Jim Axelrod Responds To Media Matters Criticism Of May 8 Story

By: Brian Montopoli
Topics: CBS News Issues

(CBS)

Left-leaning media watchdog group Media Matters is criticizing CBS News Chief White House Correspondent Jim Axelrod for mischaracterizing the debate over domestic surveillance in his May 8 "Evening News" report on the forthcoming Senate hearings over Michael Hayden, who has been nominated to become the new CIA director.

Writes Media Matters:

[Axelrod] noted that "[t]he White House believes it wins any time there's a debate on electronic eavesdropping of terrorists and would welcome the grand stage for Hayden to defend" the Bush administration's warrantless domestic eavesdropping program. However, the debate over the surveillance program is not a question of whether the government can conduct "electronic eavesdropping of terrorists," but rather whether the government can conduct warrantless surveillance of residents of the United States in apparent violation of federal statute.

I asked Axelrod to respond.

"I don't think these are inconsistent points," he said. "Warrantless surveillance is a subset of the general issue. The White House believes anytime the debate turns to electronic eavesdropping, it plays to their advantage."

"I didn't go through every subset of the general topic that I introduced," he continued. "This was a subset of a larger topic. I don't think there's any conflict."

Brian Montopoli
Brian Montopoli is the senior political reporter at CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

6 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment


by lharke-2009 May 11, 2006 6:36 PM EDT: Good lord. The debate is not over the "general" issue of electronic surveillance of terrorists. It is over whether to conduct that electronic surveillance through warrantless searches and in violation of FISA. One has to assume Mr. Axelrod knows this.; Reply to this comment


by peterbaldwin-2009 May 11, 2006 1:51 PM EDT: Any legal argument that the FISA was suspended by the Sep resolution is pure ly argument by gibberish. That anyone would take this line of reasoning seriously and recommend changes in the statute to correct an apparent statutory shortcoming is pulling our leg. Its a power grab - plain and simple. Bush's war resolution is no different than Hitler's "enabling" legislation that he rammed through. Congress has been defeated and the imperial presidency rules unchallenged.; Reply to this comment


by alphaa10-2009 May 10, 2006 8:33 PM EDT: Where are all the self-righteous accusers of Bill Clinton for lying to a federal grand jury? They wanted to impeach Clinton for a single semantic obfuscation. Now, they must skulk about when a sitting GOP president becomes a poster-boy for crime, and confesses-- on his own-- long-term and systematic violations of federal law regarding clandestine surveillance in the United States. Unless his own attorney advises against self-incrimination, this should be an open-and-shut case for impeachment. Bush has failed to observe his oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."; Reply to this comment


by alphaa10-2009 May 10, 2006 8:22 PM EDT: Axelrod is a news professional, but he fell for the crudest of rhetorical tricks by spokesmen for the Bush regime. No American can afford to overlook the desperate Bush attempts to distract public attention from his systematic violations of federal law. Bush confessed publicly to his crimes, committed over a period of years, yet tried immediately to pave over widespread alarm with a pedantic explanation of his so-called war on terror-- a war, in fact, on America's civil liberties. Like other Bush diversions, launching a discussion about whether wiretapping terrorists is a good idea is pure smoke, designed to take the heat from Bush, a confessed federal criminal.; Reply to this comment


by ohioguyhere May 10, 2006 7:22 PM EDT: How can warrantless surveillance of American citizens just be casually brushed off as "simply a subset of the general issue"? The fact that major television news organizations have failed in general to present the broader implications of this program is, I think, a sad reflection on the state of our media today. One of the primary reasons the White House believes that the discussion of electronic eavesdropping is an ace in the hole for them is due to the fact it will inevitably be presented by most media within the context of "terrorist surveillance". This is not the program being practiced by this administration. It is truly depressing that the media is no longer a watchdog for the common man. The failure to advocate for the American people and inform them on the actions of their government has apparently been abdicated in order to curry favor with those they are supposed to watch over. Yeah, Jim, you're right. This is "a subset of the general topic you introduced". So just when can we expect to hear a serious discussion on CBS of the particulars that have so many people concerned about this program? I won't hold my breath.; Reply to this comment


by memekiller May 10, 2006 3:39 PM EDT: I'm glad to see a civil response to Media Matters (a stark contrast to Deborah Howell's dismissive tone). But I think Axelrod misses the point. When you call this a debate over "eavesdropping of terrorists", you are framing the debate in a way that benefits Republicans while completely mischaracterizing the Democratic position. No Democrat anywhere has ever claimed that we should not eavesdrop on terrorists. What Democrats object to is the fact that Bush refuses to get a warrant - even retroactively - as required by law. This is not a "subset", it's the cruxt of the issue. In effect, Bush can eavesdrop on George Cloony and every Democratic congressman if he chooses without ever having to obtain a warrant or justify his actions. Warrants are almost never denied when requested. They are done in secret, so revealing information is not a concern. Bush can get a warrant AFTER the wiretapping was done, so it's not a matter of speed. They simply don't believe the law applies to them. Saying this is about terrorists is like saying a debate about doing away with our legal system is about whether or not we want to put criminals in jail. Framing it this way is irresponsible and shows quite clearly where your loyalties lie.; Reply to this comment