FOX News Responds to U.N. Comments

FOX News Responds to U.N. Comments
Friday, October 01, 2004

NEW YORK — FOX News offered a response to a United Nations letter that raised questions about a series on the U.N. Oil-for-Food program that aired Sept. 19 on "Breaking Point."

The FOX News response follows. To read United Nations' response, click here.

FOX News producers of the documentary “United Nations Blood Money” defended the show against U.N. criticism and stood firmly behind the accuracy and fairness of their “Breaking Point” investigation.

The FOX investigation looked at the ways the $100 billion Oil-for-Food scheme had been fleeced by Saddam Hussein, possibly influenced U.N. Security Council decisions to refuse to wage war against Saddam and might have funneled money to current Iraqi insurgents and perhaps to Al Qaeda.

Brian Gaffney, executive producer of the hour-long show, declared that “our sole objective was to prepare and broadcast a fair and balanced report, and U.N. accusations that it wasn’t are without foundation. We never made any effort to attack the United Nations for its sincerity in fighting terrorism or a number of other accusations that the U.N. has subsequently made about the television report.”

Nor, Gaffney said, were the questions raised in the FOX investigation limited to the U.N. Secretariat alone, but covered the Security Council and its members, including the United States, France, Russia and China.

“In many cases, the U.N. is attacking us for things that we never said, arguing that we somehow implied them,” he added. And in many other cases, the United Nations is objecting to FOX reporting the views of critics who had nothing to do with the network.

United Nations officials refused to appear on the taped “Breaking Point” program, which ran on FOX News Channel at 9 p.m. EDT on Sept.19. Instead they said they would respond in a live broadcast immediately after the show. That did not fit into the format of a documentary investigation, but FOX was and is prepared to have U.N. officials appear on any number of hours of regularly scheduled live broadcast.

Shashi Tharoor, U.N. Under-Secretary General for Communications and Public Information, sent his letter of complaint 10 days after the show aired..

Among other things, Tharoor accused “Breaking Point” of ignoring the value of the Oil-for-Food program as a relief effort, underestimating the amount of money that was actually spent on humanitarian aid, and argued that FOX incorrectly called the program “secret” because all of its details were known to members of the U.N. Security Council.

“The report repeatedly stated that Oil-for-Food did provide humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people,” Gaffney declared, noting that the “Breaking Point” show included footage of the U.N. program’s chief administrator, Benon Sevan, asserting that Oil-for-Food had “doubled the so-called food basket” for ordinary Iraqis.

“The issue,” Gaffney continued, “was at what price?”

The “Breaking Point” producers also conducted an on-camera interview with former U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Denis Halliday, "the most forceful and eloquent defender of the U.N. we could find," said Gaffney, who added that Halliday's views appear throughout the program.

The same effort, Gaffney said, was made when the U.S. State Department refused to take part in the program unless FOX met unacceptable conditions. FOX interviewed Richard Williamson, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations during the Oil-for-Food years, to present the State Department view, and took him — and the U.S. government — to task for failing to better police the Oil-for-Food effort.

The program also stated that other defenders of Oil-for-Food noted that the program supplied the Iraqi people with $15 billion in aid on $67 billion of sales. Though “Breaking Point” did not name any such supporters, in March 2002, Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., praised Oil-for-Food for "providing the Iraqi people with $15 billion in food and medicine."

Many of the other points that FOX raised in the documentary, Gaffney observed, were based on the U.N.’s own documentation.

The U.N. objected to FOX airing interviews with Iraqi health officials who declared that many supplies of medical and other goods were substandard, but, Gaffney noted, the United Nation’s own confidential internal audit — obtained by FOX — declared that U.N. border inspectors were only looking at 7 percent to 10 percent of shipments to Iraq.

The United Nations also argued that FOX had incorrectly implied that the world body had somehow endorsed the Olympic sports program run by Saddam’s notorious son Uday, when a $20 million Oil-for-Food appropriation appeared on no more than a “wish-list of sorts.” In fact, Gaffney noted, the $20 million appeared on an official U.N. distribution plan that was formally approved by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan as a mandatory part of the Oil-for-Food approval process. (Specific contracts on the distribution plan were described in the document itself as “classified.”)

Gaffney observed that the United Nation’s criticism contained nothing about the show’s major points, that Oil-for-Food money could be in the hands of Iraqi terrorists killing U.S. soldiers, or that ties may exist between Oil-for-Food suppliers and Al Qaeda.

Gaffney also took issue with Under-Secretary-General Tharoor’s assertion that “we have had some rather unpleasant experiences of selective editing of our comments by some sections of FOX in the past.” Fox News has asked the U.N. to provide examples.

The last senior U.N. official to appear in a taped broadcast on FOX was Annan himself, in a five-part FOX series on U.N. reform. The United Nations made no subsequent complaints about editing of the series, and in private, U.N. officials commended FOX producers for the series’ “fairness.”

My Thoughts on Presidential Debate 01

I took notes. *laughing* What has happened to me? Notes?

I dunno, I thought it important to notice the little things.

I watched on the local Fox channel and not the cable channel. I enjoy my HDTV and I wanted to stay with their only HDTV offering. Wanted to get a pore-by-pore view of that spray-on tan and fresh manicure of Kerry’s. *rolling my eyes* nothing like pampering yourself the day of the big debate when your opponent is using his hands to pass out food, clothing, ice, and water to the victims of a hurricane most of the bright and early morning. *sigh*

Anyway...

First thing I noticed was Bush crossed the center line when they walked onto the stage. He crossed that imaginary line to "enter the zone" and shake Kerry's hand. I saw this, stressing the "I" most emphatically, as a subtle display of power. And I liked it.

Now I wish I had watched the Fox cable channel because they did split screen, where, I understand from listening to Brit Hume after the debate, the "split screen view" of Kerry was much larger than that of Bush. A technical thingy about head space. You'd think for a situation such as this, they'd do everything possible to make it a level playing field in every aspect. Something about "head space", the amount of screen above the person's head must be equal. How Kerry's being a little taller translated into more of his face in the split screen is beyond me. A face is a face and how tall you are has nothing to do with it. Feeding my conspiratorial mind a little fodder for fun... I think the cameraperson was pro-Kerry! No! Really! *wink*

Kerry's hands were shaking, quite a bit, the first ten minutes or so. When he'd hold them "steady" and both palms down, hovering over the podium, they were shaking. He soon got into his "thumb pointing" (what is that, anyway?) and he was on his way.

Bush, on the other hand, if he smacked that podium one more time... rather emphatic and meaning to be so. I liked that, too.

Not having the benefit of split screen, when the camera did show a reaction, most of the time Kerry was smiling and nodding.

Bush was giving Kerry the ol' quasi-Clint Eastwood and taking a sip of water.

Listening to Brit and the boys afterward, they said Bush sighed often. I did not hear it.

I only saw the expression on his face when the camera was looking for reaction shots. I read his expression to say, "Kerry? Where and how do you dream up this stuff?"

At the end of the evening, I was overjoyed! Bush was joined afterward by the lovely, dignified, refined, and classy First Lady, Laura; and their two beautiful daughters, Jenna and Barbara. It looked great on-screen. All them hugging and smiling and touching one another.

Kerry and his listing, frisky badger of fluff looked lost and very, very alone. None of the Kerry-blended-family children were there. It was as if their faces were searching for someone else to join them. Of course, no one could, but still, I enjoyed the "You're standing alone on this one, John" feel of it.

Bush's numerous pauses started to get on my nerves. But, after a little while, I began to appreciate the fact he'd compose his thoughts carefully before speaking. This took away the Left's opportunity to play a misspeak byte ad infinitum for the next five weeks.

Kerry? *wincing, kinda like Clint, but not really even close* He just does not impress me. In any way.

Kerry kept insisting he'd start anew with the "old" allies.

Didn't he see the article in the paper the other day where the old allies basically said, "non", "nein", and "nyet"? Or, is Kerry hoping you didn't see the article so he could pull a fast one on you?

Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii'm hanging with the latter.

Bush spoke more often to the viewing audience, Kerry to the moderator, Jim Lehrer. I found that interesting, too.

Kerry flat out lied about the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda... And Bush... well, he pretty much let him get away with it. Bush gave his reasons, but I would have hammered them home over and over and over with rhythmic, loud smacks to the podium.

Kerry did his best not to utter the words "VietNam", but, he just couldn't help himself. One quote was, "...fighting in that war...", In reference to VietNam. He made the false comparison between Iraq and VietNam. It was pathetic. Again, he played himself as soldier -- not sailor.

Kerry's "plan" is exactly the same as Bush's as to the training Iraqis, Iraqi elections, and holding a summit. Thing is, Bush is already doing it. How can it be done any better?

Kerry said he's going to "increase the number of troops, special forces, elite details..."... Hmmmm, who is reinstating the draft? Where the fuck is he going to get the thousands of people already trained to go to Iraq and/or Afghanistan? Where? And how will he pay for all of it?

I smell a tax increase.

And Kerry really ticked me off when he said only the top two percent received Bush's tax credit. I got mine! And damn happy to have it, too. I bought me all kinds of stuff and stimulated the economy in the best way I knew how.

Where does Kerry come off telling lies to America? Especially during probably the most important election in my lifetime?

I enjoyed it when Bush reiterated to Kerry, what? three or four times, a bilateral discussion with nnorth Korea was a very bad idea and this is why...

Kerry kept insisting he knew better because of his twenty years of experience. What experience? He was never at his desk! Dock that man for missing more than eighty percent of his job! With interest!

It felt to me Bush was shaking his head at this mental midget with disgust more than distain. Kind of like, "You pathetic fool."

In looking at it from a Leftist’s viewpoint, I can understand how they'd feel their guy did a good job tonight. He was no shrinking violet, that's for sure.

But it/he (Kerry) frightened me, too.

I had a flash (please forgive me) of Kerry as president. All I could see were helmeted and armed soldiers on the streets of my city (a la Baghdad) as a commonplace thing. I could hear air raid sirens going off and saw people cowering and huddling in the doorways of homes, businesses, and apartments with such fear.

Kerry had made his bargain with the devil and al Qaeda roamed our streets as the Nazi's roamed the streets of Berlin, Munich, Amsterdam, and every other city they could control because the people were weakened and demoralized.

Kerry pushed "Eurabia" so hard tonight. He pushed the UN so hard tonight. He pushed Kofi Annan three times. I can feel it. I swear, I can feel it. The repugnant aroma of O-F-F is wafting through my mind and Kerry is holding the big spoon. I so hope i'm wrong.

I'm very glad the President called Kerry on his lack of respect for the coalition and for PM Allawi. He did hammer on this one, what? Three times? I hope America got the point that Kerry is one arrogant SOB that always sways with the political winds.