Bozell: After Advising Obama, CNN's Zakaria Must Recuse Himself From Covering Foreign Policy
Monday, May 16, 2011
By Pete Winn


Fareed Zakaria
(AP photo/Jim DeCrow)

(CNSNews.com) – Media Research Center President L. Brent Bozell III said today that CNN's Fareed Zakaria must recuse himself from covering foreign policy issues involving the United States, after it was revealed that Zakaria has been privately meeting with President Barack Obama to advise him on foreign policy issues.

“Zakaria is a reporter--or says so,” Bozell said. “To now claim that Zakaria’s covert meetings do not conflict with his journalistic integrity is not only inaccurate, it’s hypocritical by CNN’s standards. As such, Zakaria must recuse himself immediately from covering foreign policy that affects the United States. A refusal to extricate himself is in clear violation of CNN’s journalistic principles.”





Bozell also said it is “hypocritical” for CNN to allow one of its hosts to secretly advise President Obama on foreign policy issues at the same time Zakaria was reporting on those issues.

“For decades, the liberal media have repeatedly condemned conservatives in the media who communicated privately with Republican presidents. They furiously attacked George Will in 1980 when he advised candidate Ronald Reagan, and trounced on Roger Ailes when he sent President Bush a note about the new war on terror in the wake of September 11th. Neither of them was a reporter.”

“The president’s secret meetings with Zakaria--the same reporter who openly used a CNN network broadcast to promote Obama in 2008--show a clear and disturbing double standard at CNN,” said Bozell.

It was CNN's Elliot Spitzer who revealed last week that Zakaria, the host of CNN’s self-designated “flagship international affairs program,” had met privately with President Obama to advise him on issues of foreign policy that affect the United States.

Spitzer, referring to a newspaper report that indicated both Zakaria and New York Times reporter Thomas Freidman had off-the-record conversations with the president, asked Zakaria about it during an interview last Thursday on his own program, noting that Obama had Zakaria for “wisdom”and “advice.”

“It said the president of the United States calls you for wisdom and advice about issues around the world,” Spitzer said. “So first, when he calls you, what does he say – 'I’m Barack, calling for Fareed?' What does he say?”

Zakaria downplayed the meetings.

“Mostly it’s been face-to-face meetings, usually organized by Tom Donilon, the national security adivser,” Zakaria told Spitzer on Thursday. “What I’m struck by, though, honestly Elliot, is how much time he’s spent thinking about the issues of the Arab Spring, particularly the issues of Egypt; how to make Egypt go right; what are the mechanisms that the United States has to help the moderates and the liberals. It's been a very thoughtful conversation. We'll see where it goes.”

Zakaria subsequently issued a “clarification” of his involvement.

“The characterization that I have been ‘advising’ President Obama is inaccurate. Over the last few months I've had a couple of conversations with the president, off-the-record. At no point did President Obama ask me for advice on a specific policy or speech or proposal, nor did I volunteer it. I know that he has had similar meetings with other columnists.

Zakaria has made blatantly political statements on his CNN program in the past. Before the election, at the end of his Sunday, Oct. 19, 2008 program, “Fareed Zakaria: GPS,” Zakaria told his viewers of his choice for president--Barack Obama.

“John McCain represents the best of America's past, and Barack Obama the hope of the future -- the hope of a country that can make big changes and live out one of its greatest promises, of equal opportunities for all Americans, of every caste, creed and color. And America has always been a country that looks forward. So, I will be voting for Barack Obama on election day this year,” Zakaria said at the time.

Zakaria also pilloried then-Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska), whom he said was not worthy of being vice president or president.

CNSNews.com is a part of the Media Research Center where Bozell is founder and president.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/boze...low-zakari

It is very concerning that a sitting president would ask a reporter for advice on foreign affairs. VERY concerning.

Interesting how Zakaria only now mentions this after Spitzer accidentally "outed" him. Zakaria has nothing to worry about though - even if CNN were to can him, he'd land on his feet in the Obama administration. Plenty of these "reporters" just go back and forth between the MSM and Obama admin anyway.

(05-17-2011 02:26 PM)QSECOFR Wrote:  It is very concerning that a sitting president would ask a reporter for advice on foreign affairs. VERY concerning.

In 2001 Zakaria was invited to Bush White House for a meeting of Middle Eastern policy analysts. Also, Zakaria is not a typical reporter because he has a strong background in foreign policy. He was previously the managing editor of Foreign Affairs.

(05-17-2011 02:41 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 02:26 PM)QSECOFR Wrote:  It is very concerning that a sitting president would ask a reporter for advice on foreign affairs. VERY concerning.

In 2001 Zakaria was invited to Bush White House for a meeting of Middle Eastern policy analysts. Also, Zakaria is not a typical reporter because he has a strong background in foreign policy. He was previously the managing editor of Foreign Affairs.

OK, but now he is acting as a journalist for CNN.

(05-17-2011 02:26 PM)QSECOFR Wrote:  It is very concerning that a sitting president would ask a reporter for advice on foreign affairs. VERY concerning.

Quote:Zakaria subsequently issued a “clarification” of his involvement.

“The characterization that I have been ‘advising’ President Obama is inaccurate. Over the last few months I've had a couple of conversations with the president, off-the-record. At no point did President Obama ask me for advice on a specific policy or speech or proposal, nor did I volunteer it. I know that he has had similar meetings with other columnists.

let's let it play out before the faux outrage kicks in

(05-17-2011 02:46 PM)ctipton Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 02:41 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 02:26 PM)QSECOFR Wrote:  It is very concerning that a sitting president would ask a reporter for advice on foreign affairs. VERY concerning.

In 2001 Zakaria was invited to Bush White House for a meeting of Middle Eastern policy analysts. Also, Zakaria is not a typical reporter because he has a strong background in foreign policy. He was previously the managing editor of Foreign Affairs.

OK, but now he is acting as a journalist for CNN.

He worked for Newsweek at time of Bush meeting. Also important to note he is not a liberal but a centrist who has held some very conservative positions over the years.

(05-17-2011 02:46 PM)ctipton Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 02:41 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 02:26 PM)QSECOFR Wrote:  It is very concerning that a sitting president would ask a reporter for advice on foreign affairs. VERY concerning.

In 2001 Zakaria was invited to Bush White House for a meeting of Middle Eastern policy analysts. Also, Zakaria is not a typical reporter because he has a strong background in foreign policy. He was previously the managing editor of Foreign Affairs.

OK, but now he is acting as a journalist for CNN.

Interesting wording chicago, Clinton would be proud. Just wondering: did he meet privately with Bush? Better yet, did he meet with Bush at all?

(05-17-2011 02:51 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 02:46 PM)ctipton Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 02:41 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 02:26 PM)QSECOFR Wrote:  It is very concerning that a sitting president would ask a reporter for advice on foreign affairs. VERY concerning.

In 2001 Zakaria was invited to Bush White House for a meeting of Middle Eastern policy analysts. Also, Zakaria is not a typical reporter because he has a strong background in foreign policy. He was previously the managing editor of Foreign Affairs.

OK, but now he is acting as a journalist for CNN.

Interesting wording chicago, Clinton would be proud. Just wondering: did he meet privately with Bush? Better yet, did he meet with Bush at all?

Zakaria and other journalists had to sign confidentiality agreements so no one knows who exactly was at meeting at White House that day (November 29, 2001). We do know that the meeting produced a report for President Bush and his cabinet outlining a strategy for dealing with Afghanistan and Middle East issues.

I could care less about Zakaria. I don't care if he is a member of the Tea Party of the Communist Party. Doesn't anyone find it strange that a sitting president would go to a reporter for advice when he has 100's of "qualified" people to do the same thing???????????

Chicago, where is this cited? I'm not saying I don't believe you, I just want to read an account of it myself.

(05-17-2011 02:47 PM)b Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 02:26 PM)QSECOFR Wrote:  It is very concerning that a sitting president would ask a reporter for advice on foreign affairs. VERY concerning.

Quote:Zakaria subsequently issued a “clarification” of his involvement.

“The characterization that I have been ‘advising’ President Obama is inaccurate. Over the last few months I've had a couple of conversations with the president, off-the-record. At no point did President Obama ask me for advice on a specific policy or speech or proposal, nor did I volunteer it. I know that he has had similar meetings with other columnists.

let's let it play out before the faux outrage kicks in

There is no faux (or "fo") outrage here. There are simply questions.

it's like ground hog day around here. each day someone post some new story of the evils of the left as though this board needs a ton of convincing.

whats the over under on the time when a story is posted that a reporter met with a republican president? then watch how the hair splitting between the definition of a reporter, like you guys do with the opinion shows and news shows argument.

(05-17-2011 02:56 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 02:51 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 02:46 PM)ctipton Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 02:41 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 02:26 PM)QSECOFR Wrote:  It is very concerning that a sitting president would ask a reporter for advice on foreign affairs. VERY concerning.

In 2001 Zakaria was invited to Bush White House for a meeting of Middle Eastern policy analysts. Also, Zakaria is not a typical reporter because he has a strong background in foreign policy. He was previously the managing editor of Foreign Affairs.

OK, but now he is acting as a journalist for CNN.

Interesting wording chicago, Clinton would be proud. Just wondering: did he meet privately with Bush? Better yet, did he meet with Bush at all?

Zakaria and other journalists had to sign confidentiality agreements so no one knows who exactly was at meeting at White House that day. We do know that the meeting produced a report for President Bush and his cabinet outlining a strategy for dealing with Afghanistan and the Middle East in the aftermath of 9/11.

Truly Clintonian in your dodging....

Is there any evidence whatsoever that he personally met/advised/discussed/(insert whatever term Zakaria wants to use to split hairs) with Bush privately or even in a group?

And when you say the "meeting produced" a report, do you mean that all parties got together to agree or align on a document that they all signed off on with or even without their names? Or do you mean that the White House official who had the meeting, not named Bush, eventually produced a report to the White House that may or may not have included any specific or even general comments from the meeting?

(05-17-2011 02:57 PM)ctipton Wrote:  Chicago, where is this cited? I'm not saying I don't believe you, I just want to read an account of it myself.

Cited here was going to edit and add to earlier post but just saw your post so here it is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/09/busine...ref=slogin

(05-17-2011 02:56 PM)QSECOFR Wrote:  I could care less about Zakaria. I don't care if he is a member of the Tea Party of the Communist Party. Doesn't anyone find it strange that a sitting president would go to a reporter for advice when he has 100's of "qualified" people to do the same thing???????????

the thing is, he is well qualified. I know he host his own show, is he a reporter?

I would have a problem with him if it comes out that he is in some way advising the prez, But I know the truth don't come out in the first report.

(05-17-2011 03:06 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 02:56 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 02:51 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 02:46 PM)ctipton Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 02:41 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  In 2001 Zakaria was invited to Bush White House for a meeting of Middle Eastern policy analysts. Also, Zakaria is not a typical reporter because he has a strong background in foreign policy. He was previously the managing editor of Foreign Affairs.

OK, but now he is acting as a journalist for CNN.

Interesting wording chicago, Clinton would be proud. Just wondering: did he meet privately with Bush? Better yet, did he meet with Bush at all?

Zakaria and other journalists had to sign confidentiality agreements so no one knows who exactly was at meeting at White House that day. We do know that the meeting produced a report for President Bush and his cabinet outlining a strategy for dealing with Afghanistan and the Middle East in the aftermath of 9/11.

Truly Clintonian in your dodging....

Is there any evidence whatsoever that he personally met/advised/discussed/(insert whatever term Zakaria wants to use to split hairs) with Bush privately or even in a group?

And when you say the "meeting produced" a report, do you mean that all parties got together to agree or align on a document that they all signed off on with or even without their names? Or do you mean that the White House official who had the meeting, not named Bush, eventually produced a report to the White House that may or may not have included any specific or even general comments from the meeting?

The point here is that a Bush official in this case Paul Wolfowitz called journalists to White House to discuss foreign policy. The report produced was a compilation of the views of each of the members in attendance with their names not attached to particular view point. Wolfowitz did not contribute to report. Whether Zakaria or other journalists met with President is immaterial. Journalists have been used by presidents for advice by both Republicans and Democrats. The Zakaria issue is a non story.

(05-17-2011 03:03 PM)b Wrote:  it's like ground hog day around here. each day someone post some new story of the evils of the left as though this board needs a ton of convincing.

whats the over under on the time when a story is posted that a reporter met with a republican president? then watch how the hair splitting between the definition of a reporter, like you guys do with the opinion shows and news shows argument.

Speaking for myself, you are missing the point. This is not a criticism of Obama (although of course he never mentioned the meetings despite all his now laughable boasts of transparency) as much as it is of CNN and Zakaria. They and he represent him as an unbiased centrist host. As such, they both have a duty to avoid conflicts of interest and even the appearance of conflicts of interest. Furthermore, they should be giving full disclosure when such conflicts appear. They did neither until accidentally being outed by one of their own employees. After-the-fact attempts to split hairs between advising and discussing at length don't cut it. Neither do attempts by chicago to create an equivalence between a not very similar incident during the Bush administration. In any event, both miss the point.

I don't have a problem with Obama going to anyone credible for advice - oops, I mean in-depth thoughtful discussion of the issues including opinions but not including "advice". I do have a problem when the reporter and his employer both continue to bill him as an unbiased centrist without disclosing ties such as this that at least give the appearance of a possible conflict of interest. I especially have a problem when that same reporter has also made a public endorsement of that candidate and was also publicly very critical of his opponent(s) all the while being sold as an unbiased centrist hosting shows on the very issues he met with the President about (without advising of course ) but didn't disclose.

(05-17-2011 03:11 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 03:06 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 02:56 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 02:51 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 02:46 PM)ctipton Wrote:  OK, but now he is acting as a journalist for CNN.

Interesting wording chicago, Clinton would be proud. Just wondering: did he meet privately with Bush? Better yet, did he meet with Bush at all?

Zakaria and other journalists had to sign confidentiality agreements so no one knows who exactly was at meeting at White House that day. We do know that the meeting produced a report for President Bush and his cabinet outlining a strategy for dealing with Afghanistan and the Middle East in the aftermath of 9/11.

Truly Clintonian in your dodging....

Is there any evidence whatsoever that he personally met/advised/discussed/(insert whatever term Zakaria wants to use to split hairs) with Bush privately or even in a group?

And when you say the "meeting produced" a report, do you mean that all parties got together to agree or align on a document that they all signed off on with or even without their names? Or do you mean that the White House official who had the meeting, not named Bush, eventually produced a report to the White House that may or may not have included any specific or even general comments from the meeting?

The point here is that a Bush official in this case Paul Wolfowitz called journalists to White House to discuss foreign policy. The report produced was a compilation of the views of each of the members in attendance with their names not attached to particular view point. Wolfowitz did not contribute to report. Whether Zakaria or other journalists met with President is immaterial. Journalists have been used by presidents for advice by both Republicans and Democrats. The Zakaria issue is a non story.

You seem shameless in your slippery. Please provide your source that the report "was a compilation of the views of each of the members in attendance". Or don't bother. It's pretty clear Zakaria's "involvement" in never meeting with Bush is a far cry from his in-depth, personal private meetings with Obama. It's also a far cry from your original post implying a similar meeting with Bush - which is what I was questioning. But it is not the point of the article.

In fact, you missed nearly all the points. Yes a Republican president has met with the press privately AS THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE POINTS OUT. Those instances were not with reporters, much less hosts reporting on the issues. Yet, liberals screamed bloody murder, but have remained silent on this issue involving a host REPORTING on the same issues discussed. Again as the title of the article indicates, it is Zakaria who is being called to the table to account for not bringing this appearance of conflict of interest to light and thus to recuse himself going forward. CNN also needs to come clean on what it knew about the situation and what its journalistic standards are. Your attempt to create a false equivalence through dodgy wording both misses the point and falls short anyway as my responses have shown. Similarly, Zakaria's attempt after-the-fact to split hairs between advising and discussing in-depth thoughtful opinions also falls short and completely misses his duty to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest and duty to provide full disclosure. For further edification, please see my response to b.

Quote:As such, they both have a duty to avoid conflicts of interest and even the appearance of conflicts of interest. Furthermore, they should be giving full disclosure when such conflicts appear.

while I agree with your message, the truth is we really don't know the extent of the meeting, and quite frankly some people will make a big deal out of anything. If obama reported that they made eye contact one time, I'm sure some would find fault. how many weeks do we need to spend on this? More then the birth certificate?

Quote:Neither do attempts by chicago to create an equivalence between a not very similar incident during the Bush administration.

maybe you can explain the difference to me.

Quote:I do have a problem when the reporter and his employer both continue to bill him as an unbiased centrist without disclosing ties such as this that at least give the appearance of a possible conflict of interest.

like I said before i'll let it play out a little longer. Is obama a centrist? to the left, hell yeah. to the right, hell no. that's an issue that's hopelessly deadlocked.

Now be honest, did you believe cnn was unbiased before this? if so, then I understand your concern. but many here think cnn is already in obamas pocket, so why the anger about something you already knew?