The invaders were able to access anything connected to my computer systems and they used their technology and expertise to comb through the photo records on my BlackBerry, specifically snooping through materials I had photographed regarding my Fast and Furious research.
While a great deal of data has been expertly wiped in an attempt to cover-up the deed, Don is able to find remnants of what was once there. There’s crucial evidence of a government computer connection to my computer. A sort of backdoor link that leads to an ISP address for a government computer that can’t be accessed by the general public on the Web. It’s an undeniable link to the U.S. government. Don says the importance of this link can’t be understated.
“Let me put it this way,” he tells me. “This ISP address is better evidence of the government being in your computer than the government had when it accused China of hacking into computers in the U.S.”
“The greatest fear that I have regarding the outcome for America of these disclosures is that nothing will change.”
—Edward Snowden to the Guardian, June 2013
CONCLUSION
| The “Sharyl Attkisson Problem” |
Look at the right hand so you don’t see what the left hand is doing.
Distract from the real issues. That’s what the story line advanced about my departure from CBS News was designed to do.
Anonymous sources at the network falsely claim in media reports that I specifically cited “liberal bias” in my resignation to CBS management. The fabricated quote is picked up and passed along like urban lore until it becomes widely accepted as fact. It’s too scrumptious to resist. For many liberals, it continues a convenient narrative that attempts to undermine my independent reporting. For many conservatives, it makes me the ultimate insider giving up the family secrets.
Once I left, some of my former colleagues gleefully advanced the assumption that, naturally, I had already cut a deal with FOX News. That would put a delicious period at the end of their delectably false thesis: that all the fuss was caused by my irrational devotion to right-wing stories.
After a few weeks, during which I got outside the beltway and dealt with my father’s terminal illness, I agreed to a fraction of media requests I received to talk about journalism or my ongoing coverage of news stories. I consented to appear on FOX, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, ABC, Al Jazeera, C-SPAN, RealClearPolitics, Sinclair Media, and Reason, to name a few. But the propagandists frantically publicized the FOX events, excluding the others. Their storyline was that the FOX appearances proved I’m conservative.
They’re nothing if not inconsistent.
They didn’t similarly cast my appearance on MSNBC as proof that I’m liberal. They don’t argue that well-known liberal commentators Juan Williams, James Carville, Mara Liasson, Marc Lamont, or Bill Richardson are conservative because they showed up on FOX. Same with dozens of journalists from various news outlets who discuss their stories on FOX News, such as ABC political director Rick Klein and former New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
Continuing in the same vein, though I contributed reporting to a variety of outlets, the same propagandists selectively publicized my work for the conservative Daily Signal without noting that the subject matter, an allegedly unethical federal study on premature babies, had great appeal to liberal interests, quoted a Democratic congresswoman, and largely pulled on research from the liberal-leaning watchdog group Public Citizen.
As with the news stories and images they manipulate, these expert spinners craft their preconceived narratives in isolation from the facts. Much like the news managers who order up stories and prewrite them regardless of the fact-finding in the field, the propagandists wait to fill in the blanks, selecting those they can twist and shape to their liking, discarding the inconvenient facts that fight the chosen narrative.
Periodically, a few friends and colleagues send me copies of blogs and articles filled with misrepresentations so wild and provably false, they advise me to step up and correct them. One article called me “admittedly conservative,” as if I had identified myself as such. A second used shamefully inaccurate figures to try to contradict and controversialize my recent definitive report on the status of HealthCare.gov, though my reporting relied almost entirely on the government’s own statistics and sources. And a third made the slanderous, false claim that my Benghazi reporting had been discredited and retracted by CBS. There wasn’t even a grain of truth hidden in that statement.
Why don’t I jump into the fray in each instance? There’s little point in trying to get the truth across to those who are on a mission that doesn’t involve the truth. It would only feed them. It’s a bit like tossing scraps to hungry puppies from the dinner table in hopes that will keep them quiet. It just encourages their bad habits.
One media writer came up with the brilliant implication that maybe my decision to leave CBS was a well-thought-out career path on my part—“cry bias” to get a lot of attention and money.
Points for creativity but a big deduction for lack of accuracy.
The truth is, I never explicitly raised concerns about bias during my separation discussions with management. Not in 2013, when I first proposed leaving ahead of my contract, and not in March 2014, when I finally did. It doesn’t mean there weren’t issues. Most everyone I rubbed shoulders with inside CBS, including management, had privately verbalized worries about the strong-arm tactics of the current New York Evening News managers and some on other broadcasts, often—in our view—forcing their proclivities, sometimes ultraliberal, sometimes otherwise biased, into story decisions and scripts like never before.
Before I asked to leave, a number of well-regarded veteran correspondents had already gone to the top to complain about various aspects of the CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley. And more than one found themselves so disgusted with the state of the Evening News under Pelley and his executive producer Shevlin that they sought to negotiate contracts under which they wouldn’t have to appear on the broadcast.
You know there’s a problem when reporters are trying to stay off your flagship news program rather than get on it.
But for me, there were additional concerns and challenges. More on those in a moment.
Some of the managed response to my departure tended to prove a thesis of this book. The liberal opinion blog Media Matters revived its trademark propaganda campaign to smear me and my reporting.
Predictable.
Most people in the country have never heard of these inside-the-beltway blogs and battles. But it’s common knowledge among those whom Media Matters has attempted to disparage that the left-wing blog is little more than a paid surrogate for Democratic interests, including Hillary Clinton, the Obama administration, and those close to them, at times in direct consultation with Obama officials.
Together, these interests employ a range of bully tactics and strategies to systematically attack journalists and undermine reporting that they view to be effective and, therefore, damaging. The content of what they write is so riddled with silliness and fact errors, it’s not taken seriously by any informed neutral party. Their audience is a small but influential group of news media and politicos. If they can just get a bit of their propaganda to cross over and be discussed in a forum that resembles what Americans consider the real news media, then they’ve earned their money. Sometimes, it works. They strategically exploit partnerships, such as the liberal blog Talking Points Memo, which report on and codify each other’s false claims in an effort to build the perception that there’s a groundswell of grassroots sentiment on their side.
But it’s astroturf all the way.
Perhaps my CBS departure set off panic in their ranks. Maybe they sensed that with no fearful news executives in my chain of command to intimidate, with no ideologues at a network attempting to filter my output, with no corporate master, some of my reporting could prove more dangerous than ever to their interests.
&
nbsp; They have every right to advance their cause in any legal way they see fit. But as journalists, it’s our job not to allow them to improperly influence our reporting. For me, that’s easy. It’s only when one is encumbered by corporate tethers or ideological managers that it can become difficult.
Naturally, interests like Media Matters aren’t paid by their ideological donors to bark at parked cars. When they target me, it means I’m on to something. Usually, something big. The more apoplectic and accusatory they become, the closer I know that I am to reaching truth.
EXHIBIT A Three major topics of my reporting that prompted the most vitriolic response by some on the left are Fast and Furious, the green energy debacle, and Benghazi. Each was singled out for national excellence as judged by independent peer journalists and news management professionals; each was nominated for or received Emmy and Edward R. Murrow awards. It becomes clear that the volume with which these special interests squawk is directly proportional to the significance and credibility of the story and reporter they seek to discredit.
Therefore, treating a group like Media Matters as if it’s a serious arbiter of good journalism is akin to letting a defendant evaluate the prosecutor who put him in jail. It defies logic. We’re left to wonder why so many in the media routinely do this. A number of media critics ask me if I’m concerned about Media Matters–type criticism, as if I should be moved by it.
Aren’t you playing into their hands by appearing on conservative news outlets? they ask.
I mentally play the Substitution Game: These same critics don’t ask similar questions about my many appearances with other outlets, including liberal-leaning ones. In fact, they ignore those entirely. Additionally, I don’t see them treating seriously the opinions of right-wing media watchdogs. They aren’t seeking balance by treating the conservative equivalents with the same deference.
So some in the media choose to ask the jailed convict what he thinks of the prosecutor. Various reporters and bloggers embrace the charged rhetoric of Media Matters as if it were an esteemed journalism organization providing neutral observations. They use the partisan blog as a primary source for their background research on me in much the same way that I might rely on THOMAS, The House [of Representatives] Open Multimedia Access System at the Library of Congress, to research the Congressional Record; or the Lexis database to research legal cases.
Media Matters has called your reporting shoddy and inaccurate, say these reporters, as if it’s an accusation to be considered seriously.
If they were to think it out, they might realize how absurd it is to ask why I’m not trying to please special interests like Media Matters (or its right-wing counterparts), or whether I’m upset by their attacks. It’s as if these reporters are suggesting I should bend to propaganda rather than independently pursue the facts wherever they lead. If I were to decide my actions based on avoiding attacks by special interests, I’d be doing stories on the weather and features on animals.
One day in April 2014, Media Matters somehow obtained my private contact information, and began calling and emailing to get me to respond to their criticisms. Within minutes, the liberal Talking Points Memo blog, which had also, coincidentally, somehow, obtained my private phone number and email address at the exact same time, began calling to ask what I thought of Media Matters asking me to respond to their criticisms. Within minutes of that, a Washington Post media gossip blogger began calling and emailing for my response to the calls by Media Matters and Talking Points Memo for me to respond to their criticisms. You begin to see how it works. A paid propaganda blog and its helpers work together to gin up a big controversy that’s actually the brainchild of a very small, special interest.
If I were still at CBS, they’d all be calling the network’s press office, trying to create the impression that there’s a giant grassroots movement against me. Exerting pressure. Making the PR officials at CBS uncomfortable. Causing them to notify management. Creating a hassle. It’s part of the plan: to controversialize me not only with the public but also at my job.
Now that I’ve left that job, their tactics are largely neutered. I have no boss for them to call. And I see right through them. But my colleagues left behind are still subject to the propagandist ploys.
In May 2014, the Huffington Post was somehow convinced to report on Media Matters’ letter to CBS News demanding that the network reinvestigate a Benghazi report done by a 60 Minutes correspondent. Substitution Game: Right-wing media watchdogs such as Accuracy in Media have launched complaints about the networks for years but there aren’t many news outlets reporting their complaints as news.
Politico picks up the Huffington Post report, furthering a nonstory, but at least that article includes appropriate skepticism. It notes that Media Matters’ founder is a “Hillary Clinton attack dog” and head of American Bridge Political Action Committee, “which has devoted itself to Hillary Clinton’s election in 2016.” It also states, “In the past year, [Media Matters’ founder] has served as Clinton’s public advocate against the media, combating NBC, CNN, the New York Times and 60 Minutes wherever and whenever there is even a whiff of anti-Clinton sentiment.”
Back to the efforts to controversialize me; whether it’s silly allegations by Media Matters or misreporting by other outlets regarding my departure from CBS, I can’t help but think of how easy it would have been, at any time, for media reporters to simply seek the facts themselves and divine some firsthand truth based on evidence rather than parroting what they read on blogs. But, as I’ve said, some reporters have come to value what they hear others report or say on the Web far more than fact-based, original research. Especially if it’s what they want to hear.
“People hear what they want to hear. They see what they want to see.”
So, as partisan interests slander my stories as “shoddy,” it goes unmentioned that that very reporting received national investigative Emmy Awards for the past two years straight. (The “shoddier” my reporting got, the more awarded it became.) Likewise, as critics hawk the claim that my reporting is inherently, gasp, conservative, few bother to conduct a superficial search that would reveal a balance in my news repertoire that de facto disproves allegations of an ideological bent. Here are just a few examples for the record.
I hit the George W. Bush administration on its secrecy and lack of Freedom of Information Act responses as hard as I pursued the Obama administration on related topics. I aired dozens of reports on the many controversies surrounding Bush’s Food and Drug Administration, Bush administration mismanagement at the National Laboratories, alleged fraud and abuse by federal war contractors such as Halliburton, and a hard-hitting series examining the Bush Treasury Department’s bait and switch on the Troubled Asset Relief Program bank bailout. That effort received the 2009 Emmy Award for investigative reporting.
I did dozens more reports on congressional shenanigans, including Republican Richard Shelby’s controversial hold on Obama nominees, Republicans who call themselves fiscal conservatives but embrace pricey pet projects, and questionable earmarks supported by Republicans Jerry Lewis, Virginia Foxx, Ted Stevens, and Don Young. And there was my undercover investigation into fund-raising by Republican freshmen, which received the 2013 Emmy for investigative reporting.
Perhaps the strongest, but now-forgotten, liberal endorsement of my work comes from MSNBC host Rachel Maddow. She built a seven-minute-long segment based entirely on my investigation into Republican congressman Steve Buyer’s suspicious charity. The liberal Talking Points Memo complimented the same report. This is, of course, before it became a chief critic of mine. Substitution Game: When left-wingers praised my work, it didn’t seem to ruffle any feathers among my colleagues at CBS. But when conservatives expressed support for my stories, some insiders viewed me as the enemy. She’s not one of us. Or else she wouldn’t be pursuing stories like that.
So the theory apparently goes something like this: I was a fair reporter
when I examined the Bush-era controversies. But when I started digging into Obama administration problems, I was suddenly a fanatic bent on destroying the president and all good things liberal.
Not even the Obama folks believe that.
But successfully deploying that story line was part of a primary strategy: fight indisputable, damaging facts by controversializing the reporter and politicizing the subject matter. Harassment. Intimidation. Obstruction. And the Obama administration had many willing advocates and believers to help, both outside and inside CBS.
Why is it that the targets of legitimate questions or criticism seek to stop the reporting altogether rather than simply provide their side of the story and address any problems? Clearly, they’re afraid that their side of the story isn’t convincing and that the problems aren’t easily fixed. The Obama administration needn’t be concerned with the opinions of ultraliberals who will usually forgive and defend the president no matter the transgression. Nor need they bother with ultraconservatives who will usually side against the president regardless. It’s those crucial Americans in the middle who are of interest. The ones who can sway opinions—and elections. They must not hear about, lest they come to believe, the administration’s self-imposed controversies. With this administration, any facts that aren’t considered positive—any reporting that doesn’t toe the party line—must be labeled as crazy. The stuff of conspiracy theories. Like Vincent Foster suicide rumors or aliens at Area 51. The public must be convinced that any and all scandals surrounding the Obama administration are “phony” or “bogus.” All critics are “nutty.” The alternative could prove disastrous.
Obama officials clearly viewed me as a wild card. In the past, I had done stories that happened to please them. But they later came to see me as unaccepting of spin. Someone who makes independent checks. Unmoved by peer pressure. Uniquely motivated to get at hidden facts. Not intimidated by threats of my access being limited. (What access?) Not even influenced by my own managers’ disapproval.
Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama's Washington Page 35
