distract from Administration’s latest embarrassing or illegal acts. We now know corporate media, the source of news for 90% of Americans, was a willing mouthpiece and American people were left afraid. Left in the dark not just by government but by the media that was supposed to keep us informed.

And that’s what matters. The media’s role for society, for democracy. Let Bill-O fight it out with Keith Olbermann. Let them squawk, let them expose each other’s political leanings, let them read the overnight Nielsen ratings to their loyal audiences. But that won’t advance our common ground. That won’t lead to solving problems facing our country. And that won’t motivate the public to leave the past behind, and embrace a new way of thinking. With all the advances in technology, do we trust the established media to provide the roadmap to the future? Or do we take the grassroots movement, led by the Presidential campaign, and define a new standard of how we get our news? The answer is obvious. As the conference theme states: Media Reform Begins with Me.                                       6/6/08 

People often ask me if I miss being in the media, especially during this heated Presidential election. My answer is pretty simple: No. Because over the years, the industry is quite different than the one I and many colleagues signed up for. How corporate owners I've sat across never discuss quality, but rather how we'll add product while cutting resources. How local management, for the most part, takes its daily orders from above, and how we watch the virtual extinction of hard news reporters and the vacuum of quality its left behind. For me, as you know, it was difficult and exhausting to keep holding up the dam while encouraging dedicated newsrooms to show its raging curiosity and risk being loners out in the field. 

If there's one thing this Presidential election has shown us, the public is starting to mobilize against the status quo. For obvious and passionate reasons, voters new and old are speaking out and shaping the quality of many candidates. While voters say they're "mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore, it's ironic that media consumers are less unified, given the real target of that quote.   

In "Network" Howard Beale was shouting that "things have got to change. But first, you've gotta get mad!" Unfortunately the public is too busy, is too easily diverted and too exhausted to take on the quality of the media everyday. That hurts democracy. That hurts society.

In two days, the National Conference for Media Reform takes place in Minneapolis. And I'll be there blogging. It will be the next step in what I tell friends of something "stirring inside of me." Whether it was starting WagTheNews.com or separating the media critique of that blog in TedCanovaOnMedia.com, both web sites are the evolution of a personal commitment to return to that raging and curious journalist I started as in 1981. 

The conference is hosted by Free Press, a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. Dan Rather, Bill Moyers and thousands of concerned activists will be riding a wave of unprecedented activism and interest around media issues and come together.
Maybe it'll start with talk of a media renaissance, and perhaps it will end with lofty goals. But perhaps in some way, it will follow the lead of this unprecedented grassroots uprising we call an election. Perhaps it doesn't take Howard Beale opening up his window and shouting. But maybe it does. Point me to a rooftop and I'm ready to yell we can't take this anymore.     6/4/08  

If you throw a dog a bone, chances are he'll run after it. Throw mainstream media an easy story, and it shows why it belongs in the doghouse...again. This time over Passport Peaking. 

A sample of 20 major U.S. newspapers show when thrown a bone, they choose to nap, remain in a coma, or are conditioned to give the government, which feeds their media empires, a pass.

Since mainstreamers lack of curiosity led American support of the American War in Iraq, you'd think the journalistic profession would conspire to not be fooled again. That its convention seminars and keynoters would challenge the next Woodward and Bernstein's to keep their eyes wide open and their line of questioning aggressive. If mainstream has gotten so entertainment-driven, it should copy the style of Michael Moore in real time, instead of waiting for Moore to connect-the-dots after the fact. 

If the profession was the least bit skeptical, Americans would be better informed which would tilt the power in avor of citizens. If journalists did their jobs better, we would get to the heart of the story and not get confused by all the smokescreens and information-as-truth peddled 24/7 to a gullible and exhausted public. 

WagTheNews examines 14 storylines and shows how the mainstream media never left its comfort zone to challenge what it was fed.   

The State Department investigation- A government that has lied to its people is in charge of investigating itself and its multi-million dollar contractors. We take baseball's steroids probe more seriously.

2 contract workers fired- When will the privatization of America be fully exposed? Contractors are overcharging the government for feeding the troops, securing the pipelines and playing militiamen in Iraq. Now they're in charge of our computers

Fired contract workers can't be called to answer questions unless subpeonaed by grand jury- Will someone please look into Stanley Inc, its contracts, its political contributions and its cozy relationships with lawmakers?

Another contractor, The Analysis Corporation of McLean, Virginia reprimands a worker who is still on job- What ties does TAC have to government? Why is there a second contractor working alongside the first instead on computer work, when choosing one makes accountability and financial controls clear? 

Curious workers- "Curious" would be looking into their ex-girlfriends passport records. We're told the contractors should have looked into relatives records instead. What a relief, unless you don't want your cousin snooping on you either! How about if they look into their trainers records and call it a day?

Workers not alligned to any campaign- This is stated as fact in the first moments the story broke. How does anyone know who these contractors are working for? Said to be non-political appointments, any contractor hired by any adminitration is beholden to that party to keep their steady stream of work. K-Street just moved down the street to the State Department.

Unidentified contractors- In the age of instant information, we know the ID of Elliot Spitzer's hooker but not 4 computer geeks whose motivates are yet fully known.The public deseres full disclosure and we'll learn every motivation of these four without even needing an investigation.

Not politically motivated- The comment taken hook, line and sinker with NO media skepticism. Why was the Administration so quick to be so definitive there was no political motivation?

Rice disturbed if someone did it to her-  Rice has zero crediblity. If she wasn't an African American woman, she'd have been gone along with Rumsfeld. Close the curtain on the unconditonal support for Condi. 

Information contained only name, date of birth and social security number- Oh thank God! It's a good thing you can't do any damage with only that info! Why do you think businesses ask to confirm just the LAST FOUR DIGITS of your social security number. Let's see what movies these candidates rented, what items they bought on e-Bay, and every financial transaction they ever made. Political enemies would have a goldmine with this "limited" information.

Snooped on Hillary last summer- The media downplays this chronology as a long ago mistake, but it is THE smoking gun. Hillary was the heir to the throne back then. This was no training exercise by curious contractors, but a well timed peak into Hillary Clinton at a crucial time of her front runner status.

Snooped on Obama in January, February and March- Part two of smoking gun. What a coincidence that they snooped on Obama only after he caught on like lightning and started winning caucuses and primaries. And the trifecta of spying on him three times? No wonder they were "curious." They snooped on Obama when he became the new frontrunner. Only the Wall Street Journal identified TAC's CEO as an Obama adviser.

They accessed McCain's records too- As if John McCain was the preferred candidate by this White House and Bush/Cheney/Rove's strongest supporters. 

Victims should have been notified when someone famous is accessed-  Famous people, who are usually more wealthy, have more rights than the rest of us? How often does this happen for them to have a separate policy on dealing with famous people who get snooped on?

There are automatic controls for ordinary citizens- It's just that they can't tell us what they are. Just trust us. 

Maybe that's mainstream's real crime. It just trusts them.                                                                       3/22/08

Imus is back in the morning. A kinder, gentler Imus pacifies those who will never listen. An Imus-light sedates the faithful not scared off by the PC police. A tame Imus is better than no Imus, the prospect we faced since the Rutgers insults catapulted the free world against a free-flowing entertainer.The new Imus is bland by necessity. We hope it wears off soon. His return received the typical mainstream media reviews, rehashing the controversy in order to vault Imus back from hell.

There is more to the Imus Makeover than his first day, December 3rd. Wag The News watched the first three weeks of programs and kept an eye out for the nuances of the I-Man's return. Here's a review you won't see the mainstream media ever try, or even know how, to write.

It started with what was necessary. “I will never say anything in my lifetime that will make any of these young women at Rutgers regret or feel foolish that they accepted my apology and forgave me, and no one else will say anything on my program that will make anybody think that I didn’t deserve a second chance.”

The biggest difference in the new Imus is what's missing: the insults. Verbal assaults against politicians, newsmakers and especially his crew. The loving-hate Imus would direct towards producers, bosses and sportscasters are sparse. In the past, those misives were so pointed, so natural, so entertaining that they made the old program work. Today Imus relies without criticism on his longtime producers Bernard McGuirk and Lou who are stationed not nearby but across the street. Today Imus is ever so grateful to his new bosses for a multi-year, multi-million dollar vote of confidence. He's so grateful that his bosses were part of the band who performed on the program to close out week three. Today Imus shows respect for his sportscasters, first Tony Powell and now the highly regarded veteran Warner Wolf.

Race has played a prominent role in the new program. But rarely, if ever, does Imus play a role. Race is raised primarily by the two new cast members, Powell and Karith Foster, both African Americans. Powell raises race the most. In one "bit", while addressing the farm-friendly RFD-TV audience, Powell said "it's the first time you've had a black man in your living room." Another time he referred to the program as the "Different Strokes version of Imus in the Morning." And when discussing positive changes, Powell went from "MLK to Malcolm X to Don Imus." Powell also compared Barack Obama's battlecry  "audacity of hope" with Imus for just audacity. And when lamenting about the immigration debate, Powell was sharp when saying the Pilgrims took jobs from the Indians. Foster has grown beyond entertainment news to roughing up Mitt Romney on race. Rarely has a longtime cast member raised race, but when one does, it's subtle and powerful. Comedian Rob Bartlett, impersonating Don Corrleone, talked of assembling the heads of the five mafia families, including Don Ho (as in the Rutgers insult), Correlone quickly added "can I say that?"  

While cast members provide unique roles, their major one is to set up the I-Man. Wisecracking producer Bernard, barely heard the first few days, started to re-engage with Imus by week three, especially as he led the permise that Rogers Clemens had "roid rage" exemplified by Clemens throwing a splintered bat at Mike Piazza in the 2000 World Series. When Imus reminded listeners he was "drunk in the 70's and coked up in the 80's", it was Bernard's history with Imus that allowed him to add "pain pills in the 90's and plain stupid in the 21st Century." Newsman Charles McCord, always steady, returned to life with his own trademark rant about Imus talking too much. Powell is proving to be a fresh foil. When Imus went down WNBC's memory lane, Powell said plainly "fascinating, will we talk of chariot races next." Or when Imus feared a winter storm would keep him from an upscale restaurant, Powell effectively minimized Imus's selfishness by comparing downed power lines and power outages to Imus's pasta. 

While the insults are at a minimum, Imus has shown signs of returning to ranting. Imus was most familiar raising his blod pressure arguing about a stolen parot with regular guest Bo Dietl. But this too is Imus-light. Long a perfectionist of a sound program and short of patience for technical flaws, Imus has spent time criticizing the technical problems caused by the set being struck after each show. But in the past, Imus would take on station enineers, today he goes out of his way to defend the blue collars and instead blasts the larger company. He pleads with his intern to walk in front of the camera and not to listen to anyone who tells her to stay out of the shot because "I'm in charge." And eats crow when he realizes it is he and not an intern for a missing wastepaper basket.

New franchises, like the "Imus Flashback" of a previous day's interview or the "I Moment" replaying a highlight from a previous program, fill time but their strategic re-use gives new audiences a chance to see recent "best of" moments, a important reminder that Imus may have his loyalists back, but listeners and viewers nationwide have yet to create a listening habit each day.                                

Three weeks of getting re-acquainted to new teammates, new surroundings and new rules. But more importantly, it's a chance to examine how the line has moved, how a master will navigate and how we, a nation upset over so many things, will react next time we need a scapegoat to better sleep at night.                       12/22/07

We thought the the New York Times learned its lesson. But we now know lessons are made to be forgotten. The Times has unique clout to sway public opinion. There's no one better than Frank Rich to connect-the-dots, raise issues and elevate perspective. But before you get your Rich-fix, the paper still has trouble staying true to the truth. It's gone a long way in digging out from printing phoney and planted stories and playing a major role in the build-up to the American War in Iraq. Judith Miller's "scoops" were straight from the playbook of Cheney, Libby and Rove. Miller is gone, Libby is headed to prison and a pardon and the rest continue to play loose with the facts, divert attention from their mistakes and line the pockets of their friends in the democracy-building industry. 

So it's with some surprise to read today's paper and not think you were reading a Republican blog or a weekly from the heart of Texas. The Times headline raises an eyebrow (Chaos Is Seen in Iraq Exit, But Experts Split on Degree). But the story below raises a fury. The Times concluded that while American troops are unwanted in Iraq, many Iraqis don't want U.S. troops to leave. To make such a definitive conclusion you would think the Times based it's story on a large survey, a cross-section of people, across a large geographic span to accurately sample the country from inside the county. What would be a better foundation for a solid enterprise story? 

But the Times fell far short of that basic journalistic premise. The newspaper based its story mainly on a focus group totalling 40. Yes, 40 people...Iraqis...politicians...citizens. We ask more people to focus-group far less important things in our lives. American companies use hundreds more people to determine the amount of gore (not Al) in a CSI episode, what color your toothpaste container will be, and how much salt tastes good on a potato chip. Public surveys of 40 people is not just unscientific or unethical. It's not sound journalism and the Times should know better, especially after all it's been through.  

The story makes declarative statements that should raise skepticism in all of us. "The somewhat surprising verdict of most Iraqis was clear....many of them fear that a pullout any time soon would lead to a violent chain reaction....." You can fill in the rest of the sentence. It's straight from a Bush news conference.

The Times said the "verdict" was "surprising". Two words that shape the story and impact public opinion. A "verdict" is the ultimate in definitive words. The paper should have said our "small sample of people we interviewed in" a specific location of Iraq. Next, if the "verdict" truly was "surprising", then the reporters should have used their Journalism 101 instinct and asked more people their opinions. "Wow, this is surprising. Let's print it and go to dinner." Where was their journalistic scrutiny, especially in a time of War, this War? The next sentence concludes "many of them fear that a pullout..." The word "many" is equally troubling. How many is many? If you are going to base a story on such a scant number of people, disclose the numbers, like "30 out of 40 people sampled in Baghdad fear a pullout..."   

Why does this matter, why give the Times a hard time over what some will call a non-issue? It matters because the Times is among the newspapers of record, one that has proven it can shape, mold and shift public opinion. We're not talking potato chips. We're looking at the facts of U.S. policy and strategy. Facts involving American lives. Facts of a War which 2/3rds of Americans oppose, a President with less approval and the tens of billions of dollars diverted from America's ignored needs to feed the war machine.

Some Republican earned his or her money this week. The Democrats failed to impose restraints on President Bush that the midterm election mandated. Instead of focusing a Sunday story on the groundswell of anger and the impact the vote is already having on the election, a story favoring the President's strategy appears in the top section of the newspaper with a push-pull strategy of covering this Administration and the War.                                                  5/27/07 

If you didn't watch it, they wouldn't show it. But you've proven time and again that you do watch. Human nature, curiosity or not being left out. It's what makes television and television news live to see the next day. When NBC decided to air videos of a mentally ill killer, you held up your end of the bargain. You turned on the news, sat close to the set, cringed, threw things at the TV, turned it off, and complained. The scenario is played out every day in cities across America.

The murders at Virginia Tech reduced or erased all other issues from our minds. Forget about the "conversation of race" we were going to have after Imus. Few felt the historical perspective of Senator Ted Kennedy, whose brother was Attorney General during turbulent times, take on the AG, who is the incompetent stand-in for everything Bush. It was even hard to face Iraq's worst day of death with the Bush Administration, General Pace and Senator McCain saying we're gaining on 'em. 

We all knew Virginia Tech would have legs beyond day one. But even in the world of YouTube, so many people were surprised and dismayed when NBC did what they always do, in a way Imus did what he always did, before outrage won out. The NBC complaints were far and wide. They ranged from insensitivity to sensationalism, overt competition to exploiting mental illness. The complaints were heard from TV pundits to media critics, families of Virginia Tech victims to strangers across the world.

Whatever side of NBC's decision we fall on, we have little standing and even less credibility. You may say "show the tapes, it's important for the public to see real news." Or you may feel, "are you crazy, the images give fuel to a copycat murderer." NBC did their part to frame the story, provide ample warnings, and produce context. They even branded the tape with their logo so we would know the killer's network of choice. So why the uproar?

The uproar is partially because we can't handle our own truths. We blame the media and then rush to it. We hated everything OJ and vowed to never watch another OJ story again. UNTIL the next watercooler development in the trial forced us to get every morsel of info and debate it for days.  But the media also deserves the anger thrust on it. Mainstream media's dirty little secret is that it has long compromised journalism ethics, partnered with sales departments and became beholden to corporate owners instead of taking care of its customers. A drug company sponsors an NBC weather update in primetime. The midterm election night's coverage is curtailed so we don't miss a sitcom or reality show. Presidential news conferences are not being demanded by journalists, because the last thing the media wants is to pre-empt the money flow of programming.

For viewers the media compromise hasn't just happened overnight. It has been a slow yet steady creep of compromise. Slow enough for you not to notice. Large enough for corporate and political powers to control society. All media companies wonder where their readers, viewers and listeners have gone. Their customers are still here, but they've become their own editors and are reaping the benefits. News consumers don't face competitive pressures, don't answer to corporate kingdoms and don't play to the whim of the lowest common denominator. The public gets to be its own editor-in-chief without attending one editorial meeting to weigh the pros and cons of airing a story. Today with information available 24/7 and the internet booming, the public doesn't need the mainstream as it once did.

Mainstream knows we're shifting to the web and is reacting by putting more emphasis on their own web sites. But their web content doesn't define discussion in society. For the most part, mainstream just re-purposes the info from the mother ship and pastes it onto their web page. Mainstream may be on the information highway but they're sitting in the breakdown lane. Consumers, on the other hand, are driving full speed ahead and passing everyone in sight, deciding for themselves what they want, when they want it, and for how long.

Some of us saw the web's "empowerment of the people" coming. Doctors certainly did. They were the first to see patients armed with the latest health studies and side effects for drugs not yet prescribed. The weapons were gathered from ordinary folks surfing the web. If the public took control of medical information available to them, it's NO surprise its using the same technology and methodology when it comes to world-defining information.

The Virginia Tech murders are devastating. The media coverage is typical. Mainstream cares more about spiking an overnight rating than it does about the long term impact of its trade. Mainstream cares more about a competitive scoop than it does about examining the slow erosion of its core. As mainstream wakes up and sees itself less and less relevant in our lives, they will have only themselves to blame.                  4/20/07

The Bush "60 Minutes" interview should have started with this disclaimer: "The following interview is being conducted by a lightweight reporter who will ask "yes" and "no" questions, will not follow up on insufficient answers and has failed to pass off the interview to more scrutinizing reporters. CBS News does not apologize for this. It's more a reflection of the state of journalism in America."

Where was Mike Wallace when America needed him?  The reason CBS was chosen for this Sunday night sit-down was because it was Scott Pelley. A virtual love fest for George Bush, just days after delivering news to 21,000 more American families that he's escalating a war with no end.

It's too late for Bush to work a miracle. He sticks to the script connecting 9/11 with Iraq, even as he denies he ever made such a connection. "If we were to start withdrawing now, we'd have a crisis in our hands in Iraq. And not only in Iraq, but failure in Iraq will embolden the enemy. And the enemy is al-Qaeda and extremists." Even the few Americans barely paying attention know Bush and his policies are already emboldening the enemy, already encouraging more recruits, more suicide bombers. 

Bush told of specific mistakes he's made. "Abu Ghraib was a mistake. Using bad language like, you know, "bring them on" was a mistake. I think history is gonna look back and see a lot of ways we could have done things better. No question about it. (Troop levels?) Could have been a mistake."

The most distressing dot that Bush won't connect is his policies causing more of the world to hate the United States. But no quote shows how far removed he is from reality than this: "I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude, and I believe most Iraqis express that. I mean, the people understand that we've endured great sacrifice to help them. That's the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that's significant enough in Iraq.

Telegram to Iraqis! No one in America expects you to show us gratitude for dismantling your country. No one in America wonders whether your level of saying "thanks" is significant enough.

Bush says "we've got people criticizing this plan before it's had a chance to work." Mr. President, with all due respect, Americans have trusted you, given you enough time and rope to see your plan through. The country even returned you to a second term to finish what you started. Your citizens failed to criticize you enough in the course of your plan. The honeymoon of public opinion is officially over.

For Pelley, a man who wanted Dan Rather's chair as much as any of the other also-rans, his interview techniques let the President off the hook time and again. When referring to the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, Pelley didn't even ask a question, but tried to show what an average folk he is. "You had to be angry as hell." Which garnered the captivating reply: "Yeah, I wasn't happy." Nice work.

Pelley had no follow up for Bush's gushing over Cheney as "a great vice-president" or for Rumseld doing "a really fine job as Secretary of Defense." No follow-up, even though those two Bush loyalists were plotting this Iraq invasion, knowing there would be unneccesary American casualties, the moment Bush won election in 2000.

In the end, words that go from Bush's brain to his mouth are so sadly ironic, you can't help but sit stunned when he's asked that Barbara Walters-type question, "what would you say to Iran's President about meddling in Iraq?"  

"I'd say, first of all, to him, "You've made terrible choices for your people. You've isolated your nation. You've taken a nation of proud and honorable people, and you've made your country the pariah of the world.....You've defied international accord. And you're slowly but surely isolating yourself." 

Terrible choices. Isolated nation. Country the pariah of the world. Defied international accord. Isolating yourself. If that's not a best self-description of President Bush and his White House, then I'm a founding member of the Scott Pelley fan club.    1/15/07