Phil Wegmann: Good evening ladies and gentleman
my name is Philip Wegmann and I have the pleasure of introducing Ms. Sharyl Attkisson today. When Ms. Attkisson files stories Washington
DC takes notice. Her breaking reports on the Fast and Furious
scandal, Benghazi controversy and the blundering role of Obama Care continue to capture national
headlines and fuel congressional investigations. A 30 year veteran of journalism, Ms. Attkisson
has investigated numerous controversies during the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations. After graduating from the University of Florida
she first reported with a local PBS network then anchored with CNN before beginning her
career as an investigatory journalist with CBS. Also an accomplished author Attkisson has
recently published a new book called Stonewalled my fight for truth against the forces of obstruction,
intimidation and harassment in Obama’s Washington. She has received numerous honors for her work
including the prestigious Edward R. Murrow award and also 5 Emmy awards. Unbiased and unafraid she as tenaciously pursued
truth throughout her entire career. For this White House officials call our guest
unreasonable however history is more likely to call her one of the greatest journalist
of the decade the Woodward and Bernstein to my generation. Ladies and gentlemen would you please join
me in welcoming Ms. Sharyl Attkisson. Sharyl Attkisson: I feel so short. Can you even see me? You see my little head that’s good enough
I guess. Everybody smile! I love speaking at colleges. I just came from the University of Nevada
Reno. I recently spoke at the Washington Policy
Center, George Mason University. I’ll be going to colleges in New York, in
Tennessee. I’ll be at my alma mater University of Florida
Journalism College, Go Gators!, for student conference about freedom of information and
government accountability. The conference we’re putting on is funded
with some of the proceeds from Stonewalled. I’m pleased to have heard from quite a journalism
college professors, not hundreds but a few who say that they’ve added Stonewalled to
the recommended reading for the journalism students or in the case of a Florida professor
that wrote me an email he said he scrapped their textbook and has replaced it with Stonewalled. I’m really pleased to hear that some journalism
college professors think there’s something of teachable value in there. I love learning about the colleges that I
visit. One of the interesting facts about Hillsdale
which you all probably know but I found interesting is the fact that it turned down the invitation
to a Tangerine Ball in the 1950’s for its undefeated football team because Hillsdale’s
black players weren’t going to be allowed on the field. That’s standing for principle. Thank you so much for inviting me. In 2009 President Barack Obama pledged to
make history with a high level of transparency his administration would bring to government. He issued a federal directive stating in part
here’s a quote “My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness
in government. We will work together to ensure the public
trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and
promote efficiency and effectiveness in government.” It sounds so good in theory. The Clinton years have proven difficult for
the cause of transparency and any hopes that George W. Bush would usher in a new era of
openness were quickly dashed for reporters like me but Barack Obama here he was placing
a value and emphasis on openness that really to us at least in this business set him apart. It could only mean positive things for journalist
especially for investigative journalist like me whose effectiveness as watchdogs of government
is directly proportional to our ability to access public information and inside sources
at least that’s what we thought. The Obama administration has found itself
instead making history for its secrecy and assaults on the press. There’s delay, denial, obstruction, intimidation,
retaliation, bullying, surveillance and for some the possible threat of criminal prosecution. In my view and that of other national reporters,
this is proving to be the least transparent administration we’ve covered. It’s so bad that practically every major
news outlet including the CBS News, Washington Post and the New York Times signed a scathing
letter to the White House in 2013 objecting to restrictions on the press that are unprecedented
that we had not dealt with before. We wrote “As surely as if they were placing
a hand over a journalist camera lens, officials in this administration are blocking the public
from having an independent view of important functions of the executive branch of government.” We called some Obama administration press
policies in this letter “Arbitrary restraint and unwarranted interference on legitimate
newsgathering activities.” We told the White House “You are in effect
replacing independent photo journalism with visual press releases.” We said the White House behavior raised constitutional
concerns. New York Times photographer Doug Mills likened
the White House press office to the Soviet news agency Tass. It’s so bad that in 2013 the free press
advocacy group Reporters without Borders gave a serious downgrade to America’s standing
in the global free press rankings rating the Obama administration as worst that Bush’s. “The whistleblower is the government’s
enemy.” wrote the group quite rightfully explaining
it’s finding. It said, “Amid an all-out hunt for leaks
and sources, 2013 will be the year of the Associated Press scandal which came to light
when the Department of Justice acknowledge it had ceased the news agency’s phone records.” They weren’t the only ones complaining. In March of 2014, New York Times reporter
James Risen spoke at an investigative journalism conference I attended at Berkeley and called
the Obama administration “The greatest enemy of press freedom in at least a generation.” Perhaps the best example I can think of is
to how this administration threatens loss of access to control its public message is
a little story that I tell about C-SPAN. In summer of 2010 C-SPAN wanted to add footage
of President Obama to a White House documentary that had produced in the final years of the
George W. Bush administration. President Obama agreed to tape a brief interview
in the oval office with Brian Lamb the founder an executive chairman of C-SPAN’s board
of directors. The 9 minute interview conducted with both
men standing is pretty innocuous. “What have you changed in this room?” Brian Lamb asks the president in the oval
office. “We have not redecorated yet,” answers
the president. “Given that we are in the midst of some
very difficult economic times we decided to hold off last year in terms of making some
changes.” All is well until about 2 weeks later when
a C-SPAN official gets a call from Obama’s director of broadcast media Dag Vega. Vega tells C-SPAN that in just a couple of
days the Washington Post will be breaking the story of the president’s reported multimillion
dollar renovation of the oval office. Vega is calling to make sure that C-SPAN won't
follow-up that news by running it’s interview with the president that seemed to imply the
oposite, the one that was taped just days before. “You’re going to save the interview for
the documentary which was set to air in a few weeks, right?” Vega reputedly asked the C-SPAN official. “If the public were to see the president’s
interview at that time, they might wonder whether he had been clueless or had intentionally
perhaps been misleading about the impending make over.” From C-SPAN’s viewpoint this is a problem. There was never an agreement as to when the
president’s interview would air and it would be foolish for C-SPAN to hold the relevant
material only to air the inaccurate interview later for the documentary. Discussions go back and forth with the White
House saying that the agreement was for the president’s interview to air in the future
around the release of the updated documentary but within news events C-SPAN rightfully decides
it has no choice but to air the interview sooner when the story breaks about the oval
office decorations. The White House follows up by pressuring C-SPAN
to change its mind and suggests that the cable television network will be punished with lack
of access if they do air the interview. On August 31st that year as the White House’s
Vega had foretold, the Washington Post breaks the news of the president’s oval office
facelift. C-SPAN goes ahead and airs the president’s
interview the same day. That night, Josh Earnest then White House
Deputy Press Secretary now White House Press Secretary reportedly fires off an angry email
to C-SPAN. The biggest surprise is that he sends it in
the middle of the president’s live address to the nation about the drawdown of US troops
from Iraq. You’d think he had bigger fish to fry. In the email Earnest accuses C-SPAN of being
egregiously unethical in violating terms of the interview. Though there is no evidence of any existence
of any prior agreement he continues to insist the White House would not and did not agree
to an interview with the president without specifying all the terms under which it would
air. Earnest went on to say that no other news
organization has done such a thing to the Obama White House and he threatens to withhold
future access. For its part frustrated C-SPAN officials feel
they’re the ones who had been wronged after all the president is the one who gave an interview
containing incorrect information in which the content was almost immediately invalidated. Like a bad tempered child stomping his foot
against the exercise of logic and reason, Earnest accuses C-SPAN of a violation of trust
and says there’ll be unlikely to see any further cooperation for the president as long
as he remains in office. One can only guess whether the Obama White
House has made good on that threat to withhold cooperation but C-SPAN’s programing since
that date reflects no interview with either the president or the first lady. The message, don’t cross the White House
even if it involves the simple act of airing an on the record on camera unedited interview
white the president of the United States, the consummate public official. The White House gets to direct its coverage
and the terms. Good behavior will be rewarded with access. Dissenters will be punished and I hate to
say it but I think many news organizations would have agreed to the White House demand
to hold the president’s interview no questions asked. President Obama seems to be either oblivious
or in denial or maybe he just thinks that repeating the same thing often enough will
make people believe it to be true. During an internet question and answer session
hosted by Google on February 14, 2013, the president told the online audience this is
the most transparent administration in history. Every visitor that comes into the White House
is now part of the public record. Every law we pass, every rule we implement
we put online for everyone to see. The Obama administration measures its supposed
transparency accomplishments by the sheer number of documents published online and the
amount of paper turned over to congress. On Benghazi the president says “We’ve
had more testimony and more paper than ever before.” Never mind all the paper they’re withholding
the ignored and denied freedom of information requests or the fact that they still refused
to answer many basic questions more than 2 years later, the job of getting the truth
has never been harder. In part it’s because the Obama administration
and government in general have figured out how to avoid questions in accountability by
cutting out the news media middle man. White House officials have exploited non news
media to spoon feed unfiltered messaging at times pure propaganda into the public’s
mouth. The Google sponsored chat that I mentioned
that came with a preselected audience and question submitted in advance by the White
House’s own YouTube channel. That’s the way they like it. They generate their own content, rely on surrogates
to help spread partisan blogs, Twitter and Facebook, give lots of interviews to entertainment
programs, digital media and feature press. When they feel the situation demands an appearance
of newsiness such as a presidential apology for healthcare.gov’s disastrous launch and
obfuscation they look for a soft landing with a handpicked outlet reporter. All of this impacts how well informed we can
keep the public but also it impacts the very survival of investigative journalism. In the 3 decades of polling by the Research
Center for people in the press, news organizations are near all-time lows when it comes to the
public’s view of our accuracy, fairness and independence. There’s one thing the public still values
the most and it makes no difference whether they’re Democrat, Republican or independent
they overwhelmingly support the media’s role as government watchdogs. That support rose a full 10 percentage points
from 2011 to 2013 amid revelations about government conducted surveillance of the public and the
press. The people also reflects the public’s rising
concern about loss of civil liberties. If the press doesn’t challenge and expose
government secrecy and overreach then who can? Back to the broken promise of transparency. One of Obama’s first actions in office was
to direct federal agencies to begin complying with freedom of information law. What a concept! No matter where you stand politically as a
journalist one had to be excited by the idea that under Obama we would gain back a major
necessary tool to do our jobs. Obama said that federal agencies were to err
on the side of releasing public information rather than withholding it. Instead we’ve seen the opposite. A continuation and expansion of the federal
bureaucracy that perverts FOIL law as it’s called into a tactic used to prevent the release
of public information. To send request to the end of a bureaucratic
queue that may never be answered and if it is takes months or years successfully delaying
and obfuscating past the point of relevance. I’m still waiting for lawful Reponses to
my FOIL request on Benghazi, Ebola a mysterious paralyzing virus, fast and furious, healthcare.gov
from the FBI. Try suing over their lack of proper response
and you find the Department of Justice not encouraging federal agencies to abide by the
spirit of FOIL law but instead providing lawyers to defend the withholding of information and
they use your tax dollars for the court cases so there’s no downside for them. They still accomplish the obfuscation and
delay and in the end even if the court orders them to turn over document there is no punishment
or recourse. They may have to pay the plaintiff’s legal
fees but they do that with your tax dollars too. It’s not just me and it’s not an opinion,
it’s a fact and a consensus. In late June 2013 I’m flying back from an
investigator reporter’s conference in San Antonio, Texas and I’m seated next to another
journalist Len Downie. He’s the former executive of the Washington
Post who had just spoken at our conference. He had told the audience “The Obama administration’s
war on leaks is by far the most aggressive that I’ve seen since the Nixon administration
and I go back that far.” As Downie and I chat shoulder to shoulder
on the airplane I bring up the subject of Edward Snowden. I asked Downie if it doesn’t seem as though
more tension should be focused on the content of Snowden’s claims instead of only whether
he’s hiding, whether he broke the law, whether he graduated from high school. Downie agrees. Four months later Downie published what I
see is the definitive report for the committee to protect journalist. It establishes the Obama administration as
the news media’s top choice for least transparent American presidency in modern times. When you think of all the transparency promises,
it’s pretty stunning the way the actual experiences of national news reporters not
those working at conservative outlets but journalist from the New York Times, the Washington
Post. David Sanger our chief Washington correspondent
at the time said “This is the most closed control freak administration I’ve ever covered.” Times public editor Margaret Sullivan “It’s
turning out to be the administration of unprecedented secrecy and unprecedented attacks on a free
press.” Financial Times correspondent Richard McGregor
“Covering this White House is pretty miserable in terms of getting anything of substance
to report on in what should be a much more open system.” ABC News White House correspondent Ann Compton
“He’s the least transparent of the 7 presidents that I’ve covered in terms of how he does
his daily business.” Josh Gerstein of Politico “If the story
is basically one that they don’t want to come out, they won't even give you the basic
facts.” Washington correspondent Josh Meyer “There
is across the board hostility to the media. They don’t return repeated phone calls and
emails they feel entitled to and expect supportive media coverage.” Post managing editor Kevin Merida describes
what he sees “As the White House’s hypersensitivity saying the officials often call reporters
and editors to complain about the tiniest thing maybe something on Twitter or a headline
on a website. I have a slightly different interpretation
of the administration sensitivities and all their reactions. It’s not really that they’re so sensitive,
they’re simply executing a well thought out strategy to harass reporters and editors
at the slightly error of negativity so as to impact the next news decisions. To provide so much unpleasant static and interference,
that we may subconsciously alter the way we report stories. To consume so much of our time explaining
and justifying what we reported that we begin to self-censor in the future. They accuse us of “piling on” when all
we’re doing is accurately covering their actions and the outcome of their decisions
but what human being doesn’t instinctively learn to avoid negative unpleasant feedback.” This trend did not begin with the Obama administration
and I’m afraid will not end there either. I don’t really blame the Obama administration
and I don’t even blame the entrenched federal bureaucracy. I blame us the news media. When government invariably attempts to advance
itself, separate itself from the public it works for, covets information, feathers its
own nest and acts as if it’s an independent corporation beholden to shareholders, politicians
and special interest rather than public, it’s the media that’s supposed to make sure that
doesn’t get out of balance. We haven’t been doing a very good job. We send letters. We make statements but instead of insisting
our rights be respected we place ourselves in an unnecessarily subservient position as
if it’s a favor we’re asking for, something to be granted at the king’s pleasure rather
than a right that we’re entitled to. Instead of demanding the government follow
the law, we politely and somewhat timidly ask “Could you pretty please follow the
law?” Instead of demanding to access to information
we own, that’s collected on our behalf by public servants paid with tax dollars we make
an appeal “Could you maybe please just consider giving us some of our information?” Here I’d like to pause and take some questions
on this topic before speaking a little bit on a related topic. How the government generates its own propaganda
using your tax dollars and why what you see on the news is so homogenous and often discourages
a very original reporting that would actually get more viewers. We’ll take questions for a few minutes and
then I’ll talk about that. There’s some nice young ladies in the aisles
ready to hear from you. Yes sir. Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Quick question. It seems to be part of the problem seems to
be that we do not have a loyal opposition anywhere in this government relative to what
the people want and demand about liberty. Sharyl Attkisson: I would say there is a shared
viewpoint among a lot of people that even the Republican “opposition” is not doing
its best job at presenting opposing viewpoints. I will say that I’ve noticed this is just
my opinion based on observations but also conversations of what staffers and members
of congress. Like the media there seems to be less will
to do oversight, to ask the tough questions and do the follow-through. Much like the media I hear staffers and members
of congress saying the same things. There just isn’t the appetite and leadership
to do tough oversight. They want to take the easy road. They do look into things but only goes so
far and then they seem not to follow up. I’ve made some of those same observations
and I feel like there’s some symmetry with what’s going on in some aspects with the
media as well. Let the lady with the microphone decide who
to go to. Speaker 2: Can you shed some light and give
some insight on why the Obama administration is so untransparent? Do they have things to hide or they just constitutionally
not inclined to shed any information on what they’re doing? Give us some insight into that please. Sharyl Attkisson: It’s hard to know what
people are hiding when they don’t tell you what they’re hiding. I would argue it’s a natural inclination
of those in power to do that. I believe when President Obama said he was
going to usher in a new era of transparency I believe he meant it. I believe he thought he could and something
happens along the way whether it’s embarrassing information they’d rather not have be released
or they get inundated by advisers who have different opinions but it seems to be that
no matter how good the intentions are the opposite happens. That’s where again as I said I felt the
press, if that’s the natural inclination of government it’s our job as the media
to push back against that and make sure it’s not successful if they’re withholding information
that they shouldn’t be withholding. We’re supposed to dig and probe and push
on that and I don’t think we’ve always done the best job at that. Speaker 3: I just want to follow up on this
gentleman’s question because it was kind of what I was thinking originally. What I’m concerned about is this president
has made so many decisions that really are not in the best interest of the United States
and that’s what concerns me. That’s what he’s hiding. Benghazi, the national security all of his
decision leave me to think there’s something very nafty going on. Sharyl Attkisson: As a journalist when someone
doesn’t want to tell you something especially when it’s arguably public information that’s
what sets of the idea that they’re wanting to hide something for a reason even if you
don’t know what it is but that’s certainly what keeps you going in my case what keeps
me digging. On the other hand I would say there’s still
about 50% of America that would disagree with you. I have a very active social media account
and for all the people who sound exactly like you, I have postings from reasonable acquaintances
who say quite the opposite, who think that and you’ve heard it too, they still think
this president is correct in what he’s done that the mistakes and problems are overblown
by a partisan press and by Republican stoked controversies and so on. I guess there’s just difference of opinion
on that. Speaker 4: Thank you very much. You mentioned that there’s less will to
do oversight no appetite, they want to take the easy road. I assume you’re talking about the individual
journalist in this case and that certainly the symptoms but I’m wondering a little
deeper if you can give us your thought on the corporation influence on each of those
journalist within CBS, ABC, NBC you amen them all the 3 letters. You see some of them coming out. You see yourself coming out. I see Fox News coming out that everybody else
takes the high road if you will and stays away from the real problem. Why does the corporations allow that? Sharyl Attkisson: When I talk about the taking
the path of least resistance, I don’t particularly mean the individual ground level journalist. I think I’m speaking more and I’ll talk
about this in a few minutes about the gatekeepers who decide what goes on TV and how much headache
they want to have against these highly sophisticated fairly recent pushback campaigns that are
well funded, that are mounted by special interest and corporate interest against new stories
they don’t like and news outlets that bother to publish these things and whistleblowers
who dare to tell the truth and politicians who dare to ask the tough questions. They’re subjected to an organized campaign
to controversialize them funded by PR efforts that are invisible so it appears to be a grassroots
over swelling opinion that’s not really there. I call it an artificial reality but it’s
somewhat overwhelming to the news organizations at times who see all the social media activity
and read the logs and read about themselves and maybe don’t have the stomach to push
through that. It’s hard to say how much corporate influence
there is. There’s always been a little bit of that
and journalist from time to time have to pushback against what we feel maybe corporate influence
but you don’t always know what corporate influence is because no one tells you necessarily
why certain decisions are made. In a few instances in the book I talk about
… I did have some insight because somebody said something very pointed. In general you don’t always know why the
gatekeepers don’t want a particular story that seems so obvious and so obviously in
the public interest. I would say corporations and government have
become so intertwined in their interest and they become intertwined also with the media
which is beholden to in some respects the interest of the government and some corporations
as well. Whether they’re advertisers or some other
interest it’s all meddling into one big interest. When they all start to think alike and don’t
want to do oversight on each other because they’re beholden to the same ideas or interest
I think that’s part of a trend you might be seeing. Speaker 5: Thank you so much Sharyl. I was wondering if you could perhaps compare
the relationship between Obama’s administration and the press with perhaps past presidents
like say President Woodrow Wilson or Abraham Lincoln even. Sharyl Attkisson: I don’t have an answer
for that question I’m sorry because I’m not a student of those times. I can’t say. Every chunk of press has its own relationship
with the president and there’ve always been adversarial questions asked. I think back to Sam Donaldson “Hold on Mr.
President!” and there are still reporters asking adversarial questions even if they
don’t make it on the evening news necessarily every night. I’m sorry I haven’t studied back that
far. Speaker 6: Within the context of what you
just said about a lot of reasons for skepticism about corporate America and about the government,
previously you commented that you gave Obama the benefit of the doubt when you said that
he would be transparent, what’s the basis of that opinion? Sharyl Attkisson: Once he was already elected
to make that be a key proclamation as you enter office without any reason for having
to say so once you already elected but to focus so much attention on that I do give
the benefit of the doubt. I could be wrong but my instinct say he meant
it and he thought that was one thing that he could change about Washington that was
a problem. It didn’t turn out that way and I can’t
tell you what’s really in his mind or his heart that’s just my interpretation. Dave: Hi my name is Dave Fergusson and I’m
just wondering if you know for sure whether or not this president has college records
sealed and if so would that be a clear indication of how transparent this guy was going to be? Sharyl Attkisson: I have not looked into that
issue. Sorry. I’m going to try not to answer questions
I don’t know much about. There if you don’t mind let me go on to
the second half of what I thought you might find interesting to talk about and then I’ll
take some more questions after that. This gets to the heart of a few questions
you all just asked. In the last decade or more the government
has adopted and perfected many of the public relations and crisis management strategies
employed by big corporation. It’s a natural outgrowth of their incestuous
relationship. The big difference is the government is using
your tax dollars to promote itself and advance it’s propaganda. One way they do it by self-producing videos
and building their very own television production facilities where the upper echelon gives interviews
and speeches controlling everything from content to lighting. While the nation descended into unprecedented
debt, congress and the federal agencies ranging from health and human services to the national
institutes of health used millions of your tax dollars to build or expand their very
own television studios. The food and drug administration’s facility
boast “a number of mobile and fixed sets as well as various configurations to allow
for a studio audience of over 100.” The Transportation Security Administration,
TSA, sports a studio with Hitachi high definition cameras and Fujinon lenses and LCD based teleprompters. When top officials from those federal agencies
appear on camera, naturally they have to look good. Your tax dollars may kick in for the cost
of their hairstylist, makeup artist and wardrobe consultants. One insider told me that the head of a federal
agency even had her fashion colors analyzed at tax payer expense. In addition the Pentagon has its own 24 hour
channel which features military news, interviews with top defense officials and program such
as the Grill Sergeants. While the Pentagon frets over sequestration
cuts and the troops listen to talk of cutting their pensions, your tax dollars are paying
to produce programs such as a cooking show competition that features mess hall cooks
and aids to generals battling it out over dishes like seared ahi tuna and lamb with
blueberry wine sauce. Both the defense department and the centers
for disease control provide tax payer funded advisers to television and Hollywood entertainment
producers to promote accuracy or propaganda depending on your viewpoint. Some of the public interest justification
for use of these assets are dubious. In 2013 you may remember congress caught the
IRS making Star Trek and Gilligan’s island parody videos to educate federal employees
at a conference. When Secretary of Energy Steven Chu resigned
from the Obama administration, the federal agency produced a slick photo tribute to him
using your money. It touts Chu’s incredible successes but
forgets to mention any of his scandals such as the failed effort at playing venture capitalist
with tax dollars and green energy investments like Solyndra. By its own admission the Pentagon the film
liaison office gives for profit filmmakers free use of taxpayer assets from tanks to
jets but only if the film portrays the images the Pentagon wants. If not, the assets are withheld. There was a documentary called Hollywood and
Pentagon a dangerous liaison. In the documentary they said “Scripts are
cut and sometimes watered down. Characters are changed and historical truths
sometimes fudged. One director might be loaned combat ships
and jets. Another director who’s script displeases
the government or the army maybe refused any kind of support. Few great war films have escaped the influence
or even the censure of the US army.” It’s pure propaganda according to the documentary
and you’re paying for it. Like big corporations each federal agency
and all 535 members of congress have teams of taxpayer funded media and communication
specialist to advance their message. A few years ago a well-placed insider at the
US Department of Agriculture confessed to me that even he was surprised to learn that
his own agency supposedly had more than 1200 employees working in some sort of media relations
capacity nationwide. Department of Agriculture, 1200 media relations
employees. Your tax dollars pay for their salaries that
many times they’re little more than private publicity agents for their bosses spending,
avoiding and obfuscating as expertly as any of their corporate counterparts and too often
we let them get away with it. Too often press releases that read like propaganda
from government and corporation are used in the news without the required critical examination
and analysis. If you’re confused about all the influences
behind what you see the news and how they affect the product, there’s good reason. At times there’s a liberal political bias
in mainstream media that tells toward stories favoring liberal social issues and philosophies
but there’s also a competing conservative corporate bias that favors specific companies,
industries and paid interest. Unfortunately the result isn’t an ideal
balance of complete information about the world, it’s often a distorted and perplexing
mix. The trend has become more predominant in the
last couple of years as powerful interests have mastered their method of influencing
us and some of our managers have embraced the influence believing they’ll keep their
lucrative jobs by going along rather than resisting. The capitulation to special interest may preserve
these news manager’s job into short term but in the big picture I think they’re ensuring
a quicker demise of the entire platform. Alienating and eroding the audience that we
supposedly serve. The network evening newscast bragged that
increasing numbers of people are watching, the total number of television broadcast network
audience members compared to that which is available remains minuscule. Many in the public believe are feeding them
a lot of pablum. I’ve never before heard so many people say
so, liberals, conservatives and people who define themselves as neither. What is the mysterious process behind the
decisions as to what stories make the news on the given night? Some stories are carefully chosen and edited
by a small group of broadcast news managers because they serve a specific set of agendas. In a book called Manufacturing Consent the
author state commercial news organizations disseminate propaganda on behalf of dominant
private interest in the government “The media do not function in the manner of the
propaganda system of a totalitarian state, rather they permit indeed encourage spirited
debate, criticism and dissent as long as these remain faithfully within the system of presuppositions
and principles that constitute an elite consensus. A system so powerful as to be internalized
largely without awareness.” There are other factors at play. Many story topics are selected by managers
who are as I say producing out of fear in trying to play it safe. Playing it safe means airing stories that
certain other trusted media have reported first so there’s no perceived risk to us
if we report them too. We’re not going out on a limb. We’re not reporting anything that hasn’t
already been reported elsewhere but it also means we’re not giving viewers a reason
to watch us. Playing it safe means shying away from stories
that include allegations against certain corporations, charities and other chosen powerful entities
in people. The image of the news media as fearless watchdogs
poised if not eager to pursue stories that authorities wish to block is often a false
image. Decisions are routinely made in fear of the
response that the story might provoke. The propaganda’s heavy handed tactics have
worked. They don’t even have to pick up the phone
and complain about a story. Some news managers demonstrate a Pavlovian
style avoidance response when presented with a story that they fear will bring some negative
reaction. We are weak and diffident when we needn’t
be. Many investigative reporters around the nation
are experiencing the same thing. It’s a trend. Long time Emmy Award winning reporter Al Sunshine
retired from the CBS owned and operated station in Miami the summer before I left CBS News. Afterward he made some similar observations
he said “Because of the recent lack of support and commitment for my investigations, I faced
an almost daily battle to get the time to work on my stories and had to fight harder
than ever for air time.” Though his brand of investigative reporting
in consumer stories was widely popular with viewers, sometimes resulting in new laws being
passed and criminals getting prosecuted, he was told his stories were too negative. Instead he was often reassigned to what we
call day of air news coverage. He told me “Advertisers are dominating news
judgment and news organizations all over the country. The public interest is being diminished in
the interest of corporate advertisers and lobbyist. What’s almost universally accepted is business
as usual in Washington, corruption between lobbyist dollars and political favoritism
is slowly but surely becoming the norm for many news organizations as well.” says Sunshine. It might be growing worse but historical narrative
implies there’s always been an element of this condition avoidance response in the corporate
news world. In his 1967 memoir called Due to circumstances
beyond our control CBS news president Fred Friendly expressed discomfort that top management
felt over its star reporter at the time Edward R. Murrow. During the 1954-55 season we did a 2 part
report on cigarettes and lung cancer and both CBS and CBS sponsor Alcoa, aluminum company
felt the pressures of the tobacco industry which buys both air time and aluminum foil. The attitude at CBS says this book was “Why
does Murrow have to save the world every week?” In another instance, Fred Friendly quoted
CBS Bill Paley as telling Edward R. Murrow “I don’t want this constant stomachache
every time you do a controversial subject.” These tendencies to censor topics that generates
objections from their powerful targets aren’t necessarily spoken or even consciously addressed. Those of us who report on these subjects are
not told that our stories are undesirable because they’re not safe or because they
challenge powers. As Sunshine said “News manipulation is subtle.” He says “It comes in many forms like withholding
resources such as cameraman and producers and conveniently dropping investigative reports
from the newscast when the timing of the show happens to run too long to fit it in.” We figured it out. Ironically management has avoidance response
can result in absurd machinations that inadvertently generate the very liabilities they’re trying
to avoid. Some of us had boiled it down to a saying
“They’re often worried about the wrong things and not worried about the right things.” I’ll tell you just one story that serves
as an example. During the time under skittish broadcast show
management my last 2 years at CBS I reported a story on a credit card scam that showed
a surveillance video of a suspect who was caught on camera allegedly using one stolen
card after another at Target, Walmart and Macy’s. Neither the story nor our use of the surveillance
video was precarious in any sense. The police had publicly released the video. It already appeared on the local news. The suspect had been identified and I had
run my story through the CBS legal department for legal clearance. Even under the standards of the current skittish
evening news management this story was safe. Just prior to air the executive producer views
the finished piece in New York and rings the hotline phone to the Washington news room
where I was. “We can’t show the suspect’s face.” she protest. “Why not?” I ask. She says, “He hasn’t been convicted of
anything.” I take a breath. The idea that a criminal suspect’s face
can’t be shown on television comes from someone who lacks the most basic knowledge
of the law. I’m having way too many of these conversations
lately and I know it means she’s not going to listen to me. She’s scared of the story. Nonetheless I patiently explained that somebody
doesn’t have to be convicted of a crime for us to identify him or show his face. Under her mistaken idea of the law arrest
mug shots would never be shown on the news. We wouldn’t have shown OJ Simpson’s face
when he was accused but never convicted of murder. We wouldn’t have identified any criminal
suspects prior to conviction Timothy McVeigh, John Gotti, Jack Kevorkian, Lorena Bobbitt,
Tom DeLay, Martha Stewart, Michael Jackson, Bernard Madoff, the Unabomber, Osama bin Laden,
these would be phantom faces that we wouldn’t be allowed to show. None of these stories wouldn’t have been
done if we were to consistently apply this executive producer’s warped view of the
law. Still she balks “Call his lawyer and ask
for permission to show his client’s face.” Another breath. I look at the clock it’s nearly 6:00 story
is set to air at 6:30. The odds that I’ll reach the suspect’s
public defender and get a yes from him in the next half hour are pretty remote but importantly
the idea that we would set a precedent by asking a suspect for permission to use his
image has to rank as one of the more preposterous suggestions I’ve ever heard. “We don’t need his permission.” I reiterate “and I doubt he would give it. I wouldn’t if I were him.” “Okay,” she says still sounding unconvinced. We hang up the phone and within seconds she
sends me a follow-up message telling me to blur out the suspect’s face anyway. “Just wuz it a little” she says. With time ticking I rush back to the editing
booth and break the news to my producer and our editor. “You’re not going to believe this.” I say “but she wants us to get permission
from the defender’s lawyers to use his face or else blur it out.” “What?” says my producer dumfounded “That’s
outrageous!” The producer makes another attempt to reach
the attorney whom we tried earlier. It’s futile at this hour and we know that
if asked he’s going to say no anyway so we go ahead and blur out the suspect’s face
and re-feed the story to New York to air. In some ways this may not sound like a very
big deal. What’s the harm in masking a criminal suspect’s
identity? I know the answer. The executive producer’s misguided and capricious
decision hasn’t avoided risk it’s actually created a potential liability. We’ve now set a precedent that sets us up
for accusations and bias and inconsistent treatment when we don’t do the same for
the next accused criminal suspect. This is just one example of the twisted away
sometimes that you get the news or don’t get news and I’m happy to take some questions
on that subject. Is there anything else that you want to ask? Do we have time for questions? Speaker 7: Yeah. Sharyl Attkisson: Okay. Speaker 7: We have some time for questions. Microphones will be out. Please raise your hand and stand up when they
come to you and once again keep the questions shorter than the answer might be. We like that. Speaker 8: I hate to have to ask this question
but I just wonder if you’ve ever been concerned for your personal safety or your life in pursuing
some of the stories that you pursue? Sharyl Attkisson: Thank you for asking. I don’t want to talk about that but I’m
okay. Thank you. Speaker 9: In the last week or so the president
did an interview with an online blogger, a young woman with bright green lipstick and
it was heralded by Osama as a new era of journalism. I just wondered, what do you think this administration’s
target audience are for their release of information? Sharyl Attkisson: As I described I think this
administration has perfected the idea of going around neutral news reporters who would ask
critical questions and I don’t have a problem with doing that thing if that’s what they
want to do. My only problem would be if they do that instead
of also being answerable to those who could ask the tough and probing and challenging
questions and hold them accountable on behalf of the public. I think sometimes they do more of that social
media and fun stuff and entertainment celebrity stuff which does reach an audience because
that’s how some people get their news in a way that they’re not asked critical questions
or they don’t have an informed interview on these certain controversial topics. Doing that instead of doing more of the other
kind I see is a problem because I’m a traditional journalist but I don’t have a problem with
them dogging if they don’t want to do it in addition to. Speaker 10: Would you present it seems like
a great argument for limited government would you agree? Sharyl Attkisson: What do you mean by limited
government? Speaker 10: You talked about I think 1200
people in media for the Department of Agriculture so smaller government and also you get in
the issues of crony capitalism. Smaller government reduces those opportunities. Sharyl Attkisson: Yeah one might say so. Speaker 11: What’s the word on the street
with your brothers and sisters so to speak with regard to journalism schools? Are they acquiesce or push back? Second part, why does Fox kill it in the ratings
every period in your opinion? Sharyl Attkisson: I don’t really know about
journalism schools across the board. I’ve been thankfully exposed to some great
ones and had dinner sitting next to one here from Hillsdale who were trying to teach students
good journalism and fair reporting. I think a lot of people go into this business
maybe not coming from journalism school. Sometimes they find their way in through a
friend or a contact they study politics and government but I’ll say 2 things growing
out from that. Some people get in the business and they think
their job is to convince you to feel the way they do about something. That’s a different kind of journalism. That’s not how I was taught. If in the end after I presented you with what
the facts are as I’ve been able to find them I really don’t care what you decide. I’m not here to try to make you think a
certain way. I want you to have facts that you can’t
get easily somewhere else. Then if you see all those facts and you don’t
care or you think the opposite of other people, whatever you think is fine. It doesn’t bother me. I just like to put those facts on the table
because those belong to you in my opinion and you should have those as you make up your
mind. Some people want to change your mind but secondly
I would also say believe it or not some of the poems I described are not the ground level
reporters and producers who do a great job from what I’ve seen day in and day out producing
original stories in an unbiased fashion but there are key gatekeepers that shape those
stories and decide which stories will go on the air and which ones will never be seen
unless they’re shaped a certain way and that’s more of where I see a problem. What was your second question? Sharyl Attkisson: Fox News has great ratings. They can probably tell you more about why
they resonate. Just what I hear from people who do … I
know a lot of people that sample. They watch Fox. They watch MSNBC. They click around. They want to hear not just yes people do seek
their own opinions but they also want to hear what the other people are saying too. I think it resonates because maybe it’s
the only network that’s doing that specifically where there are several networks doing the
liberal side of it. If you want to watch conservative tilted talk
I would say a lot of the reporting is very neutral but conservative tilted talk and topics
I can’t think of another TV station that you can go to. They can get that whole audience in one lump
sum while the rest of the networks divide up the liberal tilting audience that’s my
guess. Speaker 12: What advice would you give to
pressured journalists and how is the increased speed of the internet and the use of social
media impacted investigative and analytical journalism? Sharyl Attkisson: I don’t have general advice
for journalist you’d have to ask me a question about what kind of journalism … what question
what area of advice you’re looking for. The impact of social media has been tremendous. I think some of it good, some of it bad. You can’t unwind and go back from the internet. I think some people wish you could. Bloggers for example a mixed blessing. There have been bloggers that have uncovered
amazing stories that the news media hasn’t but by the same token you have to sit there
and sift and filter and be exposed to a lot of stuff that may not be true to get to the
truth. I don’t have any magic recipe because I’ve
been asked to help you figure out as we try to do was there a source that you can believe,
where can you go and you don’t have to knock 20% off because it’s a conservative site
or 30% off what they say because it’s a liberal site. It’s very confusing time and I don’t know
what’s going to be born next. Something will come all of this and I hope
it’s something good down the road but unfortunately I can’t foresee what’s next. Speaker 13: You remember MIT economist Jonathan
Gruber who wrote Obama care with full understanding that the American people won't be lied to
and he did. Could it be that Obama also believed that
we are all idiots that want to be lied to? Sharyl Attkisson: It’s hard to say what
conversations are had and what they think but the evidence is clear with healthcare.gov
and has not been well reported in my view by some it has been but not widely reported. I have reported this at CBS News and afterwards. The projections showed prior to this passing
the government’s own projections show that millions of people were going to be knocked
off their health insurance, that millions of people were going to be knocked off of
their work insurance. This is happening now and that’s not been
widely reported. It’s being overshadowed by positive news. I really have no explanation for how the government’s
profession as to what was going to happen are so different from what the documentary
record shows they knew was going to happen but they’re very much at odds. That’s not an opinion, that’s a fact. Speaker 14: Thank you so much for your time
this evening. My question is going to go back to when you
talked about how it’s important for us to be able to make proper decisions to have all
the information really in front of us. That you have transparency, that organizations
like the Sunlight Foundation have been very adamant in advocating. My question is going to lean towards campaign
finance and we see a lot of times where politicians oftentimes aren’t able to disclose that
information to the public. My question to you would be, what does freedom
of the press have to do with campaign finance and how that would relate to an electoral
system that we have in the United States today? Thank you. Sharyl Attkisson: That maybe a little bigger
question than I’m qualified to answer but I would say every time you get at the heart
of campaign finance, what’s wrong with it, how to get influence out of it they thought
of another way around that. One big area I’ll just give as an example. Even if you regulate full transparency and
where certain donations come from and limits on campaign contributions and everything you
try to do people can’t go straight from congress to lobbying without a cooling off
period. There are new tools that come into play that
allow them to get around all of that. One tool I think that’s being widely used
I’ve reported a little bit on it are nonprofits which are highly in my view unregulated from
a sense of the IRS looking at what they really do and what they have to disclose financially. Nonprofits are often coopted by special interest
because they sound like altruistic neutral organizations but in fact the strings for
them are being pulled and they’re being funded by special interest who are in some
way benefiting in some cases a member of congress for example. I did a story on a couple of years ago a Republican
congressman who started what I would call a fake charity that was supposed to collect
money for educational scholarships but hadn’t given out any. He probably never thought his own connection
with this charity would be revealed and it was only revealed through a strange set of
circumstances. Once it was revealed he was connected to this
charity that was collecting millions of dollars from guess who? All the interest regulated by the committee
that he sits on tobacco industry, pharmaceutical industry. He was golfing and giving access to the people
donating millions of dollars to the charity which employed his family members but gave
out no scholarships and this kind of this trail went on and on. This was a way I believe the money was stated
for that foundation by a pharmaceutical company after which this congressman introduced favorable
legislation that made statements on the floor. I was able to match up almost every time he
got a large donation from one of his interest he was supposed to regulate after a donation
or right before donation he took some action or made some statement in congress. It took a lot of digging to find that relationship
but to me it was pretty clear and he resigned from congress shortly after that. That’s just one example I think of it’s
so hard to find an answer to how to get influence out and make it be where people who are elected
are serving just the folks instead of the well-financed interest. Speaker 7: We have time for one more question. Speaker 15: Thank you for your insights tonight. I’m a concerned citizen outside of the profession
of journalism, politics but interested in as much accuracy and objectivity as I can
find. I come home from work with about half hour
to an hour of time to invest in that. What recommendations would you make to me
about how I should use that time the best? Sharyl Attkisson: I’ve been talking about
this a lot with people because I think we all have to develop our own ways. I can’t say go to one site and that site
will always have the news that’s probably the way you want it. I don’t think that exist and yet many sites
and many news outlets do great reporting. Maybe it’s harder fought these days but
PBS frontline, 60 minutes, the networks, the newspapers they’re still doing great investigative
reporting. You have to find reporters you trust maybe
on a particular topic because of some experience you’ve had that knows that its ringing true
and then you may decide that’s reporter you will follow on other topics because you
found them to be in your view trustworthy. Same as with some news outlets I think you’ll
hop around from one place to the next and it’s not going to be the same … You just
spend your 30 minutes looking at the same 3 or 4 places every time. I just don’t think it works that way. A lot of people are telling me that they use
their Twitter feed and Facebook feed as story circulate on outlets they might never have
seen. They pop through those and they find stories
of interest and that’s their daily newspaper of the day. They’re just looking around and seeing what
people are sitting around and talking about. I will repost in the next couple of days something
that I posted a couple of week ago because people are asking what some alternative websites
you might want to check out that do some good investigative journalism. You may not like everything they do but they
do some great work. Just as one example I’ll say Project Censored. It’s probably projectcensored.com but you
can google it. They made it their mission to take stories
that are untouchable that news outlets for whatever reason, for a variety of reasons
don’t want to touch and they report on those and at the end of the year they compile the
10 best stories into a book and publish it. These are stories you probably won't see anywhere
else for a lot of different reasons and there are places like that that you might find interesting. I’ll repost that in the next week or so
in sharylattkisson.com and you can see if there’s anything of interest there for you. Thank you all.
If they investigate U.S policies they will be arrested.