Pulitzer For Andrea Mitchell?

Posted by on . 4 comments.

Her last appearance in 1115 was when she invented some poll results.

Now she appears to have invented a briefing and some juicy revelations from Republican senators:

“Petraeus went to the Republican caucus and told them, ‘I will have real progress to you by August,’” Mitchell said. The Republicans claim they told him that after August, they will end their support for the war. “They have told him at a caucus meeting as very, very recently, that if there isn’t progress by August — and real progress means not a day of violence and a day of sanity — that they will pull the plug.”

Stunningly, Mitchell said that “moderate Republican” senators had told her that they didn’t believe the escalation would work but voted for it anyway. “They really are not in favor of the surge. They don’t believe it’s going to work. But they basically said the president has until August, until Labor Day. After that, if it doesn’t work, they’re running.”
[...]
If Mitchell learned this fascinating tidbit of information, why is it she didn’t actually report on it on NBC? In other words, this appears to be a fairly significant scoop — the kind of thing a journalist would want to share with as large an audience as possible. According to Nexis, Mitchell hasn’t mentioned the revelations on NBC at all. Why would Mitchell talk about it on a largely-unwatched syndicated talk-show, but not prepare a report for her own news network?

Inquiring minds want to know.

That’s one way to win a Pulitzer. Invent a whole new category of news. In Mitchell’s case, “newsfiction”.

Comments

  1. PoliticalCritic says:
    April 3, 2007 at 8:09 am

    She was probably floating the story to see what the reaction would be. She got hammered by the blogs and then issued a correction. It probably would’ve been bigger news had she done it on a real show.

  2. sarabeth says:
    April 3, 2007 at 8:15 am

    That depends on the definition of “correction”. Maybe we can also credit Mitchell with inventing a new definition?

    Here’s Salon‘s Joan Walsh yesterday:

    Monday on “Hardball,” in a segment that was actually about the fundraising totals of the 2008 presidential contenders and the troubles of Sen. John McCain, Matthews and Mitchell seemed to correct the record, sort of. Without mentioning what had been discussed on Sunday, Matthews asked Mitchell, rather out of the blue, to talk about what Petraeus was telling senators. “It’s a good thing you bring that up,” Mitchell replied, and she went on to say that Petraeus recently held a “closed circuit briefing” for senators of both parties, “Democrats as well as Republicans.” But Mitchell also repeated her claim from Sunday that “moderate Republican senators” were privately saying they opposed Bush’s so-called troop surge, but would publicly support it out of respect for Petraeus, and give the general and the president until the summer to make progress in the war.

    Got it? It seems Petraeus didn’t meet alone with Republicans, and I apologize for my role in passing that along (but it would be nice to also hear an apology from Mitchell and Matthews). But Mitchell is standing by her story that moderate Republicans are lying to voters, rolling over for a surge they believe can’t work while giving the president until Labor Day, and the start of the new political season, to prove otherwise.

  3. matt says:
    April 3, 2007 at 8:38 am

    She was probably floating the story to see what the reaction would be.

    wtf? since when do reporters float test balloons?

  4. sarabeth says:
    April 3, 2007 at 8:50 am

    once you decide you’re into newsfiction, though, it makes sense to float a trial balloon on Hardball first. If it flies, you take the story to NBC. If not, it was only Hardball. It’s not like you compromised your day job.