|
|
 |
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
 |
||
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
|||||||||
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
|
||
 |
The 2,891st CyberAlert. Tracking Liberal Media Bias Since 1996
9:10am EDT, Tuesday May 19, 2009 (Vol. Fourteen; No. 97)
 |
|
|
2. Matthews Likens Cheney to Stalker Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction
3. CNN's Whitfield: Have Catholics 'Evolved' on the Moral Issues?
4. Cuomo Debates Priest Over 'Angels & Demons' -- But Only Online
Then, on Monday's CBS Evening News, she portrayed America as in such a bad way that it reminded her of the Great Depression, asserting the impact of the recession "may be" to children "what the depression was to an earlier generation." In a story on the "Safe Families for Children" program that helps overwhelmed families hand their kids temporarily to other families, Couric raised the most ominous comparison: "Volunteer families stepping in during tough times is reminiscent of the Great Depression when parents in dire straits sent their children to live with relatives or other people in the community." CBSNews.com page for the Children of the Recession series: www.cbsnews.com [This item, by the MRC's Brent Baker, was posted Monday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ] In the May 18 USA today op-ed, "The recession's tiniest victims need help, too," Couric denigrated the kind of news she's presented as dealing with "things and places that are cold, vague, incomprehensible" (quite an endorsement for her newscast!), before pivoting to how the real news is an anecdote-based recounting of the plight of a few kids: A police officer in Chicago noticed a small child with swollen feet. The family had been riding trains and walking all day because they had nowhere else to go. He took the mother and her two girls to a shelter....
But the real gut-wrenching stories of the economic downturn reach well beyond the offices of Wall Street or the corridors of power in Washington. You see, the collateral damage of this recession is felt by our smallest, and weakest, citizens our children. It's felt by a 5-year-old girl with swollen, bloody feet.... Couric soon wondered: So how will the children living through this struggle be defined? Every generation gets a label. I'm a Baby Boomer. My parents come from the Silent Generation, and my youngest daughter, Carrie, is a Gen Z kid who is anything but silent. Those definitions usually are derived from the environment that shapes us as we come of age. I wonder what today's children will be called if this recession has a lasting impact on their lives. Will they be the Recession Generation? In some ways, I think they already are. In Phoenix, Children's Hospital reports a 40% increase in child abuse and neglect cases this year. In Cleveland, Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital has seen more middle-class families turning to the emergency room for basic health care because their children are uninsured. Such stories of despair are repeated in cities from coast to coast.... An ancient Chinese proverb says, "One generation plants trees, the next gets shade." The character-defining lessons these children are learning, with the right guidance, can mold them into strong and sensible adults and even, perhaps, recalibrate their values in a culture that seems to have gone off-course. The Greatest Generation, as Tom Brokaw has called it, lived through the Great Depression and developed a foundation of family and core values that still support this nation today. There are signs, we're told, that perhaps the worst is behind us, that our economy is on the mend. I hope that's the case. But a bull market or a bounce in our 401(k)s won't heal Isabel's [5-year-old] sore feet or give children the health care and education they need. That has to come from caring people who realize that if we don't start planting trees now, these innocent victims could become the Lost Generation desperately in need of some shade. END of Excerpt Couric's op-ed: blogs.usatoday.com 
MATTHEWS: Howard what do you think? Cheney? Fatal Attraction? What do make? Will not be ignored, this guy. [This item, by the MRC's Geoffrey Dickens, was posted Monday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ] The following is the full exchange as it was aired on the May 17 edition of The Chris Matthews Show:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Before we break a lighter note. One thing is clear about Dick Cheney. He's redefining what it means to be a former vice president. When Cheney left office the world was his oyster. He could have gone the corporate route like Al Gore. He could have played golf like Dan Quayle or he could have held court, out in that GOP stronghold of McLean, Virginia hosting Republican soirees like Perle Mesta used to do for the Democrats back in the '50s and '60s. On his way out Cheney gave no clue that he had a brand new view of life after the vice presidency. That he was not taking his 19 percent approval rating and going home. Now he keeps making it very clear he ain't getting off the stage.
(Begin clip from Fatal Attraction)
MATTHEWS: Howard what do you think? Cheney? Fatal Attraction? What do make? Will not be ignored, this guy. For a synopsis of the movie: www.imdb.com
Later, when Arroyo brought up how the Catholic teaching on abortion wouldn't change, even if most of the Notre Dame graduates agreed with the decision to bring the President to campus, the CNN anchor replied: "Well, might it suggest something else, that perhaps the Catholic majority has evolved in its opinion of certain things....Perhaps, it means that there's a greater understanding in some of the areas that you say...once upon a time there wasn't." [This item, by the MRC's Matthew Balan, was posted Monday evening, with video, on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ] For more on Whitfield's "courageous" praise of President Obama, see the May 18 CyberAlert item, "CNN's Whitfield Hails as 'Courageous' Obama's Notre Dame Speech," at: www.mrc.org For more on Norah O'Donnell equivocation between abortion and the death penalty in her segment with the Cardinal Newman Society's Patrick Reilly, see the May 15 CyberAlert item, "MSNBC's O'Donnell Grills Opponent of Obama's Notre Dame Address," at: www.mrc.org Twenty-one minutes into the 2 pm Eastern hour, as President Obama was getting ready to receive the honorary law degree at Notre Dame, Whitfield brought on Arroyo and the Reverend James Martin, a Jesuit priest with the generally-liberal Catholic publication American magazine, during two points in the lead up to Obama's address for a discussion of the whole controversy. After playing up the "rousing applause as the president walked in," the anchor asked Arroyo what his impression was so far. When the EWTN news director answered that the controversy was largely over the awarding of the honorary law degree, Whitfield shot back, "But the university -- in fact, the president -- Reverend Jenkins said every president that's been invited to -- to deliver the commencement speech always gets an honorary degree. This would be quite the slap or an aside if they were to invite the president....and not granted an honorary degree." Arroyo invoked the 2004 decision of the Catholic bishops in the U.S. which advised Catholic institutions to "not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles, and you shouldn't give them honors and medals because that would be seen as supporting their policies." When the CNN anchor replied with her death penalty/war question, Arroyo continued that "abortion...has been identified by both the Vatican and the bishops of the United States as a foundational issue. One can't get to poverty or climate change or immigration if that person hasn't been allowed to live." Whitfield then turned to Rev. Martin and asked if he agreed with Arroyo's outline. The priest, who is with a religious order in the Catholic Church that is notoriously full of leftists and dissenters from Church teaching, did not stray from his liberal talking points the entire time: "I think first of all, if anyone deserves a degree in law, it's this constitutional law scholar....But also, I think the pro-life world is a lot broader than simply abortion. I don't think you can just sweep the death penalty, torture -- things like that under the carpet....I think, unfortunately, for a lot of people in the pro-life movement, life begins at conception, but seems to end there." Near the end of the first segment of their discussion, Whitfield brought up how 54% of Catholic supported President Obama during the last election: "Fifty-four percent of Catholics who were polled in America on Election Day actually voted for this president....Hasn't it already been made clear that many Catholics who may have been struggling with the issue, whether abortion or stem cell research -- they've already gotten past that part?" Arroyo countered with the recent Gallup poll that found that "more Americans are pro-life -- 51 percent -- than opposed to life or supportive of abortion rights. So what we're seeing, I think, is a sea change. I almost look at this as the Obama effect. As these policies get wheeled out -- as people, particularly Catholics, become more cognizant of the policy choices being made, you see a shift." For Gallup's complete results on the abortion issue, see their May 15 item, "More Americans 'Pro-Life' Than 'Pro-Choice' for First Time," at: www.gallup.com Both Whitfield and Reverend Martin seemed to ignore the poll results presented by Arroyo:
WHITFIELD: Well, Mr. Arroyo, I'm wondering, are you concerned that the view that you are conveying now really is in -- is a minority view if you look at, according to the polling that the Observer newspaper on campus did -- 70% of this mostly Catholic student body actually said we do embrace -- we do welcome this president. Ten minutes later, during the second segment of their discussion before the president's commencement address, the CNN anchor again asked Rev. Martin for his take. The Jesuit couldn't wait to sing the chief executive's praises: "Well, I think it's terrific that he's coming to Notre Dame, and I think it's terrific that, you know, he's going to mix it up with the graduates, as well as the faculty and the larger world on this question of abortion....I think, you know, one of the things that is getting lost is I think the Catholic Church also needs to treat people with dignity and grace themselves. And I think to welcome the president -- this guy with, you know, a tremendous record -- I think it's entirely appropriate, and I think if anyone has a problem with honoring him, I think they just need to look at his record." Whitfield then brought up with Arroyo how former ambassador to the Vatican and Harvard professor Mary Ann Glendon had turned down Notre Dame's highest honor due to the invitation to the president. After some confusion on the part of the CNN anchor, the EWTN director finally explained that Glendon declined the award because she thought "this event should be about the graduates themselves, not about some fake dialogue -- not about some, you know, pro-life as opposed to pro-choice going at war with each other, you know, in some sort of dialogue. That's not what's happening here." She followed up by asking, "Do you like or agree with what Reverend Jenkins says, that, in part, the reason why they're honoring the president is because he was willing to engage with those who disagree with him?" Arroyo answered, in part, "I mean, in all of these recent decisions, whether it's the conscience clause, the funding of abortion, I didn't see anybody consulting religious voices....So I don't quite know what they're talking about. But again, what we're seeing is the power of the president's personality -- his rock star status being brought to bear. But if 98% of Notre Dame graduates loved and embraced this choice, it still would avoid the real question, which isn't President Obama. The question is, should this university be honoring someone who violates the very fundamental moral values of the Catholic Church?" This answer brought out the CNN anchor's use of the "evolved" term:
WHITFIELD: Well, might it suggest something else, that perhaps the Catholic majority has evolved in its opinion of certain things. Some of these things that you've outlined-
Beck critiqued the filmmakers behind Angels & Demons, which falsely features the Catholic Church participating in a brutal massacre of a secret society, asserting that they should be more responsible for "doing their homework, even with a work of fiction." Cuomo bizarrely responded by claiming Beck needed to consider "the atheistic [position], which is, 'It's all fiction.' So, the church doesn't have any right to hold its own truth when it is a fiction in and of itself." He reiterated the disbelievers take, stating, "Anything you say you believe in is based on a fiction, because God is a fiction. So, what's wrong with having a fiction about fiction?" Beck quickly retorted: "No. Whether or not the church kills people is not fiction. Either they do or they don't." Beck went on to note other offensive elements of the movie, such as the fact that the deceased Pope in the movie turns out to have fathered a child through artificial insemination. The New York-based priest complained, "Now, I mean, how unrealistic do we really want to make this?" Appearing to miss the point, Cuomo replied, "You taking yourself too seriously in the organized church?" (It should be pointed out that some of the tone was light-hearted as Cuomo and Beck are apparently friends.) [This item, by the MRC's Scott Whitlock, was posted Monday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ] Cuomo did acknowledge the argument that Christians have against Angels & Demons, allowing, "Well, here you have a little better case than you did with than the last movie. 'Cause, here you have the Illuminati. He [author Dan Brown] does have them as a inherently murderous faction of people bent on world domination." (In the movie, the Catholic Church is portrayed as having previously attempted to wipe out the secret society.) Of course, Cuomo then went on to assert that "The Da Vinci Code," a film that essentially denied the divinity of Jesus Christ, was less offensive. In an interesting aside, Cuomo did attack liberal documentarian Michael Moore while discussing the half truths of the film. He compared: "I mean, a lot of people believe that this is what Michael Moore does, that he takes on a legitimate issue like health care, but then picks just one little convenient part and then skews it all to his favor and then presents it as his truth." (On June 12, 2007, Cuomo interviewed Moore about his movie "Sicko" and explained, "Look, I like the stunt. I think it raises the provocative question. But that's not journalism. This film is not journalism." See a June 13, 2007 CyberAlert posting for more: www.mrc.org ) In theory, Cuomo should be applauded for featuring a dissenting voice on a controversial topic. It is very disappointing, however, that ABC chose to feature that view only on its website, an outlet that will reach far fewer people than the four days and almost 20 minutes of softball coverage devoted to the subject on Good Morning America. See a May 15 NewsBusters posting for more: newsbusters.org A transcript of the internet-based "Focus on Faith," which appeared on the website on the week of May 15, follows:
CHRIS CUOMO: There it is. A clip from Dan Brown's "Angels & Demons." Actually wrote it before "The Da Vinci Code," but it's coming out after it. Lots of controversy, because you could be of two minds on this: One, that it's such an interesting look at the inner world of religion that they try to keep hidden from you. Or it's complete fiction and really is doing jeopardy- jeopardizing the faith. What do you think? We're here on "Focus on Faith" to talk just about that. I'm Chris Cuomo. Father Edward Beck. Now, I know that you're a huge fan of these movies and take them as truth. So, this must be a little difficult for you. So, what do you think is going to happen this time with the movie? -- Brent Baker
Home | News Division
| Bozell Columns | CyberAlerts |
Katie Couric sees America through a very dark prism. On Monday, she launched a new "Children of the Recession" series, in collaboration with USA Today, with an op-ed in "the nation's newspaper" in which she speculated today's kids may become the "Recession Generation" since "in some ways, I think they already are," or the "innocent victims could become the Lost Generation." 
For months, journalists have reported on the housing crisis, the collapse of financial institutions, the stock market's freefall, the stimulus package, the AIG bonuses and the economy's hemorrhaging of jobs. Things and places that are cold, vague, incomprehensible. 
Chris Matthews, on the syndicated The Chris Matthews Show over the weekend, likened Dick Cheney's recent media appearances, to defend the Bush administration and to criticize Obama on national security policy, to Glenn Close's stalker character from the 1987 film Fatal Attraction. Before playing a clip of the movie Matthews made the cinematic comparison: "Well some say Cheney's refusal to move on reminds them of Groundhog Day but you could also say it's like that more frighteningly relentless Glenn Close in 'Fatal Attraction.' Like Cheney she was not gonna be ignored." After playing the clip in which the Close character utters the famous quote, "I'm not
gonna be ignored, Dan." Matthews then threw it to Newsweek's Howard Fineman: 
GLENN CLOSE AS ALEX FORREST: No it's not gonna stop. It's gonna go on and on until you face up to your responsibilities. 
After promoting the controversial, religion-baiting film Angels & Demons for a combined 19 minutes last week on Good Morning America, ABC finally featured a Catholic priest to object to the movie. Unfortunately, the interview was relegated only to the network's Web site, not the ABC morning show. (Considering the four days of fawning coverage to the film's stars last week, this hardly seems fair.) Father Edward Beck appeared on the Internet-based "Focus on Faith" to talk to Chris Cuomo and point out the inaccuracies. See Focus on Faith: