The David Shuster Follies (Act Five)

So often I find myself asking - is it true, or is that a report from David Shuster?  In the brutally competitive world of television news David Shuster of NBC has hit upon a winning formula - make stuff up that appeals to his left wing audience.  Below I have highlighted five dubious reports, all related to the Plame case and all slanted against Bush and Cheney.  In multiple misadventures with Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews Mr. Shuster has

(1) edited away a key qualifier to make it appear that Cheney authorized the Plame leak;

(2) misrepresented the contents of a the publicly-available portion of a National Intelligence Estimate;

(3) walked out of a courtroom with "news" everyone else missed, attributing to the Libby defense announcements made by the prosecution (and later clarified);

(4) aired an "exclusive" originally broken by Raw Story but confirmed by no one else; and

(5) again walked out of a courtroom with "news" everyone else missed, turning a Fitzgerald metaphor into a literal charge.

Here we go:

(1) Qualifiers keeping you from bashing Bush?  Drop em!

Here is what Shuster reported (transcript):

This is a document released by the court. It's a letter from Patrick Fitzgerald to Scooter Libby's legal team. And it says, "As we discussed during our telephone conversation, Mr. Libby testified that he was authorized to disclose information to the press by his superiors."

Here is what Shuster did not report - the document actually said that Libby "was authorized to disclose information about the NIE to the press by his superiors".  By dropping the qualifier both Olbermann and Shuster were able to pretend that Libby was going to use the "Cheney authorized it" as a defense of the Plame leak.  Here, for example, is Olbermann's intro:

OLBERMANN:  ...the questionable disclosure of classified information is at the heart of major new developments tonight in the CIA leak investigation, reports that Scooter Libby is planning to defend himself by saying his boss, the vice president of the United States, encouraged him to leak secrets to reporters.

Jeff and the EmptyWheel, neither of whom have a detectable rightward tilt, noted Shuster's flair for drama at the time.

(2) If what's actually in the NIE contradicts you, ignore it!

Here is Bob Somerby on the reporting about the declassification and leaking of the NIE:

How bad would the factual bungling get? Our analysts nearly fell off their chairs when they heard David Shuster say the following on last evening’s Hardball:

SHUSTER (4/10/06): Based on Libby’s grand jury testimony, much of what Libby told New York Times reporter Judith Miller about the intelligence document was wrong.

In their crucial July 8, 2003 meeting, Libby told her, quote, “one key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was vigorously trying to procure uranium.” But that was not a judgment at all, much less a key judgment, according to CIA officials who wrote the document. And they said the "vigorously trying to pursue" language was not in the document at all.

In other words, it may have been the same selective use of intelligence to justify the war that was used to sell the war. Ignoring the views of several government agencies, while accepting the views of one.

Say what? The claim that Iraq had been “vigorously trying to procure uranium” wasn’t in the NIE at all? Shuster’s statement was amazingly wrong; as we noted in yesterday’s HOWLER, the NIE stated (on page 24) that Iraq had been “vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake; acquiring either would shorten the time Baghdad needs to produce nuclear weapons” (click here, then scroll down). Somehow, Shuster had managed to bungle this elementary fact. And omigod! An hour later, MSNBC sports expert Keith Olbermann bungled it too:

OLBERMANN (4/10/06): According to the testimony of the former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, Mr. Libby exaggerated—if not outright lied—about the importance of the Niger connection in the NIE, telling her it was a “key judgment” of the document and that Iraq was, quote, vigorously trying to obtain uranium. In fact, the claim was not a judgment at all, and the NIE contained nothing about Iraq vigorously pursuing uranium.

Good grief! But then, this is the process we warned you about when it began at the end of last week. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 4/8/06.

Olbermann and Shuster are heroes amongst a subset of left-wing bloggers and viewers.  But aren't basic reading skills part of Shuster's job description?

(3) All those lawyers look alike to me...

In this installment Mr. Shuster attributed to the Libby defense team the blockbuster news that Libby had been "warned about the implication of outing Valerie Plame's name" (I'm quoting Olbermann's summary there).  As a subsequent transcript and court filing made clear, several different things had blurred together in Shuster's imagination:

(a) Libby's defense team said that Libby had been advised, briefly, to hold off on leaking the NIE;

(b) Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, said that

"In a different conversation that Mr. Libby was present for, a witness did describe to Mr. Libby and another person the damage that can be caused specifically by the outing of Ms. Wilson."

(c) In a subsequent filing we learned that Mr. Fitzgerald was engaging in a bit of theatrics - that "warning" to Libby came after the publication of the Novak column:

The July 14 Chicago Sun Times column by Mr. Novak is relevant because on the day the article was published, a CIA official was asked in the defendant's presence, by another person in the OVP, whether that CIA official had read that column. (The CIA official has not.) At some time thereafter, as discussed briefly at the March [sic: should be "May"] 5 oral argument, the CIA official discussed in the defendant's presence the dangers posed by disclosure of the CIA affiliation of one of its employees as had occurred in the Novak column.

We can't fault Mr. Shuster for being unaware of the timing of the warning to Libby.  But just for laughs, here is how he conflated the other information:

Olbermann:...Scooter Libby's attorney says he was warned about the implication of outing Valerie Plame's name, any idea who warned him or how did this come out in court?

Shuster: It came out from defense attorney's when they're talking about possible evidence that might get introduced to show that Scooter Libby did not intent to leak Valerie Plame's identity.... but it does explain one thing. If this information and if this warning to Scooter Libby came from the CIA or an official representing the CIA. It does explain why the CIA was so infuriated right from the beginning when it was disclosed right from the beginning when it was disclosed that this information got leaked to reporters and why the criminal referral from the CIA to the justice dept. happened so quickly. 

Look, I appreciate that live courtooms can get confusing.  But why is NBC sending Shuster to cover the live Libby trial if he can't handle it?

(4) Don't leave all the scoops to Raw Story:

Here is Raw Story basking in their vindication:

On Chris Matthews' Hardball Monday evening, just moments ago, MSNBC correspondent David Shuster confirmed what RAW STORY first reported in February: that outed CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson was working on Iran at the time she was outed (Watch the video of Shuster's report here).

Here is Shuster (via FDL):

MSNBC has learned new information about the damage caused by the White House leaks.

Intelligence sources say Valerie Wilson was part of an operation three years ago tracking the proliferation of nuclear weapons material into Iran.  And the sources allege that when Mrs. Wilson’s cover was blown, the administration’s ability to track Iran’s nuclear ambitions was damaged as well.

Now, no serious reporter has gotten that story.  However, we can find a Pulitzer Prize winner who covers the intel beat - Dana Priest was asked about this in an on-line chat a few days later:

Valley Forge, Pa.: Hi Dana,

Thanks for doing these chats.

Now we are reading that Valerie Plame was involved with tracking nuclear proliferation/capabilities in Iran. Isn't this old news? (I seem to remember reading this same thing quite a while ago in the MSM - I don't generally read blogs)

From what you hear, was Ms. Plame working on Iran, how important was she to the tracking efforts, and how much has her "outing" really set us back?

Dana Priest: It was reported before that she worked on proliferation issues for the CIA. The leap in this new round of information is that her outing significantly impacted our current intel on Iran. I don't buy it. First, no one person who quit clandestine work four years ago is going to make that big of a dent in current knowledge. But also, nothing like this came up at the time of her outing and I believe it would have. Think we need some actual details. At present it just doesn't smell right.

"I don't buy it... it just doesn't smell right".  We have a prize winning reporter not noted as a friend of the Administration lined up against David Shuster and Raw Story... you make the call!

(5) Ahh, but "wiped out" must mean "shredded", or what's a metaphor?

Continuing his knack of walking out of a courtroom with a hundred other journalists and coming up with the story everyone else missed, yesterday Shuster reported this:

According to prosecutors, the evidence will show that Scooter Libby destroyed a note from Vice President Cheney about their conversations and about how Vice President Cheney wanted the Wilson matter handled.

Stephen Spruiell of NRO tackled this last night, as did yours truly.  For a quick hit, let's cut to James Joyner, who was liveblogging from the courtroom, discussed an earlier Shuster effort which seemed to include some editorial intervention:

David Shuster of MSNBC, who is sitting in the room with me,  reports some big breaking news:

Fitzgerald alleged that Libby in September 2003 “wiped out” a Cheney note just before Libby’s first FBI interview when he said he learned about Wilson and his wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame, from reporters, not the vice president.

It was not clear if the reference to wiped out was literal or figurative.

I would note for the record that every other person in the media room, including bloggers for the liberal Firedoglake, are convinced it was the latter. Indeed, the idea that Fitzgerald would accuse Libby in his opening statements of destroying evidence, something with which he was never charged or seriously investigated, strains credulity.

Let's add that as of the following morning, I have not seen a major news outlet with this story - John Dickerson, David Corn, Mike Isikoff and Josh Gerstein were all in the courtroom and missed this Shuster exclusive, as did Neil Lewis of the NY Times and Carol Leonnig and Amy Goldstein of the WaPo.

If I were an NBC news editor who cared about the reputation of my organization I would be concerned about Shuster's credibility.  But I bet he has an acceptably sized audience.

NOTE:  It is Mark Kleiman who extrapolated that Libby "shredded" notes.

UNRELENTING:  More a Shuster flop than a folly, but file it under "If wishes were horses...":

"I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted".

A bit awkward for me to bash someone else on this - I put it the probability of a Rove indictment at 70%, then backslid to 50% with the passage of time.

Comments

[clarice]

Didn't he also confidently report Rove's imminent indictment?

[Florence Schmieg]

Please do not dismiss this lightly. There must be some way to get this off our airwaves. If we cannot get anyone at NBC to do the right thing, then send all of this to O'Reilly. Maybe he can make some noise that will force someone to take notice. If nothing can be done, we should all be concerned for the country. Why doesn't every reporter just make up and mislead to fulfill his and his employer's agenda?? So much then for a free press protecting the rights of the people to know the facts. This is serious.

[Other Tom]

Hell, why waste time with this clown? The ratings on Olbermann's show are minuscule, and the whole gang just preaches to a very small choir. If this case continues to crater in Fitz's face, the final result will be all the more delicious for how it makes this simpleton look.

[hit and run]

If I were a publisher*, I would be all over Schuster for a book deal.

-------------
*of fiction, that is.

[Seixon]

A quick example of Shuster Tales:

1. "But the White House started claiming that Iraq and the group responsible for 9/11 were one in the same."

2. "First, they alleged there had been a 1994 meeting in the Sudan between Osama bin Laden and an Iraqi intelligence official."

3. "[the 9/11 Commission] reported that while Osama bin Laden may have requested Iraqi help, "Iraq apparently never responded.""

4. "Confirmed or unconfirmed by Vice President Cheney the 9/11 Commission stated, "We do not believe such a meeting occurred." Why? Because cell phone records from the time show Atta in the United States."

5. "None the less, the White House strategy worked. In March of 2003, one poll found 45 percent of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11."

6. "On the eve of the Iraq war, the White House sent a letter to Congress telling lawmakers that force was authorized against those who, "aided the 9/11 attacks.""

All demonstrably false or misleading statements by David Shuster. In one friggin report. This guy almost makes Jason Leopold look good. Almost.

[clarice]

Lunch break--Cross afterwards--That's it folks--2d prosecution witness' "compelling" testimony..

[Tom Maguire]

Didn't he also confidently report Rove's imminent indictment?

Hmm, a bit awkward for me, that.

But if I get a paper cut, I'll look to you to provide the salt.

KIDDING!

[pardnering]

Associated Plame agreement with MBA or is that MCA last night, it's too much like a memeorandum?

[Alcibiades]

Sheesh. I used to really enjoy his legal reporting back in the day, when Shuster worked at Fox, and his main beat was reporting on DOJ doings related to the Clinton Impeachment. He used to appear on Brit Hume and other Fox shows back then.

Now it makes me wonder whether he was as wrong then as he is now. And all of his scoops were items he made up, just like now Or perhaps, he was more careful then than he is now, particularly if, ideologically speaking, he was always this much of a leftist.

Or, I suppose the third possibility is, he really just cares about his career, and so is happy to confabulate and exaggerate for whomever has hired him.

[Alcibiades]

Sheesh. I used to really enjoy his legal reporting back in the day, when Shuster worked at Fox, and his main beat was reporting on DOJ doings related to the Clinton Impeachment. He used to appear on Brit Hume and other Fox shows back then.

Now it makes me wonder whether he was as wrong then as he is now. And all of his scoops were items he made up, just like now Or perhaps, he was more careful then than he is now, particularly if, ideologically speaking, he was always this much of a leftist.

Or, I suppose the third possibility is, he really just cares about his career, and so is happy to confabulate and exaggerate for whomever has hired him.

[Jack is Back!]

Whatever he has said or made up or reported he has done to fit the agenda of Olberman per se IMHO. Olberman is like the guy who bites off pieces of jigsaw puzzles just to make them fit regardless if the picture turns out to be some tortured rendition of a Piccaso.

[Matt]

Could it be that Shuster, while seeking the sensational, is simply a dim bulb?

[15 watts]

I take great offense at that remark, Matt.

[Slartibartfast]

It would appear that MK is not using the same facts as you, TM.

[Jane]

Could it be that Shuster, while seeking the sensational, is simply a dim bulb?

My guess is that Shuster, Olbermann, Matthews et al are in cahoots - they are driving an agenda and nothing else matters. No one may listen to them, but no one is making them accountable, and that should be happening.

[Tom Fitzgerald]

My great concern about Schuster and Olberman is what is says about NBC news. Olberman and Ron Reagan are almost always ill informed and silly. Schuster fits well with the Olberman format. Be aggressively anti Republican and make sure you back up outrageous questions by only having syncophant guests and reporters.
On Fox, Hannity and O'Reilly can both bug me at times but there is nothing even close to the dishonest unfairness at MSNBC. One gets the feeling guys like Olberman, Shuster and Reagan represent the barely hidden feelings of Russert and the rest of the NBC news team.

[Tom Maguire]

It would appear that MK is not using the same facts as you, TM.

Troubling, considering his site's motto:

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

He must have an unpublished "David Shuster exception".

[topsecretk9]

I am waiting to see if he's able to work in Bat Boy in todays reporting.

[Cecil Turner]

It would appear that MK is not using the same facts as you, TM.

Wow. "Reality Based," eh? Even if that'd been Fitz's meaning, would a bare assertion qualify as proof? Hard to credit.

[10 watts]

I'll have the roast duck with mango salsa.

[Matt]

Sorry 15 watts; didn't me to degrade you with that comment. You're clearly brighter than Shuster.

[Slartibartfast]

He must have an unpublished "David Shuster exception".

That's kind of what I was thinking. Either that or we've encroached on a region where wishful thinking simply outweighs the facts at hand.

[Ellers Ellison "Ellsberg" McWilson]

Jealous much?

David Shuster has had his statements read on major networks, has a journalism degree, and is author of the New York Times Best Selling Book “How Would A Patriot Misreport The News?” His comments often become front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country. And he has one of the most-read blogs on the Interent, after just 9 months of blogging. I love how all you super-important rightwing bloggers attack me, I mean him, just to get traffic.

I bid you GOOD DAY, sir.

[Matt]

Shuster's inability to report accurately (and not just about Plame) must come from at least one of the following: a poor comprehension of the written or spoken language; a desire to sensationalize the news; or an overwhelming ideological bias.

I think it's rather sad for such a successful reporter to make as many fundamental mistakes as he does.

[Penny]

I have the same problem with Shuster that I had with my ex: I can't tell if he's a liar or is just plain stupid.

[Dan S]

When you can't tell, Penny, it's likely it's both.

[daveinboca]

Fitzgerald knew going into the SProsecutor follies that Armitage was the leaker to Novak. The whole circus betrays the legal system just as Billy Jeff's lying under oath becomes okay "because it's about sex."

Hope that Hillary gets to address special pleadings like BJ's during her upcoming jousts with reality.

[JJ]

In what sense is Shuster a successful reporter?

He is always sensational...while not accurate. (Great list of Shuster goofs above.) He's successful as a sensationalist!?

Problem with Shuster is that he is with only major media video voice hyping the Plame trial and he is doing is all wrong.

Brit Hume and panel hit some good points on Fox tonight but not enough.

One good, thorough major news outlet reviewing the Libby trial with some faithfulness to accuracy would bury Shuster forever.

But then that is the famous split personality of the media, isn't it? Sensationalism sells and good news summaries sell -- but sensationalism sells more and editorial looniness isn't far behind!

So, forget Shuster, yessir. Being thankful for bloggers who check it all, whoops!

[clarice]

Sunny Day has retrieved from the ap this list of all the exhibits today. Click on each document and you can open and read it.

Very wonderful--Hope this sets a standard for high profile cases/matters..Instead of , say Gregory or Shuster telling me what it says, I can actually read it for myself (and you can, too).

http://wid.ap.org/documents/libbytrial/index.html

[cathyf]

You know, one thing I don't quite get is why the reporters don't play this to their own advantage. All of a sudden, we have this epidemic of out-of-control prosecutors (Earle, Nifong, Fitzgerald). One of those guys harassed multiple reporters, including sending one to jail for nearly 3 months. Obvious conclusion: we need a federal journalist shield law.

These folks are so busy spreading their legs for the wacko leftos, they haven't even noticed the golden opportunity that they are letting slip away. I suppose that just proves that, no matter how craven the prosecutors, the journalists shouldn't get a journalist privilege -- they lack the brains & ethics to be allowed such a thing.

[clarice]

Sad but true. This case pushed back the bounds on reporter-source confidentiality and I predict as the trial proceeds their case will have been lost utterly as people see how they operate and are disgusted.

It's the last group deserving of testimonial privilege--they have so abused our trust in this matter alone.

[TCO]

I think if you are forced to spend so much time on going after flawed negative reports, that it may mean that you are avoiding the key areas where Fitz is pinning Libby to the wall.

[Tom]

In additon to alleging that Karl Rove would be "indicted", Shuster also alleged that Dennis Hastert would "resign" as Speaker of the House prior to the November elections because of the Mark Foley "scandal". Shuster is the perfect "reporter" for Matthews' unwatched show and Keith Odormoronn's equally unwatched gameshow Meltdown.

[terri]

And PMSNBC talks about how biased Fox News is. Every show and reporter on PMS, is biased left.

[MJW]

Shuster has merged the principles of the alternative media and the reality-based community to the ultimate synthesis: the alternate reality media.

[hit and run]

Tom -- your post was picked up by the NRO Media Blog

[eyes open mind alert]

so sorry i gave this site a "hit." justoneminute is wall to wall delusion.

[drjohn]

shuster is a scheister

[battery]

shuster is a scheister

[cheap gaia gold]

Gaia online cater to the taste of young people. With cheap gaia gold, you can get everything you want in this game.

[LOTRO Gold]

When you have LOTRO Gold, you can get more!