Is NBC Investigating Whether The Government Spied On CNN’s Christiane Amanpour?
Are we on the brink of an even GREATER scandal in the domestic spying controversy? Could be…
Sometimes news stories need to incubate a bit before they’re published or broadcast: despite what some think, editors like to make sure they get everything just right, particularly these days where a mistake could mean a wave of public condemnation.
That would seem to be the most logical explanation of a potential scandal that, if true, could be a ticking time bomb — one that would change the Bush adminstration domestic spying controversy’s nature: was the government spying on CNN’s Christiane Amanpour?
If the allegation emerges in the form of a confirmed report the firestorm we’ve seen before (and the polarization as the administration goes on the offensive to defend the latest twist in what would be another expansion in executive power and change in accepted executive branch behavior) will seem like a sedate meditation session.
AMERICAblog’s John Aravosis first noticed something a bit strange in an NBC transcript….and soon after he put it on his website it vanished from the network’s site. Here’s the passage he originally cited:
New York Times reporter James Risen first broke the story two weeks ago that the National Security Agency began spying on domestic communications soon after 9/11. In a new book out Tuesday, “State of War,” he says it was a lot bigger than that. Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell sat down with Risen to talk about the NSA, and the run-up to the war in Iraq….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.
SIGNIFICANCE: It would be totally out of character for a veteran journalist such as Mitchell to simply drop that specific scenario out of thin air. If so, she would likely be in for a career change.
So that statement vanished from the website’s transcript, as Aravosis noted and pointed out to his readers.
Next came the TV Newser explanation from NBC. And, as in the case of Mitchell’s original, whacked statement on the NBC website, if this was sloppily written, someone may be in for a career change (the PR person who wrote it):
“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.”
So what’s going on? There are actually several possible explanations:
- Mitchell could have some info from some source within the government that Amanpour was being secretly listened to. But network bigwigs need additional confirmation before they can run with it. Such confirmation might NOT be easy, by the way. They could have one “whistleblower” and decide they need a second or hold their breaths and run with a finished story based on the credibility of the first.
- The source could be Amanpour herself who has reason to suspect it or was herself told by a source from within the government — but no confirmation yet. Suspicions aren’t enough.
- Amanpour suspects it but she has no inside information that this has actually happened.
- The source is someone outside of the government more in the form of an allegation that can’t be fleshed out or something that source heard — but it isn’t solid enough to put on the air yet, given the charge’s gravity.
- Mitchell misspoke. (If so, and if press inquiries over The Case Of The Mysterious Transcript Deletion continue she might find herself re-assigned to cover the Amtrak beat).
The latter explanation makes NO sense at all. It’s illogical that a professional journalist would throw out such a question with such specificity unless there was something behind that question. The question is whether that “something” is solid or speculative.
We’ve said here repeatedly that so far there is no proof in this controversy that warrantless searches were used to spy on another political party. The administration’s defense has been that they need to find out about these Al Qaeda phone calls, etc. and that these were vital security matters. It’s another “trust me” argument that in this polarized climate doesn’t win everyone over, but is enough to partially offset more serious consequences.
If it turns out a reporter was being eavesdropped upon, it’s going to move this controversy onto another level. The press will want to find out more and there will be a particular scramble to find out if surveillance was used during election campaigns.
And would there be a massive condemnation by all players on the American political scene? In the end: most likely NOT. The administration would likely deny any NBC report OR say they had to do it for reasons they can’t disclose. The President and Vice President will go on the offensive and some influential talk show hosts would immediately adopt their explanation and justification.
You’d then see a certain number of folks going along with the administration — some because the administration has great credibility with them and others because with the 2006 mid-terms a lot is at stake politically.
It’s always possible NBC may never complete its inquiry if there isn’t sufficient confirmation (an increasingly IMPORTANT journalistic MUST that is going to come back into fashion after scandals such as Rathergate and the shocking case of the West Virginia miners “rescue” stories) to put it on the air and deal with an administration thrown into defense mode — which in this administration’s case often means offense mode.
If the Mitchell quote and NBC quote get mainstream media coverage and nothing comes of it, Mitchell and NBC and the press will emerge with a black eye.
But if it’s true, it will change the nature of what we’ve seen so far. And Americans are going to have to seriously ask themselves some tough questions about government activities, existing laws and whether the executive branch is operating with no accountability as it continually and unilaterally expands its own role.
SOME OTHER VOICES ON THIS ISSUE (NOTE: Due to logistics this will be updated throughout the day so check back. TMV will be away from his laptop for periods of time today since he is traveling. But MORE will be added):
–Crooks and Liars
–Gary Faber
–Just One Minute
–Middle Earth Journal
–John Cole
The –Indepundit (Citizen Smash, one of our favorites)
–The Heretik
–Running Scared
–Bloggledygook
14 Responses to “Is NBC Investigating Whether The Government Spied On CNN’s Christiane Amanpour?”
I’m sure that if Ms. Amanpour was wire tapped, there was a perfectly good reason for it. I have long felt that her reports were slanted towards the left and agains the war. If indeed it was determined that she was a “Tokyo Rose”, then monitoring her communication was completely appropriate.
You’re mentioned in his post, Doug. No matter what the administration does you will say they must have a good reason for it. It’s really scary because you put your loyalty to a party and an administration above the actual issues at hand. There are some things bigger than the Republicans and a Republican adminsitration. How do you KNOW there was a good reason for it? So they can say “it was justified” and spy on whomever they want in the press? Remember, they have said so far this was restricted to matters deal with Al Qaeda and potential operations — not that they were going to keep tabs on what reporters work on and who they talk to. We dont’ even know if any of this is true. But your response is truly a little scary. No matter what they do or what they say you will defend the administration. So if it turns out this didn’t happen, it’s clear you think the adminsitration can just spy on journalists all they want or anyone. Because there must be a good reason for it if they do it.
Great logic Doug, maybe we should spy on Robert Novak I hear he leans toward the right.
“Gary Faber”
Farber, actually. Just a typo, I know.
Those interested in the NSA/The Project story should find this long set of excerpts from Risen’s book of interest, but most particularly this post, Blue In The Face, in which I link to my other posts on the subject, and to other resources on past NSA abuses, and Explain The Whole Thing, as I’ve been shouting about since mid-December. (I know you’re traveling and busy, Joe; I understand.)
Perhaps it was the person who she was conversing with that was being wiretapped? Or the call was to/from overseas? Or was entirely overseas?
Take two think pills, look at the story tomorrow.
My thoughts (not backed up with a shred of evidence)? The Georgian Occupied Government probably did it, Amanpour probably isn’t the only non-threat they’ve spied on, the rest of the media won’t touch this until it gets blog-flogged for a few days, and then nothing will come of it because GOG will invoke national security.
In other words, just more Bushit.
As I wrote on my blog, I’m with Joe on the significance of this, but I’m witholding judgement until we know more.
Interesting sidelight on Amanpour: back in the Nineties, when I was an active duty naval officer, we would sometimes get CNN via satellite on our ships (depending on bandwidth availability, which was much tighter back then). We would always joke that military action was not officially “imminent” until Amanpour had arrived on the scene.
At least, it was supposed to be a joke — but the “Amanpour Index,” as we called it, turned out to be surprisingly accurate.
That woman has got to have one Hell of a rolodex. If this turns out to be true, I’m betting it’s because she was in contact with some pretty nasty people. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, from a journalistic point of view, but it’s just one reasonable explanation for how a perfectly innocent journalist might become the subject of an NSA wiretap.
Still, witholding judgement…
As smash points out there is indeed reason to suspect that Amanpour was, at the very least, in contact with terrorists. Lives may have been saved by having her bugged.
Which is more important: the “privacy” of a rich CNN correspondent or the safety of the American people? That’s what you have to ask yourself.
Myself, I’d pick privacy and personal liberty over a marginal sense of security any day of the week and twice on Tuesdays. And because I want a sense of privacy and freedom, Then again, my political beliefs are primarily based on a healthy dose of skepticism towards those who would exert power over me. I have a better chance of dying in a car crash on my daily drive to work than I do of dying in a terrorist attack.
Besides, the members of our government are all human beings, with all the failings and weaknesses that entails. Even if you give power to someone and they use it with only the best intentions, they may make a mistake. And eventually, someone WILL come along who will attempt to abuse any powers that we have layed at the feet of government. That might sound cynical and it probably is, but I still believe that it is true. Be careful what powers you make available, because it is hard to get the tinkertoys back in the box once their out on the floor.
If you start setting certain people apart as undeserving of the full protection of the law, you create a dangerous precident. Expedience is not a just cause for trampling on someone’s liberties. This is very close to saying that the ends justify the means. And they don’t.
If “they” are wiretapping a known terrorist, should they not listen to the calls between that terrorist and known press reporters?
Everyone here is ignoring completely who Amanpour’s husband is and what he was up to during most of the period when this wiretapping was allegedly going on. (Still holding out the possibility that this story may be entirely basesless, or based on false information, tips, etc. ) But given her spouse, having the Bush administration wiretapping her in particular, regardless of what “terrorist” or other professional contacts, news sources, etc. she may have been phoning, will make this a very, very interesting case IF it turns out to be true.
Amanpour lives in London, where she’s based. So, outside the US. Her husband is Jaime Rubin, high ranking Clinton politico and Kerry advisor. So, more concrete evidence that the Press and Democratic Party are indistinguishable. Next, Amanpour herself has said that she does not consider herself anything other than a Citizen of the World and is hostile to US intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. She’s also by her own words in touch with Al Qaeda senior leadership.
Given the Press’s dictum (don’t warn of attacks that cost American lives, it’s the story not patriotism that matters, ala the Mike Wallace statement on Fred Friendly’s show on PBS) it’s wise to tap calls to journalists even if they are INSIDE the US who are suspected of calling or being in contact with Al Qaeda.
It’s Al Qaeda’s SOP to gin up the Press before impending attacks. The Press doesn’t warn people so they can get the story. I have no problem believing that Amanpour would sacrifice thousands and perhaps millions of US lives for a story.
Does anyone seriously think she’d put American lives before a big story? If so you’re a fool, IMHO.
Is this dangerous? You bet and it’s ripe with opportunity for abuses. The proper course is oversight that brings accountability along with freedom of action. The President should stand and fall on his actions; being able to act swiftly to prevent a Beslan or another 9/11 or worse; but being accountable for crossing the line into domestic spying.
“Hey we had a tip that Amanpour was in contact with Zawahari so we checked it out, found it was nothing, destroyed the tapes” is acceptable, particularly if it’s publicly reported. Public reporting to Congress and the Nation (redacted in key areas of course) is the key.
As long as we KNOW what were’ doing it’s OK. The alternative is to just say “well that would be spying” and get something horrific. Al Qaeda in the US slaughtering an entire Elementary School in the Heartland and you’ll see a fury turned on Muslims, Libs, Dems, the Press etc. with the President having a guaranteed out. “I wanted to stop this but Dems/Media/Libs made civil liberties more important.” I know Libs/Dems/Media somehow think magic fairy dust will keep Al Qaeda away, but the record from New Delhi to London is 14 Al Qaeda major operations, some TWICE (Bali) against some of the counter-terrorism best. They are hardly defeated and now seem to have Iran on their side (Saad bin Laden is Ahmadinejad’s pet monster).
Bottom line, we live in a different world. This isn’t 9/10 anymore, we need balance and sobriety rather than absolutism.
The latter explanation makes NO sense at all. It’s illogical that a professional journalist would throw out such a question with such specificity unless there was something behind that question.
I’m sorry, but is there such a thing as a professional journalist? Isn’t that rather like believing in Santa Claus?
Until the details are known all of this is speculation. On the one hand I doubt that Al Qaeda was giving her the terrorist attack schedule for the next six months. On the other hand I can see if she had contact with terrorists who called her to get out information the NSA could have picked up on it. Her politics or her husbands’ beliefs have nothing to do with it.
PING:
TITLE: Spying on Journalists?
BLOG NAME: The Indepundit
JOE GANDELMAN examines allegations that the NSA may have been spying on CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. If the allegation emerges in the form of a confirmed report the firestorm we’ve seen before (and the polarization as the administration goes on the…
PING:
TITLE: Spying on Journalists?
BLOG NAME: The Indepundit
JOE GANDELMAN examines allegations that the NSA may have been spying on CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. If the allegation emerges in the form of a confirmed report the firestorm we’ve seen before (and the polarization as the administration goes on the…
PING:
TITLE: Wiretapping For Dummies.
BLOG NAME: Bloggledygook
The major sins of the present administration come not from being wrong per se so much as not knowing where the limits are. Witness the bloated budget, faith-based initiatives, Social Security reform, the over-reaching USA PATRIOT act, and the feverish
PING:
TITLE: THE CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR “SPYING” BROUHAHA
BLOG NAME: Michelle Malkin
Okay, here’s the deal: Liberal blogs are buzzing over NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell’s interview with NYTimes reporter James Risen, which was posted at MSNBC.com. Acording to left-wing Americablog, a transcript of the original interview was altered to remove a question…
PING:
TITLE: Spying on Journalists?
BLOG NAME: The Indepundit
(updated) JOE GANDELMAN examines allegations that the NSA may have been spying on CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. If the allegation emerges in the form of a confirmed report the firestorm we’ve seen before (and the polarization as the administration goes on…