HELP needed - Transcript of Keith Olbermann with JOSEPH WILSON?

[calimary]

Anybody know? Anybody, by chance, have a link? Need this for a project on how the White House is influencing news coverage. It was earlier this month, when Wilson was a guest on MSNBC's "Countdown" - and Olbermann revealed that the White House had emailed him three pages of questions to ask Joseph Wilson when it learned Wilson was to be a guest on the show. Olbermann outed them about this, waved the papers around, noted they also contained a request - "please call me" which he said they'd declined to do, and then went on with his own interview, anyway. I believe it was a Monday, after Wilson appeared on "Meet the Press."

Thank you for any help on this matter.

[calimary]

1. Gottta kick this...

[Snoopy2]

2. Hi, I think this is what you are looking for

Here is the address for the transcript:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4907409/

The text you are looking for is about 2/3 down the page. Here are some snips:

OLBERMANN: You do know that they are still going after you, right? We promoted the fact that you would be on this show tonight. Today we received three separate copies of the same e-mail with talking points from the White House, one asking a contact here “Can you please get this to the Olbermann people. Wilson is on the Olbermann show.” Misspelled my name, by the way, but that‘s neither here nor there. Another one asks one of our producers “I understand you have Mr. Wilson on. Can you please call me on this?”

Are you surprised by that?

WILSON: No, I‘m not surprised at all. I tell you this administration has tried to manage and direct the news from the very beginning. As I point out in the book, they have made the lives of journalists very unpleasant. One journalist said he was afraid to go to print because he might end up in Guantanamo, which I take to be a metaphor for being cut out. Another journalist said I‘ve got kids in a private school and a mortgage to pay. So I‘m not surprised at all.

OLBERMANN: The White House has other venues to write questions than this program and we‘ll let them do that, but there are six points on this list. Five are pretty nuanced and they basically say “no this isn‘t true” but one of them I think is actually pretty important, on page 444, you pointed out that the White House spokesman Scott McClellan denied Karl Rove was involved in the leaking of your wife‘s identity, but he would not be as direct in denying the possibility that your other two candidates, Scooter Libby and Eliot Abrams might have done this. The White House talking points, number 4 on this list quotes Mr. McClellan last October, asked about Rove, Libby and Abrams as saying, “at a time like this there are a lot of rumors and innuendo. There are unsubstantiated accusations that are made and that‘s exactly what happened in the case of these three individuals.”

Does that not count as a denial, not just on Rove but also on Libby and Abrams?

WILSON: Well, it‘s not how I interpreted it It‘s how others who have taken a look at that and others of Mr. McClelland‘s statements that have interpreted that as being a non-denial denial. In other words rather than saying they categorically had nothing to do with the leaking of my wife‘s name to the press, what Mr. McClellan has gone out and said that well, they did not leak any classified information. Without actually saying nobody was involved in leaking my wife‘s name. it would be really simple to get to the bottom of this. There are not 100 senior government officials who would have been involved in this. It would be just a few. And the President really should just assert his authority and insist that somebody step forward.

[calimary]

3. Aw, MAN, that's the one! THANK YOU!!!!

I was negligent in not jumping on it myself immediately afterwards. THANK YOU!!! REALLY appreciate it!

And welcome to DU! I am PARTICULARLY grateful you're here!

HUGS! (YES, I was yelling!)

[Snoopy2]

4. Your welcome

I added it to my favorites because it was so alarming and no seemed to address it - It should have been all over the blogsphere but it sunk like a rock.

[Paradise]

5. Hey, Snoopy2, WELCOME to DU! :) n/t

[charlie105]

6. What's this project you are working on. Could we get to see it

when you are done?
Thanks.

[calimary]

8. It's one in which I am VERY clearly an outsider - BUT NOT BY MUCH!

Tom Curley, the new top dog at the Associated Press (my old stomping grounds, up til 1996) recently proposed a media campaign to fight government secrecy. The story ran a few weeks ago:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/peninsula/8619334.htm?1c

This made sirens go off in my head, so I gathered up my courage and wrote him an email, congratulating him on this, commenting at some length - short versions of many of the ventings I've bored people with here, about how it just burns my burgers that the press has given this White House SUCH a complete pass, nobody's investigating anything, nobody's questioning anything, people are intimidated, the job's not getting done, and the rest of America that relies on its media to inform and educate is getting the shaft. Anyone who doubts should consider the single fact that a majority in this country STILL thinks that Saddam had something to do with 9/11.

Anyway, I emailed him with a shorter version of this blathering. He actually answered me back! Said he appreciated my feedback and my "well-thought-out presentation" (!?) and promised they'd be working on it (slowly but surely, he said they were going to form a group and consider what steps to take, but that it would probably take some time since it also took some time to get into this predicament). I was QUITE surprised to hear back from him. Anyway, I thought it was high time to contact him again, because since then, several (at least) instances have come up that further verify and underscore the serious need for his campaign.

Here's what I sent him a few minutes ago:


Hello again, Tom -

As you pursue your measured steps, may I humbly offer a few more items for your consideration:

1) US Journalists Face Credibility Gap - UK Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1224129,00.html

"American journalism is suffering a crisis of confidence in the wake of high-profile reporting scandals at the New York Times and USA Today..."

2) Press Feels It's Gone Easy on Bush - Boston.com http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2004/05/24/press_feels_its_gone_easy_on_bush/

"A press corps that is growing increasingly liberal is inclined to believe that President Bush has gotten an easy ride from the news media..." (although, strictly from my listening, viewing and reading, I would seriously beg to differ with the assessment that the press corp is growing increasingly liberal)

3) "Meet the Press" transcript of program May 16, 2004 - NBC NEWS
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4992558/ (at the end of the Colin Powell segment, first half of show)

Guest: Colin Powell - whose DOS PR staffer, Emily Miller, attempted to short-circuit the interview upon Tim Russert's final (and most prickly) question. Colin Powell orders her to move away from the camera that she'd manipulated away from him to a shot of the palm trees and the ocean, in an apparent attempt to compel NBC to edit out the question.

4) "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" transcript of program May 4, 2004 - MCNBC
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4907409 (about 2/3 of the way down)

OLBERMANN: You do know that they are still going after you, right? We promoted the fact that you would be on this show tonight. Today we received three separate copies of the same e-mail with talking points from the White House, one asking a contact here “Can you please get this to the Olbermann people. Wilson is on the Olbermann show.” Misspelled my name, by the way, but that‘s neither here nor there. Another one asks one of our producers “I understand you have Mr. Wilson on. Can you please call me on this?”

Are you surprised by that?

WILSON: No, I‘m not surprised at all. I tell you this administration has tried to manage and direct the news from the very beginning. As I point out in the book, they have made the lives of journalists very unpleasant. One journalist said he was afraid to go to print because he might end up in Guantanamo, which I take to be a metaphor for being cut out. Another journalist said I‘ve got kids in a private school and a mortgage to pay. So I‘m not surprised at all.

Then, of course, there's always stuff like this, from none other than the Grande Olde AP:

Some 2,000 Pages Said to Be Missing From Senate's Copy of Prisoner Abuse Report
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBS1AQHLUD.html
(Just the latest in a long and continuing series of attempts by the government in general, and the White House in particular, to manipulate the news, manipulate the raw material to which investigators - and thus also journalists - have access.)

I thought these might help. They sent more red flags up in the back of my head, certainly, and immediately made me think of your campaign.

By the way, I noticed that the esteemed Helen Thomas was allowed to return from the dead at one of the recent White House News Conferences, and (gasp!) was actually allowed to ask a question. Shocking!

Thanks for allowing me to interfere... but TRULY, this effort by you and your colleagues is SO urgently needed!

Sincerely,

me

Anyway - that's the project. It's Tom Curley's project, not mine. I am NOT any sort of official member or participant. I'm just some insufferable, opinionated loudmouth who's on the sidelines now since I retired from day-to-day broadcast journalism, but I still feel a responsibility to my former community, and it cuts me to the bone to see what a shit-shabby job they've all been doing. GROSS DERELICTION OF DUTY, in my opinion. I just couldn't sit back and watch in silence as this type of "media lobby" proposal actually sees the light of day, at long last! Dunno if I'll ever become an actual participant in this campaign, although I'd sure like to. If not, I will do what I can to assist, from behind the scenes.

I got into journalism after watching the Watergate scandal unfold while still in college, and wanting to be like Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein when I grew up, because of what they did as Washington Post watchdogs, when the Nixon White House was raging out of control. The media has become lapdogs since, totally cowed by the current White House, and it's a damn shame. Furthermore, we NOW have the added and distressing syndrome of Agenda-Driven media like the Pox "news" network, which is little more than a propaganda arm for this White House.

Thanks for asking. Don't know WHEN I'll be done. Maybe never. All I know is I'm gonna stay with it for the foreseeable future.

[charlie105]

9. Thanks for your campaign. People like you help me keep the faith

:toast:

[KoKo]

10. Calimary, good luck to you trying to gather all this. I've always enjoyed

your "rants" (which have always been informative and not just vents) and
your many postings and updates of "Media Contacts." I have my bookmarks of the updates and use it when I need to do my own rants to the "whore press/media."

It's been helpful for many of us "activist" DU'ers to be able to have quick access to all those e-mail/phone/and addresses and you had some contacts that were higher up in these organizations that many of us would never have been able to find.

:-)'s

[KoKo]

11. BTW, Calimary, check your PM box. n/t

[peacetalksforall]

7. This is a rare clue about the way they orchestrate things.

We know during the 90's that Wednesday was when they issued the latest talking points and is was very obvious because the hundreds of hosts and right wing guests would all say the SAME THING. I always thought they would click into a secured site to get it and that their access was recorded (- so that they could get their just rewards from Scaife or other funders?)

Saying the same thing is still the same, but I don't watch them enough now to pinpoint Wednesday. Because they are too predictable I find them boring. And the internet is the fastest way to figure out what the real story is.

But, I do notice that when there is something breaking, there is always about a 24 hour delay before they 'discuss' it. That may be because of programming and scheduled guests that can't be switched, but I think it is strategy as well, so that they can be more polished and they can study exactly when they will cut off a dem or indie or scholar. It gives Rove more time to coach them. (Orrin Hatch was a perfect example of a person who was never prepared to deliver the talking points until he had stumbled through them a few times.)

'They' also seemed to have had a (semi-annual?) 'camp' that they went to to learn techniques for delivery (and I assume - deflection, over-talk, smirks, redundancy, and distraction - blonds constantly lifted their hand to toss their hair and I had to become aware that I was being distracted before I could ignore it).

Providing questions to hosts is an interesting detail. What else is there?