http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2882

>MEDIA ADVISORY:

>Rumsfeld Challenged
>Media mishandle Rumsfeld-McGovern exchange
>
>May 10, 2006
>
>It is not often that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld finds himself
>aggressively questioned about the Iraq War. When that happened at a May 4
>event, many in the media seemed not to know what to make of it.
>
>During an appearance at the Southern Center for International Studies in
>Atlanta, Rumsfeld was confronted by several anti-war protesters, and was
>asked pointed questions from the audience by Ray McGovern, a retired CIA
>analyst. McGovern specifically queried Rumsfeld about his previous claims
>about the locations of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, as well as his
>assertion that there was "bulletproof" evidence of a connection between
>Iraq and Al-Qaeda.
>
>To some, the questions raised by McGovern were tantamount to heckling—as
>one May 4 Associated Press headline put it, "Rumsfeld Heckled by Anti-War
>Protesters During Atlanta Speech." That was echoed by CNN anchor Soledad
>O'Brien, who said (5/5/06) that Rumsfeld "was heckled by opponents of the
>war in Iraq. Among them, was Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst, who asked
>him about previous claims weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq." CNN's
>Wolf Blitzer framed it all as a distraction from more serious issues
>(5/4/06): "Aside from the anti-Rumsfeld ranting, the defense secretary did
>get a chance to talk some substance on the war on terror." Though some
>antiwar protestors in the audience did interrupt Rumsfeld's speech with
>shouts and banners, McGovern asked his questions after being called on
>during the designated question-and-answer period, so it's hard to know why
>that might be called "heckling" or "ranting."
>
>Other outlets were hard-pressed to find much news value at all in the
>exchange. The New York Times and USA Today (5/5/06), for example, ran tiny
>mentions of McGovern's questioning of Rumsfeld about his statements
>regarding the location of Iraq's WMDs and the country's ties to Al-Qaeda.
>Ironically, the Times made the incident the centerpiece of its May 7
>editorial, apparently assuming that its readers were informed about the
>substance of the matter from other news sources. The Washington Post
>(5/5/06) ran an AP account of the Rumsfeld speech; the Los Angeles Times
>(5/5/06), to its credit, actually addressed what should have been the
>central issue—whether McGovern was right about Rumsfeld's exaggerations and
>inaccuracies.
>
>The story seemed to be bigger on TV news—all three network newscasts ran
>stories about it—but some curious tendencies were evident. ABC World News
>Tonight played a long clip, but offered no context about who was right on
>the facts. On CBS, after anchor Bob Schieffer announced that Rumsfeld "ran
>head on into hecklers that included a former CIA analyst," reporter David
>Martin said that McGovern "waited his turn to ask a question and then went
>for Rumsfeld's throat."
>
>Apart from the somewhat violent metaphor, Martin gave Rumsfeld a little
>help on the substance of the matter. After showing a clip of McGovern
>asking Rumsfeld to explain his claims of "bulletproof" links between Iraq
>and Al Qaeda, Martin offered as a response that insurgent leader Abu Musab
>Al-Zarqawi "is certainly in Iraq now." NBC Nightly News reporter Jim
>Miklaszewski, saying the "protests turned personal and ugly," also seemed
>eager to help Rumsfeld's case, summarizing that "Rumsfeld appeared to
>pretty much hold his own during today 's protest."
>
>That is a curious assessment, given that the facts in dispute cut against
>Rumsfeld. McGovern asked why Rumsfeld had claimed he knew where the weapons
>of mass destruction were hidden in Iraq; despite Rumsfeld's denial, he did
>in fact say exactly that during an interview on ABC on March 30, 2003.
>Asked about the U.S. military's failure to find weapons of mass
>destruction, he responded: "We know where they are. They're in the area
>around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
>McGovern accurately quoted this statement during his questioning.
>
>As to the question regarding Iraq's relationship with Al-Qaeda, Rumsfeld
>could only point to Zarqawi's presence in Iraq (Zarqawi has long been
>considered leader of the terrorist group Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and is
>now apparently the head of Council of Holy Warriors). But Zarqawi's pre-war
>links to either Al-Qaeda or the Iraqi government are dubious (Washington
>Post, 2/13/03), and subsequent investigations have done little to bolster
>Rumsfeld's line. In fact, at times Rusmfeld has acknowledged as much; as
>the Seattle Post-Intelligencer noted (5/8/06), Rumsfeld once said of the
>linking of Iraq to Al-Qaeda (10/4/04), "To my knowledge, I have not seen
>any strong, hard evidence that links the two."
>
>Despite the fact that the facts support McGovern, CNN Pentagon
>correspondent Jamie McIntyre managed to muddy the water in a brief "fact
>check" segment on the network's American Morning show (5/5/06), saying of
>Rumsfeld's claims about the location of Iraq's weapons:
>
>"What Rumsfeld is saying is that when he said, 'We know where they are,'
>what he was referring to were the sites where the weapons were believed to
>be based on the intelligence, not absolute knowledge of the intelligence.
>It is a fine point that Rumsfeld's making. Usually he's very precise in
>what he says, so that he can't be pinned down later. In this case, he
>wasn't precise, and it's coming back to haunt him."
>
>In fact, Rumsfeld was precise in his original remarks—precisely wrong.
>Later that day, McIntyre claimed on Lou Dobbs Tonight that Rumsfeld is
>"usually very careful not to say anything that could come back to haunt
>him," which is only true in the sense that Rumsfeld's inaccurate
>pronouncements over the past several years have generally been glossed over
>by the mainstream press (See Extra!, 3-4/02; FAIR Action Alert, 9/20/02;
>Extra!Update,12/03).
>
>CNN's McIntyre also raised—albeit inadvertently—a key issue when he
>remarked that McGovern "is learning something we've all learned in
>questioning Rumsfeld, that when you question him about something he said,
>you better have the quote accurate, and he does." It goes without saying
>that reporters should be accurate in their questioning. A more pertinent
>question, though, is why so few reporters have put these questions to
>Rumsfeld. It speaks volumes about the state of the press corps that a
>question from the audience at an event can expose Rumsfeld's deceptions in
>a way that regular press conferences with reporters have not.
>
>**
>To read a transcript of the McGovern-Rusmfeld exchange, go to:

>http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/05/1432203
>
>