Search the MRC
  30-Day Archive
  CyberAlerts
  Media Reality Check
  Notable Quotables
  Press Releases
  Special Reports
  Media Bias Videos
  MRC on TV
  Entertainment
  News
  Take Action
  Media Bias Basics
  Profiles in Bias
  Gala and DisHonors
  Best of NQ Archive
  News Division
  Eyeblast.tv
  NewsBusters Blog
  Business & Media Institute
  CNSNews.com
  TimesWatch.org
  Culture and Media Institute
  About the MRC
  MRC in the News
  Support the MRC
  Planned Giving
  The Watchdog
  What Others Say
  Site Search
  Links
  Media Addresses
  Contact MRC
  MRC Bookstore
  Job Openings
  Internships


New Page 1

  Download free media player
Windows Media Player | Real Media Player

See & Hear the Bias Archive
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep      
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2005 - - Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
For additional video clips of media bias going back to 1999, check out our annual DisHonors Awards and our archive of the Best Notable Quotables: Awards for the Year's Worst Reporting.

To download media files, right click on the icon (MP3 audio, RealPlayer or Windows Media), select "save target as" or "save link as," and choose the destination of where you would like to save the file on your computer.


Full Article

  Rich Noyes on MSNBC
Rich Noyes, the MRC's Director of Research, appeared on MSNBC to discuss leaks of classified material and the role of the news media.
-- MSNBC News Live, 2:30pm EDT half hour, September 27
 



Full Article

  Countdown Host Keith Olbermann Rants Against Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday, and President Bush
Keith Olbermann: "Finally tonight, a 'Special Comment' about President Clinton's interview. The headlines about it are, of course, entirely wrong. It is not essential that a past President, bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster, finally lashed back. It is not important that the current President's portable public chorus has described his predecessor's tone as 'crazed.' Our tone should be crazed. The nation's freedoms are under assault by an administration whose policies can do us as much damage as al-Qaeda. The nation's marketplace of ideas is being poisoned by a propaganda company so blatant that Tokyo Rose would've quit.
"Nonetheless, the headline is this: Bill Clinton did what almost none of us have done in five years. He has spoken the truth about 9/11 and the current presidential administration. 'At least I tried,' he said of his own efforts to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. 'That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried.' Thus in his supposed emeritus years has Mr. Clinton taken forceful and triumphant action for honesty, and for us; action as vital and as courageous as any of his presidency; action as startling and as liberating, as any, by any one, in these last five long years.
"The Bush Administration did not try to get Osama bin Laden before 9/11. The Bush Administration ignored all the evidence gathered by its predecessors. The Bush Administration did not understand the daily briefing entitled 'Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S.' The Bush Administration did not try. Moreover, for the last five years one month and two weeks, the current administration, and in particular the President, has been given the greatest pass for incompetence and malfeasance in American history.
"President Roosevelt was rightly blamed for ignoring the warning signs, some of them 17 years old, before Pearl Harbor. President Hoover was correctly blamed for, if not the Great Depression itself, then the disastrous economic steps he took in the immediate aftermath of the Stock Market Crash. Even President Lincoln assumed some measure of responsibility for the Civil War, though talk of Southern secession had begun as early as 1832.
"But not this President. To hear him bleat and whine and bully at nearly every opportunity, one would think someone else had been President on September 11, 2001, or the nearly eight months that preceded it. That hardly reflects the honesty nor manliness we expect of the executive. But if his own fitness to serve is of no true concern to him, perhaps we should simply sigh and keep our fingers crossed until a grown-up takes the job three Januarys from now.
"Except for this: After five years of skirting even the most inarguable of facts, that he was President on 9/11 and he must bear some responsibility for his, and our, unreadiness, Mr. Bush has now moved, unmistakably and without conscience or shame, towards re-writing history, and attempting to make the responsibility entirely Mr. Clinton's. Of course he is not honest enough to do that directly. As with all the other nefariousness and slime of this, our worst presidency since James Buchanan, he is having it done for him by proxy. Thus, the sandbag effort by Fox News Friday afternoon.
"Consider the timing: the very same weekend the National Intelligence Estimate would be released and show the Iraq war to be the fraudulent failure it is, not a check on terror, but fertilizer for it. The kind of proof of incompetence for which the administration and its hyenas at Fox need to find a diversion in a scapegoat. It was the kind of cheap trick which would get a journalist fired but a propagandist promoted: Promise to talk of charity and generosity, but instead launch into the lies and distortions with which the authoritarians among us attack the virtuous and reward the useless. And don't even be professional enough to assume the responsibility for the slanders yourself, blame your audience for e-mailing you the question.
"Mr. Clinton responded as you have seen. He told the great truth untold about this administration's negligence, perhaps criminal negligence, about bin Laden. Mr. Clinton was brave. Then again, Chris Wallace might be braver still. Had I in one moment surrendered all my credibility as a journalist, and been irredeemably humiliated, as was he, I would have gone home and started a new career selling seeds by mail.
"The smearing by proxy, of course, did not begin Friday afternoon. Disney was the first to sell out its corporate reputation, with The Path to 9/11. Of that company's crimes against truth, one needs to say little. Simply put, someone there enabled an authoritarian zealot to belch out Mr. Bush's new and improved history. The basic plotline was this: Because he was distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Bill Clinton failed to prevent 9/11.
"The most curious and in some ways the most infuriating aspect of that slapdash theory is that the right-wingers who have advocated it, who try to sneak it into our collective consciousness through entertainment, or who sandbag Mr. Clinton with it at news interviews, have simply skipped past its most glaring flaw. Had it been true that Clinton had been distracted from the hunt for bin Laden in 1998 because of the Lewinsky nonsense, why did these same people not applaud him for having bombed bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan and Sudan on August 20 of that year? For mentioning bin Laden by name as he did so? That day, Republican Senator Grams of Minnesota invoked the movie Wag the Dog. Republican Senator Coats of Indiana questioned Mr. Clinton's judgement. Republican Senator Ashcroft of Missouri, the future Attorney General, echoed Coats. Even Republican Senator Arlen Specter questioned the timing.
"And, of course, were it true Clinton had been distracted by the Lewinsky witch hunt, who on Earth conducted the Lewinsky witch hunt? Who turned the political discourse of this nation on its head for two years? Who corrupted the political media? Who made it impossible for us to even bring back on the air the counterterrorism analysts, like Dr. Richard Haass and James Dunegan, who had warned, at this very hour, on this very network, in early 1998, of the cells from the Middle East who sought to attack us here? Who preempted them in order to strangle us with the trivia that was 'All Monica All The Time'? Who distracted whom?
"This is, of course, where, as is inevitable, Mr. Bush and his henchmen prove not quite as smart as they think they are. The full responsibility for 9/11 is obviously shared by three administrations, possibly four. But, Mr. Bush, if you are now trying to convince us by proxy that it's all about the distractions of 1998 and 1999, then you will have to face a startling fact that your minions may have hidden from you. The distractions of 1998 and 1999, Mr. Bush, were carefully manufactured, and lovingly executed, not by Bill Clinton, but by the same people who got you elected President.
"Thus, instead of some commendable acknowledgment that you were even in office on 9/11 and the lost months before it, we have your sleazy and sloppy rewriting of history, designed by somebody who evidently read the Orwell playbook too quickly. Thus, instead of some explanation for the inertia of your first eight months in office, we are told that you have kept us safe ever since, a statement that might range anywhere from zero to 100 percent true. We have nothing but your word, and your word has long since ceased to mean anything. And, of course, the one time you ever have given us specifics about what you have kept us safe from, Mr. Bush, you got the name of the supposedly targeted tower in Los Angeles wrong.
"Thus was it left for the previous President to say what so many of us have felt, what so many of us have given you a pass for in the months and even the years after the attack: You did not try. You ignored the evidence gathered by your predecessor. You ignored the evidence gathered by your own people. Then, you blamed your predecessor. That would be a textbook definition, sir, of cowardice.
"To enforce the lies of the present, it is necessary to erase the truths of the past. That was one of the great mechanical realities Eric Blair, writing as George Orwell, gave us in the novel 1984. The great philosophical reality he gave us, Mr. Bush, may sound as familiar to you as it has lately begun to sound familiar to me.
"'The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power.' 'Power is not a means; it is an end.' 'One does not establish a dictatorship to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. 'The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.'
"Earlier last Friday afternoon, before the Fox ambush, speaking in the far different context of the closing session of his remarkable Global Initiative, Mr. Clinton quoted Abraham Lincoln's State of the Union address from 1862: 'We must disenthrall ourselves.' Mr. Clinton did not quote the rest of Mr. Lincoln's sentence. He might well have. 'We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.' And so has Mr. Clinton helped us to disenthrall ourselves, and perhaps enabled us, even at this late and bleak date, to save our country.
"The free pass has been withdrawn, Mr. Bush. You did not act to prevent 9/11. We do not know what you have done to prevent another 9/11. You have failed us, then leveraged that failure, to justify a purposeless war in Iraq which will have, all too soon, claimed more American lives than did 9/11. You have failed us anew in Afghanistan. And you have now tried to hide your failures by blaming your predecessor. And now you exploit your failure to rationalize brazen torture which doesn't work anyway, which only condemns our soldiers to water-boarding, which only humiliates our country further in the world, and which no true American would ever condone, let alone advocate. And there it is, sir: Are yours the actions of a true American? I'm Keith Olbermann. Good night and good luck."
-- Countdown host Keith Olbermann, MSNBC, Sept. 25, 2006
 


Full Article

  MRC's Brent Bozell on 'Scarborough Country'
MRC President Brent Bozell discussed the media's coverage of Pope Benedict's remarks about Islam and the Muslim world's reaction to them.
-- MSNBC's Scarborough Country, September 19
 



Full Article

  Flashback: Clinton Wagged Finger at Jennings: 'Don't Go There!'
Peter Jennings: "Fifty-eight historians, as I think you may know, did this for C-SPAN. And they were all across the political spectrum. And they came out, in general terms, that you were 21st. And on public persuasion and economic management, they gave you a fifth. Pretty good."
Former President Bill Clinton: "Pretty good."
Jennings: "They gave you a 41st on moral authority."
Clinton: "They're wrong about that."
Jennings: "After Nixon."
Clinton: "They're wrong about that. You know why they're wrong about it? They're wrong about it."
Jennings: "Why, sir?"
Clinton: "Because we had $100 million spent against us and all these inspections. One person in my administration was convicted of doing something that violated his job responsibilities while we were in the White House, 29 in the Reagan/Bush years. I bet those historians didn't even know that. They have no idea what I was subject to and what a lot of people supported.
“No other President ever had to endure someone like Ken Starr indicting innocent people because they wouldn't lie, in a systematic way. No one ever had to try to save people from ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and the people in Haiti from a military dictator who was murdering them and all the other problems I dealt with, while every day, an entire apparatus was devoted to destroying him. And still, not any example of where I ever disgraced this country publicly.
“I made a terrible public, personal mistake, but I paid for it many times over. And in spite of it all, you don't have any example where I ever lied to the American people about my job, where I ever let the American people down. And I had more support from the world and the world leaders and people around the world when I quit than when I started. And I will go to my grave being at peace about it. And I don't really care what they think."
Jennings: "Oh, yes, you do, sir."
Clinton: "They have no-"
Jennings: "No, excuse me, Mr. President. You care, I can feel it across the room."
Clinton: "No, no, I care-"
Jennings: "You feel it very deeply."
Clinton, raised his arm and menacingly pointed at Jennings: "You don't want to go there, Peter. You don't want to go there. Not after what you people did and the way you, your network, what you did with Kenneth Starr. The way your people repeated every little sleazy thing he leaked. No one has any idea what that's like. That's where I failed.
“You want to know where I failed? I really let it, it hurt me. I thought I believed in a, I thought I lived in a country where people believe in the Constitution and the rule of law, freedom of speech. You never had to live in a time when people you knew and cared about were being indicted, carted off to jail, bankrupted, ruined because they were Democrats and because they would not lie.
“So I think we showed a lot of moral fiber to stand up to that, to stand up to these constant investigations, to this constant bodyguard of lies, this avalanche that was thrown at all of us. And, yes, I failed once. And I sure paid for it. And I'm sorry. I'm sorry for the American people, and I'm sorry for the embarrassment they performed. But they ought to think about the way the rest of the world reacted to it.
“When I, when I got a standing ovation at the United Nations from the whole world, the American networks were showing my grand jury testimony. Those were decisions you made, not me. I personally believe that the standing ovation I got from the whole world at the United Nations, which was unprecedented for an American President, showed not only support for me, but opposition to the madness that had taken hold of American politics."
-- Exchange between then-anchor Peter Jennings and President Bill Clinton, ABC News, “Bill Clinton: A Place in History,” Nov. 18, 2004
 



Full Article

  Terrorism Analyst Michael Scheurer Refutes President Clinton’s Claims about Osama bin Laden
Harry Smith: "Elizabeth Palmer live in Pakistan this morning, thank you. I'm going to go back now to Michael Scheuer once again. Let's talk about what President Clinton had to say on Fox yesterday. He basically laid blame at the feet of the CIA and the FBI for not being able to certify or verify that Osama bin Laden was responsible for a number of different attacks. Does that ring true to you?"
Michael Scheuer: "No, sir, I don't think so. The president seems to be able, the former president seems to be able to deny facts with impugnity. Bin Laden is alive today because Mr. Clinton, Mr. Sandy Berger, and Mr. Richard Clarke refused to kill him. That's the bottom line. And every time he says what he said to Chris Wallace on Fox, he defames the CIA especially, and the men and women who risk their lives to give his administration repeated chances to kill bin Laden."
Harry Smith: "Alright, is the Bush administration any less responsible for not finishing the job in Tora Bora?"
Michael Scheuer: "Oh, I think there's plenty of blame to go around, sir, but the fact of the matter is that the Bush Administration had one chance that they botched, and the Clinton Administration had eight to ten chances that they refused to try. At least at Tora Bora our forces were on the ground. We didn't push the point. But it's just, it's an incredible kind of situation for the American people over the weekend to hear their former president mislead them."
Harry Smith: "And, and, and with this also further revelation that, in fact, the war in Iraq has only exacerbated the terrorist situation. Michael Scheurer, we thank you so much for your time this morning."
-- Exchange between host Harry Smith and terrorism analyst Michael Scheurer, The Early Show, CBS, Sept. 25, 2006
 



Full Article

  Daily Show Host Jon Stewart Trashes Columnist Robert Novak
Jon Stewart: "I'm down in D.C. this weekend ... and I just wanted to immerse myself in the atmosphere of the area, I wanted to get the lay of the land, so I took tuned into, they have a station down there called C-SPAN, which sort of covers local happenings in the Washington-Baltimore area, and I'm watching this show Washington Journal, and I'm just, I mean, I was stunned. You, take a look."
Robert Novak: "Somebody mentioned the Jon Stewart program. I've never seen that in my life, and I will go to my grave never having seen it."
Stewart got out a pad and pen and said in an oozy voice, joyous at the prospect of Novak reaching the grave: "Really? You'll go to your grave never having seen it? When's that scheduled for?" Then the show skipped back to another C-SPAN clip:
Brian Lamb: "Why?"
Novak: "I don't see any reason for it. It's a self-righteous comedian taking on airs of grandeur, and I don't really need that."
Stewart: "'Self-righteous comedian taking on airs of grandeur'?! You just said you've never seen it. You don't even, listen, I'm not going to deny I'm a pompous ass, but 'airs of grandeur,' that couldn't have been what he said. I should check, let me check this transcript."
As he put on a monocle and then put a pipe in his mouth, Stewart joked: "Airs of grandeur. This is ridiculous, let me just, hold on, oh, it's not. Hold on. Let me just, oh, God, that's insane! I just, whoa, yes! We couldn't figure out how to appropriately mock 'airs of grandeur.' Earlier we actually tried rehearsing with a guy in a white powdered wig who walked out with a scroll, but it felt too real.
"Yes, Robert Novak does not watch 'The Daily Show' or myself, not surprising. You know, I keep reading all these articles about how 'The Daily Show' is big amongst 115-year-old vampire demons, but why does Robert Novak -- hate? And why me? I mean, it's like I publicly revealed some piece of information he didn't want people to know and ruined his career and then kept asserting it was everyone else's fault but mine.
“Well, I don't like this bad blood between us, Robert. If you're watching, and I know you're not, I think it's time we buried the hatchet! We need to get together and talk. We'll meet on neutral ground. You're on Fox, I'm on Comedy Central. How about the Food Network? Rachael Ray seems like a peacemaker.
“We can work this out because I know that you're a good person deep down in your --[pauses for comedic effect, makes a series of circular gestures with his chest] , the thing that they replaced your heart with that pumps the, I know you have redeeming qualities! I see your redeeming qualties. For example, when you're on television, you let others shine while you generously absorb all light and oxygen. When you leave an area, it stops raining. And I know that in the past I have referred to you as a douche bag. But that's not an air of grandeur, that's just mean and sophomoric, and I only said those things to you because I sincerely believe you're a terrible person."
“… Sadly, Robert Novak isn't the only enemy of American democracy. We have even more dangerous foes."
-- Host Jon Stewart, The Daily Show, Comedy Central, Sept. 19, 2006
 



Full Article

  Olbermann: Bush Like Angry 3-Year-Old and Should Apologize
Keith Olbermann: "And then there was that one most awful phrase. In four simple words last Friday, the President brought into sharp focus what has been only vaguely clear these past five-and-a-half years, the way the terrain at night is perceptible only during an angry flash of lightning, and then a second later, all again is dark. 'It's unacceptable to think,' he said. It is never unacceptable to think.
"And when a President says thinking is unacceptable, even on one topic, even in the heat of the moment, even in the turning of a phrase extracted from its context, he takes us toward a new and fearful path, one heretofore the realm of science fiction authors and apocalyptic visionaries. That flash of lightning freezes at the distant horizon, and we can just make out a world in which authority can actually suggest it has become unacceptable to think.
"Thus the lightning flash reveals not merely a President we have already seen, the one who believes he has a monopoly on current truth. It now shows us a President who has decided that of all our commanders-in-chief ever, he alone has had the knowledge necessary to alter and reshape our inalienable rights.
"This is a frightening and a dangerous delusion, Mr. President. If Mr. Powell's letter -- cautionary, concerned, predominantly supportive -- can induce from you such wrath and such intolerance, what would you say were this statement to be shouted to you by a reporter or written to you by a colleague? 'Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.' Those incendiary thoughts came, of course, from a prior holder of your job, Mr. Bush. They were the words of Thomas Jefferson. He put them in the Declaration of Independence.
"Mr. Bush, what would you say to something that antithetical to the status quo just now? Would you call it unacceptable for Jefferson to think such things or to write them?
"Between your confidence in your infallibility, sir, and your demonizing of dissent, and now these rages better suited to a thwarted three-year old, you have left the unnerving sense of a White House coming unglued, a chilling suspicion that perhaps we have not seen the peak of the anger, that we can no longer forecast what next will be said to, or about, anyone who disagrees. Or what will next be done to them.
"On this newscast last Friday, constitutional law Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University suggested that at some point in the near future some of the detainees transferred from secret CIA cells to Guantanamo will finally get to tell the Red Cross that they have indeed been tortured. Thus the debate over the Geneva Conventions might not be about further interrogations of detainees, but about those already conducted, and the possible liability of the administration for them. That certainly could explain Mr. Bush's fury, but that, at this point, is speculative. But at least it provides an alternative possibility as to why the President's words were at such variance from the entire history of this country.
"For, there needs to be some other explanation, Mr. Bush, than that you truly believe we should live in a United States of America in which a thought is unacceptable. There needs to be a delegation of responsible leaders, Republicans or otherwise, who can sit you down as Barry Goldwater and Hugh Scott once sat Richard Nixon down, and explain the reality of the situation you have created. There needs to be an apology from the President of the United States. And more than one.
"But, Mr. Bush, the others, for warnings unheeded five years ago, for war unjustified four years ago, for battle unprepared three years ago, they are not weighted with the urgency and the necessity of this one. We must know that, to you, thought with which you disagree, and even voice with which you disagree, and even action with which you disagree, are still sacrosanct to you.
"The philosopher Voltaire once insisted to another author, 'I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.' Since the nation's birth, Mr. Bush, we have misquoted and even embellished that statement, but we have served ourselves well by subscribing to its essence. Oddly, there are other words of Voltaire's that are more pertinent still, just now. 'Think for yourselves,' he wrote, 'and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too.'
"Apologize, sir, for even hinting at an America where a few have that privilege to think and the rest of us wind up getting yelled at by the President. Anything else, Mr. Bush, is truly unacceptable. I'm Keith Olbermann. Good night and good luck."
- Host Keith Olbermann, Countdown, MSNBC, Sept. 11, 2006
 



Full Article

  NBC’s Gregory Pushes Bush on Geneva Convention Rule
President Bush: "I must say, having gone through those gyrations, you're looking beautiful today, Dave." (Laughter.)
NBC’s David Gregory: "Mr. President, critics of your proposed bill on interrogation rules say there's another important test -- these critics include John McCain, who you've mentioned several times this morning -- and that test is this: If a CIA officer, paramilitary or special operations soldier from the United States were captured in Iran or North Korea, and they were roughed up, and those governments said, well, they were interrogated in accordance with our interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, and then they were put on trial and they were convicted based on secret evidence that they were not able to see, how would you react to that, as Commander-in-Chief?"
Bush: "David, my reaction is, is that if the nations such as those you named, adopted the standards within the Detainee Detention Act, the world would be better. That's my reaction. We're trying to clarify law. We're trying to set high standards, not ambiguous standards.
"And let me just repeat, Dave, we can debate this issue all we want, but the practical matter is, if our professionals don't have clear standards in the law, the program is not going to go forward. You cannot ask a young intelligence officer to violate the law. And they're not going to. They -- let me finish, please -- they will not violate the law. You can ask this question all you want, but the bottom line is -- and the American people have got to understand this -- that this program won't go forward; if there is vague standards applied, like those in Common Article III from the Geneva Convention, it's just not going to go forward. You can't ask a young professional on the front line of protecting this country to violate law.
"Now, I know they said they're not going to prosecute them. Think about that: Go ahead and violate it, we won't prosecute you. These people aren't going to do that, Dave. Now, we can justify anything you want and bring up this example or that example, I'm just telling you the bottom line, and that's why this debate is important, and it's a vital debate.
"Now, perhaps some in Congress don't think the program is important. That's fine. I don't know if they do or don't. I think it's vital, and I have the obligation to make sure that our professionals who I would ask to go conduct interrogations to find out what might be happening or who might be coming to this country, I got to give them the tools they need. And that is clear law.
Gregory (first interruption/follow-up): "But sir, this is an important point, and I think it depends --"
Bush: "The point I just made is the most important point."
Gregory: "Okay."
Bush: "And that is the program is not going forward. David, you can give a hypothetical about North Korea, or any other country, the point is that the program is not going to go forward if our professionals do not have clarity in the law. And the best way to provide clarity in the law is to make sure the Detainee Treatment Act is the crux of the law. That's how we define Common Article III, and it sets a good standard for the countries that you just talked about. Next man."
Gregory (second): "No, but wait a second, I think this is an important point --"
Bush: "I know you think it's an important point." (Laughter.)
Gregory (third): "Sir, with respect, if other countries interpret the Geneva Conventions as they see fit -- as they see fit -- you're saying that you'd be okay with that?"
Bush: "I am saying that I would hope that they would adopt the same standards we adopt; and that by clarifying Article III, we make it stronger, we make it clearer, we make it definite. And I will tell you again, David, you can ask every hypothetical you want, but the American people have got to know the facts. And the bottom line is simple: If Congress passes a law that does not clarify the rules, if they do not do that, the program is not going forward."
Gregory (fourth): "This will not endanger U.S. troops, in your -- "
Bush: "Next man."
Gregory (fifth): This will not endanger U.S. troops --
Bush: "David, next man, please. Thank you. It took you a long time to unravel, and it took you a long time to ask your question."
-- Exchange between NBC reporter David Gregory and President Bush, NBC News, Sept. 15, 2006
 



Full Article

  President Bush Pokes Fun at Liberal New York Times
President Bush: "Let's see, New York Times, Sheryl."
Sheryl Gay Stolberg: "Hi, Mr. President."
Bush: "Fine. How are you doing?"
Stolberg: "I'm well today, thank you." (Laughter.)
Bush: "Did you start with, hi, Mr. President?"
Stolberg: "Hello, Mr. President."
Bush: "Okay, that's fine. Either way, that's always a friendly greeting, thank you."
Stolberg: "We're a friendly newspaper."
Bush, with look of disbelief: "Yeah. (Laughter.) Let me just say, I'd hate to see unfriendly." (Laughter.)
-- Exchange between NYT reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg and President Bush, Fox News Channel, Sept. 15, 2006.
 



Full Article

  Sean Penn: Bush Caused 'Enormous Damage to Mankind,' Fascism Too?
Larry King: “All right. Some other things. Iraq. Getting any better? The military now controls itself.”
Sean Penn: “No. It's -- I think -- to me the situation is pretty simple. I mean, the devastation of the situation is pretty simple. Right now, you know, what these party clowns like Don Rumsfeld could be described as, as far as I'm concerned, except for the enormous damage he's done this country and mankind -- and our President -- and saw that they're getting out there and they're beating this drum, to drown out, as they did in 2002, to drown out other -- in that case it was Enron. Now we have another situation, so it's this war on terror, boom, boom, boom. Drown out the reality of what's really happening.
“I think the American people have a choice. In my idea, it's about an eight to ten-year proposition of Iraqis and Americans and others dying in Iraq. The same amount will be dead of Iraqis, innocent, in ten years without the Americans as they will with the Americans there. We'll just have more Americans dead. So shamefully, we have to -- you know, it's what Nixon called 'peace with honor,' to get out of Vietnam.
“I think that, you know, 'cut and run' is something that's meant to make people feel like cowards if they do it. Well, we did make a mistake. It is time to pull our troops out. It's time to rebuild our military because we've got a bad world and they've inflamed terrorism around the world. I think that's very clear to most people. So what's happened there is a civil war that's going to get worse with us or without us. It's time for us to strengthen ourselves and to try to help them through diplomacy and with money.”
King: “But when the President says we should support emerging democracies, because democracy's better for the world, is that -- isn't he right?”
Penn: “I think he's devastated our democracy. I think you have to start with our democracy. He's made us divided. I have a lot of very good friends who are Republicans, who are right-wing Republicans. And when you are with people and you talk to people as people, and not as Republicans and Democrats, you find that's why his numbers are down. Because people have common sense. They're going to vote, you know, in a few months, and they're going to say, well, are we going to be suckers again? Are we going to be suckers to partisan policy and politics and all of that stuff?
“By the way, no Democrat that doesn't have a plan to get our troops out of Iraq should be voted for. Not one of them. You know, there's got to be some courage expressed, and that's what I'm worried about is that we're not going to have good choices.”
Exchange between Larry King and Sean Penn, Larry King Live, CNN, Sept. 14, 2006.



Full Article

  Rooney Suggests Fault for Terrorism Lies with American Behavior
"Americans are puzzled over why so many people in the world hate us. We seem so nice to ourselves. They do hate us though. We know that and we're trying to protect ourselves with more weapons. We have to do it I guess, but might be better if we figured out how to behave as a nation in a way that wouldn't make so many people in the world want to kill us.”
-- Andy Rooney, September 10, 60 Minutes
 



Full Article

  The View Co-host Rosie O’Donnell Equates “Radical Islam” with “Radical Christianity”
Rosie O'Donnell: "Hold on one second. We were attacked not by a nation and, as a result of the attack and the killing of nearly 3,000 innocent people, we invaded two countries and killed innocent people in their countries."
Elisabeth Hasselbeck: "But do you understand that, that the belief funding those attacks, okay, that is widespread. And if you take radical Islam and if you want to talk about what's going on there, you have to-"
O'Donnell, interrupting: "Wait just one second. Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have a separation of church and state. We're a democracy." (loud applause)
Hasselbeck: "We're not bombing ourselves here in the country. We are being attacked."
O'Donnell: "No, but we are bombing innocent people in other countries. True or false?
Joy Behar: "But Christians are not threatening to kill us. There’s that difference. This group is threatening to kill us."
-- ABC's The View, September 12, 2006
 



Full Article

  Olbermann: Bush's 'Impeachable Lies...Crime Against' 9/11 Victims
Keith Olbermann: "The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it was the unanimous humanity, here and throughout the country. The government â€" the President, in particular â€" was given every possible measure of support. Those who did not belong to his party tabled that. Those who doubted the mechanics of his election ignored that. Those who wondered of his qualifications forgot that.
"History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government by its critics. It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation's wounds, but to take political advantage. Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people. The President and those around him did that.
"They promised bipartisanship, and then showed that, to them, 'bipartisanship' meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused, as appeasers, as those who, in the Vice President's words yesterday, 'validate the strategy of the terrorists.' They promised protection, and then showed that to them 'protection' meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken, a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated al-Qaeda as much as we did. The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war on the false premise that it had something to do with 9/11 is lying by implication. The impolite phrase is 'impeachable offense.'
"Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space, and to this, the current and curdled version of our beloved country. Still, there is a snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness: Even his most virulent critics have never suggested that he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11. Half the time, in fact, this President has been so gently treated that he has seemed not even to be the man most responsible for anything in his own administration.
"Yet what is happening this very night? A miniseries, created, influenced, possibly financed by the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes. The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted; the whole sorry story blurred by spin to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office seem like the only option.
"How dare you, Mr. President, after taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love, and transmuting both into fraudulent war and needless death, after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections? How dare you, or those around you, ever spin 9/11? Just as the terrorists have succeeded, are still succeeding, as long as there is no memorial and no construction here at Ground Zero, so too have they succeeded, and are still succeeding, as long as this government uses 9/11 as a wedge to pit Americans against Americans.
"This is an odd point to cite a television program, especially one from March of 1960. But as Disney's continuing sell-out of the truth, and of this country, suggests, even television programs can be powerful things. And long ago, a series called The Twilight Zone broadcast a riveting episode entitled 'The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street.' [over black and white video of the TV episode] In brief: a meteor sparks rumors of an invasion by extraterrestrials disguised as humans. The electricity goes out. A neighbor pleads for calm. Suddenly his car, and only his car, starts. Someone suggests he must be the alien. Then another man's lights go on. As charges and suspicion and panic overtake the street, guns are inevitably produced. An 'alien' is shot, but then he turns out to be just another neighbor returning from having gone for help. The camera pulls back to a nearby hill, where two extraterrestrials are seen, finally, manipulating a small device that can jam electricity. The veteran tells his novice that there is no need to actually attack, that you just turn off a few of the human machines, and then 'they pick the most dangerous enemy they can find, and it is themselves.'
"And then, in perhaps his finest piece of writing, Rod Serling sums it up with words of remarkable prescience, given where we find ourselves tonight. 'The tools of conquest,' he said, 'do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men. For the record,' he said, 'prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own for the children and the children yet unborn.'
"When those who dissent are told time and time again -- as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus -- that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of that freedom, we are somehow un-American; when we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have 'forgotten the lessons of 9/11'; look into this empty space behind me and the bipartisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me this: Who has left this hole in the ground? We have not forgotten, Mr. President. You have. May this country forgive you.
"Our coverage of the President's address is next. From Ground Zero, I'm Keith Olbermann. Good night and good luck."
- Host Keith Olbermann, Countdown, MSNBC, Sept. 11, 2006
 



Full Article

  Lauer Worries With Hillary, Then Pounds Bush on Interrogations
Matt Lauer: "Now more of my interview with President Bush. I spoke to him on Friday in the Oval Office at the White House and President Bush has said nothing is more important to him than keeping the American people safe. On Sunday, on Meet the Press, Vice President Cheney added it's no accident there hasn't been an attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. Well in a spirited exchange I asked the President to respond to those who say his administration may have gone too far, for example, in interrogating terror suspects?"
[George W. Bush]
Lauer: "Well That's an interesting point and you said, 'within the law.' And yet you admitted that there were these CIA secret facilities."
Bush: "So what? Why is that not within the law?"
Lauer: "The head of Amnesty International says secret sites are against international law."
Bush: "Well, we just agree to disagree with him. And plus, my job is to protect you. And most American people, if I said that we had who we think's the mastermind of the 9/11, they would say, 'Why don't you see if you can't get information out of him without torturing,' which is what we did."
Lauer: "These, these alternative methods you talked about in terms of extracting information from these suspected terrorists. Were you made personally aware of all of the techniques that were used, for example, against a Khalid Shaikh Mohammed? And did you approve all of those techniques?"
[Bush]
Lauer: "It, it's been reported that with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed he was what they called, water-boarded."
[Bush]
Lauer: "I, I don't want to let this 'within the law,' issue slip though. I mean if, if in fact there was water-boarding used with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and for the viewers that's basically you strap someone to a board and you make 'em feel as if they're gonna drown, you put 'em underwater. If, if that was legal and within the law why couldn't you do it at Guantanamo? Why did you have to go to a secret location around the world?"
Bush: "I'm not going to talk about techniques. And, I'm not going explain to the enemy what we're doing. All I'm telling you is that you've asked me whether or not we're doing things to protect the American people, and I want the American people to know we are doing so."
Lauer: "At some point, Mr. President, if, if techniques, these alternate, alternative techniques are used-"
[Bush]
Lauer: "I'm not gonna ask you to specifically say anything about say about them. But if they are used, are you at all concerned that at some point, even if you get results, there is a blurring the lines of, between ourselves and the people we're trying to protect us against?"
[Bush]
Lauer: "President George W. Bush speaking to me Friday in the Oval Office at the White House."

Lauer's treatment of Bush contrasted sharply with these softball questions he threw to Clinton as the two stood by Ground Zero in the interview aired in the 7am half hour:

Lauer: "New York's junior senator Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton will be here at Ground Zero all morning long to help commemorate those lost on 9/11. Senator Clinton good to have you here. Good morning."
[Sen. Hillary Clinton]
Lauer: "Let me ask you the question that so many Americans are gonna ask each other and their leaders this morning and that is are we safer today, five years after these attacks of 9/11?"
[Clinton]
Lauer: "We, we conducted a poll and we asked people are they safer, do they at least feel safer? 74 percent said, 'Yes I feel safer today than I did prior to, or you know right after 9/11.' How much credit does the Bush administration deserve for that number?"
[Clinton]
Lauer: "Is in some ways, some have called it a numbers game. And, and I'm curious how you feel about this? Do you think that there are more or less people today? More or fewer people today who want to bring harm to the United States than there were in the days prior to 9/11 and the actions we've taken post-9/11?"
[Clinton]
Lauer: "But our, our response to 9/11, in particular Senator, has it created more enemies in your opinion?"
[Clinton]
Lauer: "The President announced and confirmed last week something most of us have, have thought for quite a while that the CIA had secret sites around the world where they interrogated and detained terror suspects, people like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and used alternative question, questioning methods. Are you comfortable that the United States did not break the law in conducting that kind of interrogations in those secret sites?"
[Clinton]
Lauer: "Do the ends justify the means?"
[Clinton]
Lauer: "Senator Clinton, good to have you here."
-- Matt Lauer, Today, NBC, Sep 8, 2006
 



Full Article

  CBS Host Ferguson Pays 9/11 Tribute: 'The Flag Was Still There'
"I'm here, my son is an American, I pay my taxes in America, I pay alimony in America. I feel I'm assimilated to you. And so I feel part of this. I think the world is part of this. Anyone who cares about anything, when these rat bastards flew those planes into those buildings, if you're a human, it would insult everything inside you. And if you've watched TV at all in the past few days, you'll have seen plenty of talk on 9/11, and I don't really know what kind of show we do here. If you've watched this for any length of time, you'll know I'm not kidding about that. I don't really know what we do, but I'm not going to run away from this.
"This is a defining moment for our generation. For one generation, it was the assassination of Kennedy, for another it's 9/11. It's 'Where were you on September the 11th?' So here's where I was. I was here in Los Angeles. I was married at the time, and I got an early phone call from my then-father-in-law. I was awake. I mean, my son was less than six months old at the time, so I was awake. And my father-in-law worked on Wall Street near Ground Zero. And he said turn on the TV, World War III has broken out, it's crazy. And we turned on the television, and watched unfold like the most of the country, I saw the second plane hit as it happened live, and I didn't hear from my father-in-law again for four hours. The phone service was down. And we eventually heard from him. He like a lot of people just walked uptown. They just headed to Central Park covered in dust, did whatever they did, and they got out of there. And I remember the feeling of when the news reports later in the day, they said the planes had, the rest of the planes in America, the air traffic has ceased and all the planes were safely landed, I felt a strange sense of relief. America felt like a very small town that day. You know, that kind of, get everybody home, that sort of thing.
"And back then I was working on the Drew Carey Show. I was still in show business then. I was working on the Drew Carey Show. And around about noon, the stage manager called, we used to shoot the show on a Tuesday, and he called and he said we're not going to tape today, and I said, 'What, is Drew okay with that because you know lunch is catered on Tuesdays?' (Laughter) So where we taped the show was at the Warner Brothers studios, which is in Burbank here. So a few days later, we went back to work. Air travel was still shut down. The country was still reeling and mourning. And everyone, it seems strange to say it now, but I remember thinking, we thought this was World War III. When's the next one coming? Tomorrow? The day after? And there was all these memorial services everywhere. People in work places all over the country, you know, I'm sure you remember, people would get together and pray and sing and hold hands and do whatever they could.
"And Warner Brothers was no different. And they had a memorial service on the back lot. You know, the studio police, the studio fire department, all the people that worked there. The Teamsters, the cast from Friends were there, the cast of the Drew Carey were there. Drew Carey cast looked like they were Teamsters. And we were all in the back lot, and the back lot of Warner Brothers, it's where they shoot the Gilmore Girls. It's Main Street, USA. It's made to look like that. You know, it's a quaint little town. It's got a town square. It's got a band stand in the middle. They've got a town drunk. He runs the studio (laughter). You know, it's everything. It's really Main Street, USA. And the street was packed with everyone who worked there, and we're all huddled together. And back then, Warner Brothers had, this is before 9/11, they used to have this giant flag. You remember they used to have? They used to have this giant Stars and Stripes on the side of one of the sound stages. It's a huge thing, this flag, about the size of a city block.
"And for the service, the Teamsters had jerry-rigged this flag on some scaffolding in the town square. You know, it was this flag on some scaffolding, it was held on with clips, you know, this was jubilee clips or whatever they call them, just holding this flag on. And it was a very, very hot day like you get in Burbank in September. It was horrible, and this flag up there, there was some shade so everyone was huddled under the shade of the flag. And it seemed very poignant at the time that everyone was frighten and everyone was, you know, but we all kind of huddled under this flag for protection. And at this time of year, the Santa Anas start to blow in Los Angeles. The winds start to blow, and they can pick up a bit. And halfway through the ceremony is the, you know, everyone is saying their peace.
"This flag started to ripple with the winds that are coming up and it started to ping loose from the jerry-rigging, the flag started to kind of move, and I thought, 'God, we can't have this now. This flag can't fall down on us now. There's something very wrong about that.' And a couple of these little clips pinged out, but the flag stayed where it was. And it's something that I'll never forget because for all the fear and terror that 9/11 brought, I thought then when I saw that flag stay there, I thought that's the way it is here. This is an ill wind and it moved the flag and a couple of clips popped, and the country reeled back from it, and for all the arguments and all the rascals and the scoundrels on either side of political debates, all across who try and claim this awful, awful day as something they own, there is argument and debate in America, and that's what makes us the country that we are. And when that wind blew, and when that ill wind blew in America, the flag was still there. The flag was still there (applause). Maybe somebody should write a song about that. We'll be back in a minute."
--
Craig Ferguson, Late Late Show, CBS, Sep 11, 2006
 



Full Article

  Olbermann Skips Own Hypocrisy, Castigates Bozell on 9/11 Movie
Keith Olbermann: “But the winner, in a related topic, Bozo the Clown: Right-wing hysteric Brent Bozell weighing-in in his usual light-weight manner on the controversy over The Path to 9/11 movie, he writes, quote: 'As a docudrama, it has taken certain poetic license with history.' Three years ago in the middle of the controversy over the CBS docudrama about Ronald Reagan, Mr. Bozell said quote: 'There is no such thing as creative license to invent falsehoods about people. I don't care who you are, you don't have that right.' Hey, Brent, when you look in the mirror, how many faces do you see? The rest of us count at least two. Brent Bozell, today's Worst Person in the World!"
-- Keith Olbermann, Countdown, MSNBC, Sept. 8, 2006
 



Full Article

  MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Grills Conservative Writer Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin: "Why don't people ask him more specific questions about the shrapnel in his leg?"
Willie Brown [the other guest]: "He didn't get shot at in Alabama..."
Malkin: "There are legitimate questions about whether or not..."
Brown: "He didn't get shot at..."
Malkin: "... it was a self-inflicted wound."
Brown: "... a fighter pilot in Alabama."
Chris Matthews: "What do you mean by self-inflicted? You say he shot himself on purpose? Is that what you're saying?"
Malkin: "Well, did you read..."
Matthews: "I'm asking you a simple question. Are you saying he shot himself on purpose?"
Malkin: "I'm saying that some of these soldiers..."
Matthews: "I'm asking a question."
Malkin: "And I'm answering it."
Matthews: "Did he shoot himself on purpose?"
Malkin: "Some of those, some of the, some of the soldiers have made allegations that these were self-inflicted wounds."
Matthews: "No, no, no one has ever accused him of shooting himself on purpose."
Malkin: "These, that these were self-inflicted wounds."
Matthews: "No, no, are you saying he shot himself on purpose?"
Malkin: "I'm saying that I read the book..."
Matthews: "That's a criminal act."
Brown: "Chris, that is the most irresponsible thing that..."
Malkin: "I read the book..."
Matthews: "Are you saying he shot himself on purpose? I want an answer yes or no, Michelle."
Malkin: "Some of the veterans say..."
Matthews: "No, there are..."
Malkin: "Yes. Some of the veterans say that!"
Matthews: "No one has ever accused him..."
Shuster: "No, none of them say that. What they do say in their book is that John Kerry, quote, ‘got hit by a piece of shrapnel from a grenade that he had fired himself. He fired it too close to the shore, and it exploded on a rock or something.’ If that actually caused Kerry's injury, it would be called in military terms a self-inflicted wound. But to the military, it is a descriptive term, not a damning one. And there is still no evidence Kerry intended to harm himself."
Matthews: "Is there a direct accusation in any book you’ve ever read in your life that said John Kerry shot himself on purpose to get a credit for Purple Heart? On purpose? On purpose? Yes or no, Michelle?"
Malkin: "In the February 19, 1969..."
Matthews: "Yes."
Malkin: "In the February 19, 1969 event..."
Matthews: "Did they say he did it on purpose?"
Malkin: "There are doubts about whether or not..."
Matthews: "There are doubts about, that's..."
Malkin: "... there was intense rifle fire or not."
Matthews: "... the kind of, just tell me for a fact..."
Malkin: "And I wish you would ask these questions of John Kerry instead of me."
Matthews: "I had never heard anyone say he shot himself on purpose."
Malkin: "Have you, have you tried to ask?"
Matthews: "And I haven't heard you say it."
Malkin: "Have you tried to ask John Kerry these questions?"
Matthews: "If he shot himself on purpose? No, I have not asked him that."
Malkin: "Have you, don't you wonder?"
Matthews: "No, I don't. It's never occurred to me."
-- Exchange among host Chris Matthews, writer Michelle Malkin, and former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, Hardball, MSNBC, Aug. 19, 2004.
 



Full Article

  Rush Limbaugh Discusses Patriotism on the CBS Evening News’ “freeSpeech” Segment
Rush Limbaugh: “My friends., it's time to face a hard cold fact: Militant Islam wants to kill us just because we're alive and don't believe as they do. And they have been killing us for decades. It is time to stop pretending these are mere episodic events and face the reality that our way of life is in grave danger. Now, this threat is not just going to go away because we choose to ignore it.
“Some say we try diplomacy. Yeah, well tell me, how do we negotiate with people whose starting point is our death? Ask them to wait for 10 years, before they kill us? When Good negotiates with Evil, Evil will always win. And peace follows victory, not words issued by diplomats.
“But some Americans, sadly, are not interested in victory. And yet they want us to believe that their behavior is Patriotic. Well, it's not. When the critics are more interested in punishing this country over a few incidents at Abu Grahib and Guantanamo Bay than they are in defeating those who want to kill us; when they seek to destroy a foreign surveillance program which is designed to identify those who want to kill us and how they intend to do it; when they want to grant those who want to kill us, U.S. constitutional rights, I don't call that patriotic.
“Patriotism is rallying behind the country, regardless of party affiliation, to defeat Islamo-Fascism. Patriotism is supporting our troops on the battlefield, not undermining the mission and morale. But let there be no doubt about this. America will prevail. We're the same country that survived a bloody Civil War, defeated the Nazis and the Soviets. Each generation has a responsibility to the next. Our generation will not disappoint.”

-- Rush Limbaugh, “freeSpeech,” CBS Evening News, CBS, Sept. 7, 2006
 



Full Article

  MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann Depicts President Bush as “Un-American,” makes comparison to Sen. Joe McCarthy
Keith Olbermann: "And now a special comment about the President's speech today. It is to our deep national shame, and ultimately it will be to the President’s deep public regret, that he has followed his Secretary of Defense down the path of trying to tie those loyal Americans who disagree with his policies, or even question their effectiveness or execution, to the Nazis of the past, and the al-Qaeda of the present.
Olbermann: "Today, in the same subtle terms in which Mr. Bush and his colleagues muddied the clear line separating Iraq and 9/11, without ever actually saying so, the President quoted a purported Osama Bin Laden letter that spoke of launching, quote, 'a media campaign to create a wedge between the American people and their government.'
Olbermann: "Make no mistake here, the intent of that is to get us to confuse the psychotic scheming of an international terrorist, with that familiar bogeyman of the far right, the, quote, 'media,' unquote. The President and the Vice President and others have often attacked freedom of speech, and freedom of dissent, and freedom of the press.
Olbermann: "Now, Mr. Bush has signaled that his unparalleled and unprincipled attack on reporting has a new and venomous side angle: The attempt to link, by the simple expediency of one word, 'media,' the honest, patriotic, indeed vital questions and questioning from American reporters, with the evil of al-Qaeda propaganda. That linkage is more than just indefensible. It is un-American. Mr. Bush and his colleagues have led us before to such waters. We will not drink again.
Olbermann: "And the President’s re-writing and sanitizing of history so it fits the expediencies of domestic politics today, is just as false, and just as scurrilous."
George W. Bush from speech: "A failed Austrian painter published a book in which he explained his intention to build an Aryan super state in Germany and take revenge on Europe and eradicate the Jews. The world ignored Hitler's words and paid a terrible price."
Olbermann: "Whatever the true nature of al-Qaeda and other international terrorist threats, to ceaselessly compare them to the Nazi state of Germany serves only to embolden them. Moreover, Mr. Bush, you are accomplishing in part what Osama bin Laden and others seek, a fearful American populace, easily manipulated, and willing to throw away any measure of restraint, any loyalty to our own ideals and freedoms, for the comforting illusion of safety.
Olbermann: "It thus becomes necessary to remind the President that his administration's recent Nazi 'kick' is an awful and a cynical thing. And it becomes necessary to reach back into our history, for yet another quote, from yet another time and to ask it of Mr. Bush: 'Have you no sense of decency, sir?'"
-- Host Keith Olbermann, Countdown, MSNBC, Sept. 5, 2006
 



Full Article

  Clunky Debut of CBS Evening News Anchor Katie Couric
Katie Couric: “I'm Katie Couric, tonight, it was the first front in the war on terror, and in Afghanistan now the Taliban are back with a vengeance. Lara Logan has an unprecedented encounter with al Qaeda's best friends. A gusher in the gulf. The biggest U.S. oil find in years, but does that mean you'll find cheaper prices at the pump? 'Free Speech.' Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, and we're giving folks a chance to express them right here.”
Norman Spurlock: “Nobody wants to hear what we have to say because we don't foam at the mouth, call your momma names or say anything that's gonna juice the ratings.”
Couric: “And in something we're calling 'Snap Shots,' Vanity Fair has the baby picture everyone has been waiting for. And tonight, so do we.”
Audio of Walter Cronkite: “This is the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric."
Katie Couric, at anchor desk: "Hi, everyone. I'm very happy to be with you tonight. For many Americans today, it was back to work and back to school. But in the War on Terror, you have to wonder: Is it back to the drawing board? It's easy to forget Afghanistan is where that war began, and that 21,000 U.S. servicemen and women are still there. Now, nearly five years after U.S. forces defeated the Taliban and scattered the al-Qaeda terrorists they were protecting, the Taliban and their terror tactics are back. This year, roadside bombings are up 30 percent, suicide bombings up 100 percent. More than 100 U.S. and NATO troops have been killed. In response, the allies have launched a counter-offensive against the Taliban, killing as many as 60 today alone. Our chief foreign correspondent, Lara Logan, had unprecedented access to some Taliban fighters in one of their new strongholds in Ghazni province. Here's her exclusive report.”
-- Katie Couric’s clunky debut as anchor of the CBS Evening News, CBS, Sept. 5, 2006
 



Full Article

  New CBS Evening News Anchor Katie Couric Praises Bob Scheiffer
Bob Schieffer: “Well, as I mentioned earlier, tonight brings to an end my year and a half here in New York. Next week, I’ll be back on my old beat in Washington, but we’re ending jus the way I like, with a scoop. The first look at our new state of the art news room. I can’t give you a tour because it’s not quite finished yet, but here is someone who will be a permanent fixture, my friend, Katie Couric.”
Katie Couric:
“Hey Bob. You know, I can’t imagine following in the footsteps of a kinder, more gracious person, so thank you so much for everything. Of course, you’ll continue to play a very important role in this broadcast, and before you head back to Washington though, we want to take a look back because you’ve had quite a ride.”
-- Exchange between CBS Evening News anchors Katie Couric and Bob Schieffer, CBS, Aug. 31, 2006
 



Full Article

  Dan Rather Dismisses Media Bias on Re-aired CBS Special
Dan Rather: "One way a reporter in this country should be judged is how well he or she stands up to the pressure to intimidate. I remember the first time someone accused me of being an 'N-lover.' [video of Rather in the middle of a crowd of black people and video of civil right protests] There was a lot of that during the '60s when I covered the civil rights movement. Then you move forward from civil rights into the Vietnam War."
Rather, in video from Vietnam: "How can so many die in a war that's supposed to be so small?"
Rather, back in present day: "'We're going to hang a sign around you which calls you some bad name: 'Anti-military, anti-American, anti-war.' Then, when Watergate came into being-"
Rather, old footage with White House in background: "How high up in the White House does it go?"
Rather, picking up rest of remark: "-was the first time I began to hear this word 'liberal' as an epithet thrown my way."
Viewers then saw a montage of video clips and shots of Web sites with text accusing Rather and CBS of being "liberal," including shot of the Media Research Center's logo and an MRCs page on Dan Rather:
Pat Buchanan: "He is the quintessence to millions of Americans of liberal bias on the network news."
Unidentified man's voice: "He's the personification of liberal media bias."
Joseph Scarborough clip #1: "Bias."
Scarborough clip #2: "Bias."
Scarborough clip #3: "-bias and CBS and Dan Rather-"
Rather claimed: "People who have very strong biases of their own, they come at you with a story: 'If you won't report it the way I want it reported, then you're biased.' Now, it is true about me, for better or for worse, if you want to see my neck swell, you just try to tell me where to line up or what to think and mostly what to report."
-- Dan Rather, Dan Rather: A Reporter Remembers, CBS, broadcast March 9, 2005 and Sept. 1, 2006
 



Full Article

  CNN Runs Story on MRC Study of Liberal Media Coverage of Illegal Immigration
Anchor Kitty Pilgrim: "Tonight, this nation's major newscasts are being accused of being blatantly sympathetic to illegal aliens. This broadcast has continually made the distinction between legal and illegal immigration in this country. And a group that regularly criticize network news coverage says networks refuse to make that distinction. Casey Wian reports."
Casey Wian, from Los Angeles: "When the House of Representatives passed the Sensenbrenner border security bill in December, the three broadcast television networks did not report the development during their evening newscasts. But months later, when illegal alien advocacy groups organized street protests against the bill, the networks gave those demonstrations glowing coverage. That's just one of the charges in a study released this week by the conservative Media Research Center. It claims ABC, CBS, and NBC News have been promoting illegal immigration."
Tim Graham, Media Research Center: "You've had these illegal aliens marching down the streets en masse in white shirts waving American flags, and it really was a long organized political commercial instead of being a real story about the immigration debate."
Wian: "The study examined network news coverage of the issue from March 24th through May 31st. Among the findings, illegal alien amnesty advocates appeared in about twice as many soundbites as supporters of border security. Not surprisingly, President Bush appeared on both sides. Networks routinely ignored polls showing the vast majority of Americans favor stronger border security. And the study concluded: 'The networks seemed to offer honorary citizenship to anyone crossing the border.' The broadcast networks did not respond to requests for comment on the study, but one media watchdog says it overstates their perceived support of illegal immigration."
Margaret Engel, Newseum: "When you have really significant numbers of people in the streets protesting something, you can't avoid it simply because the Gallup polls show the numbers are 81 percent in a different direction."
Wian concluded from street-side in Los Angeles: "The study also examined language used in coverage of illegal immigration. It found the label 'conservative' used 89 times, but 'liberal' was used just three times. One surprise, network reporters and anchors used the word 'illegal' more than five times as often as the politically correct term, 'undocumented.' However, the word 'alien,' as in 'illegal alien,' was only used seven times in more than 300 reports. One network reporter even referred to protests in support of those who critics 'call' illegal."
-- Story about MRC study of liberal media coverage of illegal immigration, Lou Dobbs Tonight, Aug. 31, 2006

See & Hear the Bias Archive
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep      
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2005 - - Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
For additional video clips of media bias going back to 1999, check out our annual DisHonors Awards and our archive of the Best Notable Quotables: Awards for the Year's Worst Reporting.

 


Home | News Division | Bozell Columns | CyberAlerts 
Media Reality Check | Notable Quotables | Contact the MRC | Subscribe

Founded in 1987, the MRC is a 501(c) (3) non-profit research and education foundation
 that does not support or oppose any political party or candidate for office.

Privacy Statement

Media Research Center
325 S. Patrick Street
Alexandria, VA 22314