|
"Face the Nation" one-side discussion of
DeLay's problems
Media Matters
October 7, 2005
On the October 2 broadcast of CBS' Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer
featured a panel of three Republican congressmen to discuss what Schieffer
described as "all of these problems that have suddenly beset the Republican
party." Schieffer explained that he did not invite any Democrats to be on the
panel because the discussion focused on "a Republican problem," and he "wanted
to give [Republicans] a chance to talk about it."
But, as Media Matters for America explained: "Schieffer's failure to provide
balance or critical questioning allowed the Republican guests to make
unchallenged claims about the motivations of the prosecutor in the conspiracy
charges against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), attack
congressional Democrats, and provide partisan analysis in areas unrelated to
recent GOP ethics problems, such as President Bush's tax cuts."
Following Media Matters' critique of the unbalanced panel, Vaughn Ververs,
editor of CBS News' Public Eye weblog, defended the network's decision, as did
Face the Nation's executive producer. But the defense fell flat almost
immediately:
PE spoke with "Face the Nation" Executive Producer Carin Pratt, who
explained the thinking behind the segment. Pratt said that, given the events of
the past weeks, she "didn't want it to get into a partisan fight" over the
character, vices or virtues of DeLay or Democratic prosecutor Ronnie Earle.
"The fact of the matter," Pratt said is that DeLay "had already been
indicted."
If the goal in inviting only Republicans to discuss the indictment was to
avoid a "partisan fight" over Earle, it was a spectacularly naïve approach
to take. In what must have been a surprise to nobody other than Pratt, Rep.
John B. Shadegg (R-AZ) wasted little time before attacking Earle:
SHADEGG: Look, Washington is a city in which destroying people is
considered sport. And we live in an era of the politics of personal
destruction. As a former prosecutor, I'm very much aware that Tom DeLay's fate
is in the hand of this trial, and that prosecutors have immense powers. The
United States Supreme Court has said that prosecutors in the exercise of that
power need to be guided solely by public responsibility. I think there are
grave questions about this indictment, as [fellow panelist Rep.] David Dreier
[R-CA] has already said. I do know that prosecutors can drag cases out for a
long time, and I know that in this case, there are questions about whether this
particular prosecutor has used his powers and his office for political purposes
in the past.
Rather than a "partisan fight" over Earle, CBS gave viewers a one-sided
political hit on him.
Ververs continued:
Media Matters also complains that "the unbalanced format allowed
Dreier and Shadegg the opportunity to promote Bush's tax cuts without any
Democratic response." Why did the Democrats need a response when [panelist Rep.
Jim] Leach [R-IA] served to highlight differences within the party on the issue
by saying, "It's pretty hard to have a fiscal balance when you have a war, you
have a natural disaster and you have spectacular tax cuts. ... I think we have
to be very cautious or we're going to have our fiscal house become an
embarrassment."
Why did the Democrats need a response? Because Leach's answer blamed "a war
... a natural disaster ... [and] tax cuts" for the budget deficits -- even
though the budget was in deficit long before Hurricane Katrina, long before we
were at war, and even before the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Ververs ended his post by asking: "And critics see Republican advantage in
all this?" Well, yes, there does seem to be an advantage to Republicans in
having the opportunity to appear on Face the Nation without a Democratic
counterpoint. Isn't that self-evident?
Two days later, Ververs took another stab at defending the Face the Nation
panel:
Pratt told me she did not want to get into a "partisan fight" over
the actual DeLay indictment but instead was interested in pursuing a discussion
about how it adds to the myriad of problems impacting the GOP at this time ...
From the perspective of someone who spends a lot of time flipping around
various news programs and seeing the same 'Republican talking points' v.
'Democrat talking points' arguments, I appreciate any effort to break out of
that formula.
Few would likely object to breaking away from "seeing the same 'Republican
talking points' v. 'Democratic talking points' arguments." The problem is that
CBS kept the "Republican talking points" while jettisoning the "Democratic
talking points." Instead of multiple sides being represented, viewers saw
Shadegg attack Earle with nobody to offer the opposing point of view. Scheiffer
certainly didn't tell viewers what it is; he responded to Shadegg's broadside
on Earle by saying "OK."
Dreier attacked Democrats, claiming that "there is really no plan that has
come forward from Democrats on any issue whatsoever. And they made a
determination early on that they were going to attack Republicans on the issue
of ethics." He went on to hint at "ethical problems that exist on the
Democratic side" without offering any detail to back up the claim. There was no
Democrat there to respond to Dreier's attacks. Broadcasting one-sided partisan
attacks is an improvement over giving both parties their say?
Ververs concluded:
Of course the DeLay story is much, much more than just a
"Republican story." If the bulk of the coverage has not reflected that or if
Democrats have not found a way to speak to it, there would be a real problem.
But in fact, the bulk of the coverage has been full of partisan talking points.
To take ten minutes out of a week's worth of massive media coverage and claim
some sort of bias is stretching reality.
But Face the Nation didn't avoid "partisan talking points." It was full of
"partisan talking points" -- but only from one side. When John Shadegg accused
Earle of being a partisan, that was a partisan talking point. Dreier accusing
Democrats of having no plan? Partisan talking point. Shadegg asserting that
"tax cuts have stimulated this economy"? Partisan talking point.
Assuming the goal really was to avoid partisan talking points, that's
something everyone can get behind. But giving three Republican congressmen a
platform to speak without opposition is a stunningly flawed way to go about
it.
But, as the week closed, it became clear that CBS still stands by its
one-side-of-the-story-is-better-than-two policy. The October 9 broadcast of 60
Minutes will feature a segment about former FBI director Louis Freeh's
criticism of former President Clinton. Reports in The Washington Post and The
New York Sun indicate that 60 Minutes refuses to interview any Clinton
administration officials who disagree with Freeh, insisting on a response from
Clinton himself, or no response at all. As Media Matters noted:
60 Minutes' refusal to accept a surrogate in place of Clinton is
inconsistent with the way the show handled a similar story about a book
critical of President Bush. On March 21, 2004, 60 Minutes ran a segment about
former National Security Council counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke's
then-upcoming book, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror (Free
Press, March 2004). The segment included not only an exclusive interview with
Clarke but also an interview with Bush administration National Security Council
official Stephen Hadley, who was given time to defend Bush from Clarke's
criticism.
Take action! Urge the producers of 60 Minutes to provide an opportunity for
a Clinton administration official to respond to Freeh.
Media Matters has previously detailed numerous examples of conservative
misinformation in CBS' news coverage, a sample of which can be found here.
Bill Bennett update
In response to a September 30 letter in which Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and
other members of Congress asked for Bill Bennett's radio show to be suspended,
Greg R. Anderson, president of the company that distributes Bennett's show,
Salem Radio Network, defended Bennett's comments, claimed they were taken out
of context, and added:
In the strongest terms [Bennett] said, "[aborting every black baby
in this country] would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible
thing to do..." The broader context and backdrop of [Bennett's] discussion were
the positions on crime and abortion which were discussed in the New York Times
bestseller, Freakonomics [by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner (William
Morrow, May 2005)]. By lifting that one sentence out of context, it would
appear to suggest that Dr. Bennett is advocating a position that is the exact
opposite of what he actually said.
In response to Anderson's letter, Conyers wrote: "Frankly speaking, I
believe your letter completely misses the point of why I and many others ...
found these remarks so offensive." Conyers noted (as Media Matters did last
week) that "Mr. Bennett gratuitously injected racial stereotyping into a
conversation with a caller about social security and abortion." Conyers added
that "to date, neither you nor Mr. Bennett have explained why such stereotyping
was needed or even bothered to apologize for linking race with crime in such a
discriminatory fashion." Conyers also noted (as Media Matters did here) that
"Freakonomics, the book that Bennett cited to advance his argument, does not
address race at all -- that was solely Bennett's contribution."
Right-wing pundit Ann Coulter joined Bennett and Anderson in misrepresenting
Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner's Freakonomics (William Morrow, May
2005), as Media Matters detailed. Bennett, meanwhile, unveiled a new strategy
for dealing with the controversy: the "I'm Rubber, You're Glue" defense.
O'Reilly claims difficulty getting guests for segment about Media Matters;
he should have called us
During a bizarre October 4 O'Reilly Factor segment devoted largely to
attacking Media Matters, Bill O'Reilly whined:
They won't put the -- when we had to book this segment, I couldn't
get people to come on and say what you guys are saying, because they were
afraid that Media Matters would go after them. They -- I couldn't -- I had
people turn down this segment -- a bunch of them -- what are you, crazy? I'm
going to criticize these assassins? They'll come after me. And that's a
chilling effect.
O'Reilly should have called us. The O'Reilly Factor has repeatedly declined
requests from Media Matters to appear on the show to discuss claims made on it.
O'Reilly's failure to ask a Media Matters representative to appear on a program
largely devoted to attacking our organization is particularly interesting,
given O'Reilly's stated belief that "If you attack someone publicly, as these
men did to me, you have an obligation to face the person you are smearing. If
you don't, you are a coward."
We've said it before; and we'll probably have to say it again: By his own
definition of the term, Bill O'Reilly is a coward.
Miers nomination draws widespread criticism, but some news reports falsely
suggest only liberals are charging cronyism
President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has drawn
criticism and ridicule from across the political spectrum.
The liberal The Nation called the nomination "Crony Constitutionalism." At
The American Prospect, Matthew Yglesias saw "evidence of cronyism"; colleague
Ezra Klein was more certain: "This is cronyism. It should be called that."
Columnist Charles Krauthammer agreed: "If Harriet Miers were not a crony of the
President of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a
joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her. Newsday's Marie
Cocco: "A president exposed for appointing unqualified political cronies to
fill government jobs of unquestionable importance now has given the nation a
Supreme Court nominee who is a political crony." Conservative columnist William
Kristol labeled the nomination "a combination of cronyism and capitulation."
National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru was charitable: he called it "a kind of higher
cronyism." His colleague Jonah Goldberg didn't see anything "higher" about it,
arguing: "Cronyism is not a principle, or at least one not easily defended.
Miers may be great stuff, but I don't think anyone can doubt Bush picked her
because she's his gal Friday."
But the New York Times, faced with near-unanimous consent from left, right
and center that the nomination of Miers was "cronyism," inexplicably suggested
that only "the left" is making that claim. Then they did it again, with The
Washington Post joining in.
MSNBC's Pete Williams claimed "it would be wrong to say conservatives have
opposed the nomination," arguing that "the leaders of conservative groups
themselves" -- as opposed to mere commentators like Kristol and Rush Limbaugh
-- support Miers. But, as Media Matters detailed, several "leaders of
conservative groups," from Family Research Council president Tony Perkins to
the Free Congress Foundation's Paul Weyrich to the Eagle Forum's Phyllis
Schlafly, have expressed misgivings about Miers.
When not busy portraying opposition to Miers as a partisan matter, some news
organizations uncritically adopted the White House's line that Miers "cleaned
up" the Texas Lottery Commission during her tenure as chairwoman. USA Today
reported that Miers "fired two executive directors in an effort to clean up a
series of scandals"; the New York Times told readers "she helped clean up" the
Commission; the Los Angeles Times reported that Bush "turned to her to help
clean up" the commission; and The Boston Globe said Bush "tapped [Miers] to
clean up the state's lottery commission."
It probably isn't a coincidence that all four papers used the "cleaned up"
description on October 4, just a day after White House press secretary Scott
McClellan claimed that Miers "helped clean it up when it needed cleaning up."
But shouldn't the newspapers have attributed the description to him rather than
presenting it as fact?
Better yet, shouldn't they have actually looked into Miers' tenure as
chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission -- a tenure Dallas Morning News
political reporter Wayne Slater has described as "troubled ... a real, real
problem"? Among other controversies, Miers played a recurring role in the
mystery surrounding Bush's National Guard record -- or lack thereof. At a time
when the Bush administration and the Republican Party face an ever-enlarging
list of ethical controversies, the record of a Supreme Court nominee widely
described as a "crony" who has been involved in one of the president's most
controversial scandals would seem to merit more serious investigation than many
news organizations have given it.
Posted to the web on Friday October 7, 2005 at 8:02 PM EST
|
|