<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2715.400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia color=#000080>anyone know who funds <FONT
color=#000000>the Center for Media and Public Affairs? checked their
website but couldn't find any specifics.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Georgia>thanks, R</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000080 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=dhenwood@panix.com href="mailto:dhenwood@panix.com">Doug Henwood</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=lbo-talk@lists.panix.com
href="mailto:lbo-talk@lists.panix.com">lbo-talk</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, May 17, 2002 9:16 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> shifting climate</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Washington Post - May 17, 2002<BR><BR><BR>As Reporters Seek
Details, The Media Climate Shifts<BR>By Howard Kurtz<BR>Washington Post Staff
Writer<BR><BR>In a single day, the capital's media climate has been
transformed.<BR><BR>Reporters pounded White House spokesman Ari Fleischer and
national <BR>security adviser Condoleezza Rice at briefings yesterday,
skepticism <BR>and even indignation in their voices, as they demanded detailed
<BR>explanations. It was, in short, far different from the tone of
<BR>flag-bedecked networks after the Sept. 11 attacks, when President
<BR>Bush, riding a wave of popularity and patriotism, was treated with
<BR>deference by the media. Indeed, the administration likely never faced
<BR>a more hostile press corps than yesterday.<BR><BR>After Fleischer said
Bush had received only vague warnings from <BR>intelligence agencies about
possible hijackings last summer, ABC <BR>correspondent Terry Moran asked: "Why
didn't he level with the <BR>American people about what he
knew?"<BR><BR>Moments later, Moran said: "These questions were asked after
<BR>September 11th of the president, of the vice president, of you,
<BR>yourself. And no one in the White House said, yes, the information <BR>had
come in that al Qaeda was planning hijackings."<BR><BR>Four hours later, Ron
Fournier of the Associated Press asked Rice: <BR>"Shouldn't the American
public have known these facts before they got <BR>on planes in the summer and
fall of last year?"<BR><BR>In an interview, Fleischer said: "This will be a
test to see whether <BR>the press sensationalizes or informs. Aggressive
questioning is what <BR>the press does for a living. Leaping to conclusions is
what you hope <BR>they won't do for a living."<BR><BR>Fleischer yesterday
called New York Post Editor Col Allen to complain <BR>about the tabloid's
headline: "9/11 bombshell: BUSH KNEW." Smaller <BR>type below says: "Prez was
warned of possible hijackings before <BR>terror attacks." Fleischer called the
headline "irresponsible" and "a <BR>poster child for bad
journalism."<BR><BR>Allen defended his front page, saying: "I reject the
notion that the <BR>headline suggests that Bush knew about 9/11. . . . '9/11
bombshell' <BR>was there to tell people this was a story about
terror."<BR><BR>Journalists thrive on such stories because there are dozens of
<BR>threads on which to pull: what did the CIA know, what did the FBI
<BR>know, who saw which memo, what was Congress told, why was there no
<BR>follow-up, were the airlines notified, who will testify, what
<BR>documents will be subpoenaed. Congressional hearings and rhetorical
<BR>outrage could fuel weeks of damaging headlines.<BR><BR> From the
moment CBS News broke the story Wednesday night that Bush <BR>had received an
intelligence warning, the media had the one element <BR>that was missing from
recent accounts of FBI memos about suspicious <BR>Middle Eastern men at flight
schools: a link to the Oval Office. This <BR>produced a journalistic eruption
filled with echoes of Howard H. <BR>Baker Jr.'s famous "what did the president
know" Watergate question.<BR><BR>Damage control specialists say politicians
fare better when they <BR>release bad or embarrassing information themselves
rather than <BR>waiting for it to leak -- a technique often used by the
Clinton White <BR>House. But the question permeating the news briefings was
whether <BR>last summer's intelligence warning was specific enough to have
been <BR>made public -- even after the tragedy.<BR><BR>Although some critics
have accused news organizations of going soft <BR>on the White House after
Sept. 11, yesterday's reporting bristled <BR>with
intensity.<BR><BR>"Journalists have been waiting for a chance to be their old,
<BR>aggressive, hard-nosed selves," said Robert Lichter of the Center for
<BR>Media and Public Affairs. But "just because you don't release
<BR>classified information doesn't mean you're trying to hide it or cover
<BR>it up."<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>