Schieffer Suggests Tax Hike Since We've "Got" to Fund Programs --2/9/2005-- Media Research Center

1. Schieffer Suggests Tax Hike Since We've "Got" to Fund Programs
Two days after Bob Schieffer denied that there's any significant liberal bias in the media, on Tuesday's Early Show the soon-to-be interim anchor of the CBS Evening News, when asked by Hannah Storm whether President Bush can "realistically" cut the deficit in half "without raising taxes?", responded: "I frankly don't think so. I think in the end this President will raise taxes before his term is out, just like Ronald Reagan raised taxes after he enacted those enormous tax cuts at the beginning of his program." Suggesting a tax hike is more of a wish than a prognostication, Schieffer fretted that "the government has just got to find some money to finance these programs" -- meaning non-entitlement spending.

2. CNN Leads Budget Coverage with Anecdote About WWII Vet's Plight
Covering the budget by exploiting victims of it. Instead of profiling someone struggling to pay their taxes, CNN's Anderson Cooper on Monday night framed coverage of the Bush budget around the impact on one man of a proposed small reduction in prescription reimbursements for veterans: "We'll begin with who gets hurt in the swinging of the budget ax." Jerry Vleck, an elderly World War II veteran who uses a walker, then wished: "I hope they shoot it down. I don't think it's right." Reporter Keith Oppenheim empathetically profiled his plight and relayed his anger: "With these increases, he'll feel the squeeze, an insult he says to those who risked their lives for their country."

3. GMA Finance Expert, a Big Democratic Donor, Slams Budget Cuts To bring perspective to the just-released Bush budget, ABC's Good Morning America turned Tuesday to their regular financial expert Mellody Hobson, who slammed Bush: "It's amazing to me that the President who's known as the 'War President' is going after veterans." Prompted by Charles Gibson's request to recite who would feel the "pain" caused by the cuts, a regretful Hobson listed a litany of victims. Her approach from the left isn't surprising when you take a look at Hobson's political contributions during the 2004 election cycle: About 90 percent of her $91,750 in political donations went to Democrats. She donated to Bush, but she also gave to nearly every Democratic challenger to Bush: Howard Dean, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Carol Moseley-Braun and Al Sharpton.

4. Couric Uses Today Show to Extol Virtues of Feminism and Steinem Katie Couric devoted a taped segment Tuesday morning on Today to a very one-sided presentation on the feminist movement with a heavy emphasis on Katie's taped interview with Gloria Steinem. Couric summarized: "In a culture that sometimes celebrates women more for their breasts than their brains, it's important to recognize the doors that have been opened and those who have walked through them." But Couric had no time for conservative women who might disagree with her.

5. Couric More Enthusiastic for Socialism Than Even the French?
The French have let Katie Couric down. The co-host of NBC's Today led the liberal media's cheerleading when French Socialists imposed a 35-hour mandatory work week a few years ago, but Tuesday's Wall Street Journal reported that with their economy stagnating and productivity plummeting, the French now appear ready to back away from their anti-free market rules.

6. On NBC's Law & Order: Murder of a "Conservative Talk Show Host" The plot of tonight's (Wednesday) Law & Order on NBC revolves around the murder of a "conservative talk show host."

Schieffer Suggests Tax Hike Since We've
"Got" to Fund Programs

Two days after Bob Schieffer denied that there's any significant liberal bias in the media, on Tuesday's Early Show the soon-to-be interim anchor of the CBS Evening News, when asked by Hannah Storm whether President Bush can "realistically" cut the deficit in half "without raising taxes?", responded: "I frankly don't think so. I think in the end this President will raise taxes before his term is out, just like Ronald Reagan raised taxes after he enacted those enormous tax cuts at the beginning of his program." Suggesting a tax hike is more of a wish than a prognostication, Schieffer fretted that "the government has just got to find some money to finance these programs" -- meaning non-entitlement spending.

In his end of the show commentary on Sunday's Face the Nation, Schieffer dismissed claims of any media bias to the left or right: "Yes, some reporters are biased, not many, but a few. Like a draft army, the press reflects the society from which it is drawn and contains many points of view. But I argue that what drives the vast majority of reporters is not a hidden political agenda, but simply a desire to get the story and to get it before their competitors."

Of course, no one is drafted into journalism and so, just as with the volunteer military, the profession does not mirror society. Instead, those with certain values and interests are drawn into it.

Via satellite from Washington, DC, Schieffer appeared on the February 8 Early Show to discuss Bush's budget proposal.

     Storm employed draconian language to describe slight spending reduction ideas as she proposed: "You look at these programs that are being slashed and these are some of the most popular on Capitol Hill. We're talking about farm subsidies and environmental and educational programs and health care for the poor and veterans. Are even half of these likely to get cut?"
     Schieffer: "Well, it's going to be very, very difficult. I mean for example, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, that's arguably the most powerful post in the whole Congress because it controls where the spending goes. Thad Cochran say's 'I'm not for any of these farm cuts.' He says this is totally unfair to cotton farmers. He comes from a cotton state. So, people are going to have to deal with Thad Cochran on a variety of issues before you even get to the farm programs. I think those programs are going to be very, very difficult to cut. I think you have to give the President a pat on the back for trying to cut the deficit because somewhere down the line they're going to have to deal with this deficit. But I'm afraid the program he's laid out here is fairly unrealistic."
     Storm, the MRC's Brian Boyd noticed, then suggested taxes will have to be raised: "I want to ask you about the deficit because the President has pledged to cut the deficit in half by the time he leaves office in 2009. Is he going to be able to realistically achieve that goal without raising taxes?"
     Schieffer concurred: "I frankly don't think so. I think in the end this President will raise taxes before his term is out, just like Ronald Reagan raised taxes after he enacted those enormous tax cuts at the beginning of his program. The government has just got to find some money to finance these programs. The President says that he can cut the deficit in half by the end of his term. But in order to do that, according to this budget, you have to assume that all discretionary spending, and that is everything that the government can cut, all of it, I mean there are some things mostly that they can't cut. You know, the interest on the debt, these are just bills that have to be paid."

     Two days earlier, Schieffer used his Face the Nation commentary to defend his profession against charges of bias. His February 6 argument:
     "Finally today, I get a lot of mail about media bias. I can't remember giving a lecture when I wasn't asked about it. If my mail is a measure, many conservatives believe that most reporters are Democrats, driven by liberal bias. Many liberals believe reporters are so cowed by the Bush administration that we go too easy on Republicans.
     "My standard answer is that, yes, some reporters are biased, not many, but a few. Like a draft army, the press reflects the society from which it is drawn and contains many points of view. But I argue that what drives the vast majority of reporters is not a hidden political agenda, but simply a desire to get the story and to get it before their competitors.
     "I never heard that better explained than last week at the opening of the Watergate papers of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, which have been placed at the University of Texas. These notes, transcripts, the raw data compiled by these two great reporters are a trove of information for scholars. But the trip to Austin was worth it just to hear Woodward describe what motivated the two as they delved into the minor burglary that eventually brought down a president. They had no hidden agenda, nor any idea how the story would end. Woodward said, 'We were just trying to find out what happened.' In those few words, he summed up journalism's whole purpose, and they should be posted above the door of every news room in America, the last thing reporters see as they head out on assignment.
     "When we forget those words and try to overly complicate our purpose, we get into trouble. When we remember them, we can perform a valuable, even a noble service. I still believe that is what most reporters do."

A noble ideal not met by too many.

CNN Leads Budget Coverage with Anecdote
About WWII Vet's Plight

Covering the budget by exploiting victims of it. Instead of profiling someone struggling to pay their taxes, CNN's Anderson Cooper on Monday night framed coverage of the Bush budget around the impact on one man of a proposed small reduction in prescription reimbursements for veterans: "We'll begin with who gets hurt in the swinging of the budget ax." Jerry Vleck, an elderly World War II veteran who uses a walker, then wished: "I hope they shoot it down. I don't think it's right." Reporter Keith Oppenheim empathetically profiled his plight and relayed his anger: "With these increases, he'll feel the squeeze, an insult he says to those who risked their lives for their country."

Substitute anchor Cooper led the February 7 NewsNight, as observed by the MRC's Ken Shepherd: "We begin tonight with a number and face, the number $2.57 trillion. That's the price tag of the budget plan George W. Bush sent to Congress today. The winners, Defense and Homeland Security, with the Pentagon seeing about a five percent bump, now that is above and beyond the money separately budgeted for Iraq and Afghanistan. The losers include just about everything else, education, Amtrak, farm subsidies, Medicaid."
"Bottom line the deficit adds up to about $427 billion. The numbers will change when lawmakers have their say. This is just the beginning of a long and messy job. But no matter what happens to which programs you can be sure some of the people are going to feel a bite. So, along with the number, $2.57 trillion, we begin tonight with a face and CNN's Keith Oppenheim."

     Jerry Vleck: "In the morning it can be really rough."
     Keith Oppenheim, CNN reporter, over video of Vleck using his walker: "Jerry Vleck is heading home."
     Vleck: "What else have I got left in life to help the fellow veteran?"
     Oppenheim: "Several times a week, Vleck volunteers for the American Legion at the VA Hospital in North Chicago, the same place where he gets all his health care. This year he'll celebrate the 60th anniversary of another homecoming, his return from two years in the Pacific during World War II, like many in his generation, Vleck is modest."
     Vleck: "I didn't do anything different than anybody else was doing out there. We were trying to stay alive let me put it to you that way."
     Oppenheim: "At age 79, Jerry Vleck is still trying to stay alive."
     Oppenheim to Vleck: "What's that for?"
     Vleck, sitting at table with Oppenheim, showing Oppenheim his drug bottles: "That's for blood pressure."
     Oppenheim: "He now takes eight different medications every day mainly for heart disease and diabetes."
     Oppenheim to Vleck: "How much do you pay for one of those now for one prescription?"
     Vleck: "Seven dollars."
     Oppenheim: "Right now the costs are relatively low for Vleck as most of his health care is covered by his veteran's benefits.
     Oppenheim to Vleck: "On one level you must feel lucky that you're a veteran."
     Vleck: "Oh, I'm lucky I'm alive let's put it that way. I know a lot of guys that aren't."
     Oppenheim: "But in the President's current budget proposal, Vleck would have to pay $15 per prescription, more than twice as much. In his case with eight medications that could add up to more than $1,200 per year and that's not small change for a guy who only takes in about $2,200 a month between Social Security and his truck driver's pension. With these increases, he'll feel the squeeze, an insult he says to those who risked their lives for their country."
     Vleck: "Especially to the ones who can't afford it, especially them."
     Oppenheim: "Are you that person? Can you afford to pay seven dollars for one of these?"
     Vleck: "Right now it's not a question of whether I can afford or not. I have to do it."
     Oppenheim: "With all his ailments, Jerry Vleck has been getting by. As a widower, he has lived by himself for 17 years. But now he is looking for a little help from Congress, which has been known to stop Presidents from touching benefits for veterans."
     Vleck: "I hope they shoot it down. I don't think it's right."
     Oppenheim: "Keith Oppenheim CNN, Grayslake, Illinois."

A perfect example of why it's so hard to make any budget cuts, no matter how slight, since the media love to showcase victims of any proposed cut.

On that front, Tuesday's CyberAlert recounted: All of the media have pounced on the Bush administration's desire to "cut" spending on a few programs, focusing on how some small spending adjustments will hurt the poor, but none more so than CBS on Monday night. Lee Cowan devoted a full story to how "the proposed cuts hit the heartland like a mountain of unwanted news, from the soy bean fields of Iowa...to large cities like Minneapolis, where block grant programs help the homeless and the hungry." Cowan, who failed to cite a single proposed budget number, showcased complaints from food bank and health care workers and, led into a soundbite from the unlabeled Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, by stressing how "critics charge the people these cuts hit the hardest tend to have the weakest political voice." See: www.mediaresearch.org

GMA Finance Expert, a Big Democratic
Donor, Slams Budget Cuts

To bring perspective to the just-released Bush budget, ABC's Good Morning America turned Tuesday to their regular financial expert Mellody Hobson, who slammed Bush: "It's amazing to me that the President who's known as the 'War President' is going after veterans." Prompted by Charles Gibson's request to recite who would feel the "pain" caused by the cuts, a regretful Hobson listed a litany of victims. Her approach from the left isn't surprising when you take a look at Hobson's political contributions during the 2004 election cycle: About 90 percent of her $91,750 in political donations went to Democrats. She donated to Bush, but she also gave to nearly every Democratic challenger to Bush: Howard Dean, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Carol Moseley-Braun and Al Sharpton.

[The MRC's Tim Graham submitted this item for CyberAlert.]

During the ABC show's first half-hour Tuesday, co-host Charles Gibson began by referring back to an early story which reviewed Bush's budget proposal: "You heard Jessica Yellin's report on the President's budget, a $2.5 trillion package, a $390 billion deficit, but it doesn't even count the $100 billion requested for continued Iraqi and Afghan operations. A hundred and fifty major government programs to be slashed or eliminated in this budget. Will you feel some of that pain?"

Gibson introduced Hobson: "Joining us now from Chicago, Good Morning America financial contributor Mellody Hobson, also the President of Ariel Capital Management. Mellody, we just heard in Jessica Yellin's piece, Senator Conrad say this isn't a game, this is going to affect real people in their lives. So which people? Where do we start?"

Hobson insisted: "Well, let's start with health care, and specifically there, it's amazing to me that the President who's known as the 'War President' is going after veterans. Veterans are the big losers as it relates to health care, specifically those who are at higher income or really haven't had any illness related to their service to our country. They're going to have to pay what you might think of as an annual premium, $250 a year, and they're going to see their co-payments for their prescription drugs double. That's hundreds of dollars for veterans who are on prescription drugs. This could affect as many two million veterans."'

For the record, the Bush budget proposed the co-payment for prescriptions go from $7 to $15, which could mean hundreds of dollars in a year. ABC didn't explore why it's unreasonable to have veterans at high incomes or who haven't had illnesses related to their military service take more care of themselves. If Bush proposed higher taxes on these people, no one would complain about their suffering.

     Gibson then turned to education, as they suggested Bush would cut back on his own promises, and programs urged by Republican First Ladies: "The President campaigned so much on what he had done for education. There's some major educational programs that get cut here as well."

     Hobson replied: "Well, a third of the cuts are in the education area, in terms of the number of programs, 48 programs. This President seems to be about high school, that's where his real focus is. He's focusing on the basics, also -- reading, writing and arithmetic -- and getting rid of the frills. He said these are the programs that don't work, and what does that mean? That means he's cutting vocational programs, gone -- $1.2 billion taken out of the budget. He's also cutting $440 million in programs related to drug-free education programs. I find that interesting, because a lot of those 'Say No to Drug' programs were started under the Reagan-Bush era, but those programs will be gone. He's moving that money to literacy issues now."
     Gibson: "Well, he's also taking some money, isn't he, out of Even Start, which is an adult literacy program, which was a big campaign of his mom's?"
     Hobson: "That is true. You know, there seems to be not a lot of rhyme or reason, but he's trying to be very focused on some key areas and right now it seems to be high school."

MRC analyst Jessica Barnes not only transcribed the exchange, but remembered that two years ago, CyberAlert explored how GMA's financial expert not only disaparaged Bush's tax cut proposals, but gave tens of thousands of dollars to Democrats. For that item: www.mediaresearch.org

Jessica then looked up Hobson's contributions in the 2004 election cycle, which were even more generous to the Democrats. including donations to nearly every Democratic challenger to Bush: Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry, Lieberman, Moseley-Braun, and Sharpton. Dennis Kucinich, Bob Graham and Wesley Clark were the only hopefuls not to make Hobson's list.

Searching federal election records on OpenSecrets.org, for the 2004 election cycle, Mellody Hobson of Ariel Capital Management made 38 political contributions totaling $91,750. Of the 38, four went to Republicans, in a total amount of $7,000. The other $84,750 went to Democratic politicians and PACs.

The lucky Republican recipients were: Andrew McKenna, the recently-elected chairman of the Illinois Republican Party, on July 23, 2003, with $2,000 toward his failed U.S. Senate campaign; $2,000 to President George W. Bush on September 29, 2003; Dylan Glenn, a black congressional candidate in Georgia, $2,000 on October 17, 2003; and $1,000 to Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania on June 6, 2003.

The remaining 34 of Hobson's contributions over the past two years went mainly to familiar names and faces in the Democratic Party:

     -- $25,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee on April 8, 2004, following a $1,000 contribution on November 24, 2003.
     -- $5,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee on March 24, 2003, followed by a second for $2,500 on June 30, 2003.
     -- $6,000 to Democratic Illinois State Comptroller Daniel W. Hynes on March 28, 2003, with a second contribution of $6,000 on June 10, 2003.
     -- $5,000 to Our Common Values PAC on November 1, 2004, whose Web site lists Hobson as one of its Top 100 donors with this single contribution, as well as Harvey Weinstein of Miramax and actress Joan Cusack. Every recipient of this PAC's money was a Democrat except Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-Louisiana), who switched parties in 2004.
     -- $2,500 to The Titans Fund, the leadership PAC of Rep. Harold Ford Jr. from Tennessee, on June 3, 2003, followed by a second for $2,500 on July 24, 2003, as well as a $2,000 contribution to the congressman's own campaign on June 30, 2003.
     -- $2,000 to Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois on March 8, 2003, and a second for $2,000 on March 8, 2004.
     -- $2,000 to former Illinois Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Carol Moseley Braun on March 5, 2003.
     -- $2,000 to Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean on September 10, 2003.
     -- $2,000 to Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle on March 30, 2003.
     -- $2,000 to House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt on January 31, 2003.
     -- $1,000 to Sen. Chris Dodd on April 17, 2003, followed by a second for $1,000 on April 30, 2003.
     -- $1,000 to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on March 25, 2003.
     -- $1,000 to Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Joe Lieberman on September 30, 2003.
     -- $1,000 to Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry on March 7, 2003, with a second for $1,000 on March 28, 2003.
     -- $1,000 to Democratic congressional candidate Joseph Torsella from Pennsylvania on November 12, 2003.
     -- Two $1,000 contributions to Sen. Chuck Schumer on June 9, 2003.
     -- $1,000 to former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles for his U.S. Senate campaign on January 12, 2004.
     -- $1,000 to Rev. Al Sharpton on May 27, 2003.
     -- $1,000 to Rep. Bobby Rush of Illinois on June 5, 2003.
     -- $1,000 to Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana on February 26, 2003.
     -- $500 to Ohio State Sen. Eric Fingerhut for his campaign against U.S. Sen. George Voinovich, on May 7, 2003.
     -- $500 to Rep. William Clay of Missouri on December 15, 2003, followed by a second $500 contribution on March 9, 2004.
     -- $500 to Rep. Danny Davis of Illinois on July 3, 2003.
     -- $250 to Rep. Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island on September 10, 2003.

Couric Uses Today Show to Extol Virtues
of Feminism and Steinem

Katie Couric devoted a taped segment Tuesday morning on Today to a very one-sided presentation on the feminist movement with a heavy emphasis on Katie's taped interview with Gloria Steinem. Couric summarized: "In a culture that sometimes celebrates women more for their breasts than their brains, it's important to recognize the doors that have been opened and those who have walked through them." But Couric had no time for conservative women who might disagree with her.

[The MRC's Tim Graham submitted this item to CyberAlert.]

MRC analyst Geoff Dickens reported that Couric first promoted the segment in the 7:30 half hour: "And we are women, hear us roar, or has it been reduced to a dull roar? What ever happened to the feminist movement? You might be surprised to hear that as Mark Twain would say reports of its death are greatly exaggerated." An hour later, Couric repeated: "Also coming up are we as women still separate but unequal? We're gonna take a closer look at the feminist movement and where it stands some 30 years after it began." Feminists would probably be surprised to hear they didn't start a movement until 1975 -- considering, for example, that Roe v. Wade became law in 1973.

     At 8:35, Couric used a recent controversy at Harvard as the excuse for her one-sided historical journey: "A remark made recently by Harvard's President Larry Summers suggesting that women may be innately less suited for careers in math and science created a huge brouhaha and reignited an age old debate. So we decided to take a look at just how far the women's movement has come in the past 30 years. In the seventies they took to the streets. Feminists following in the footsteps of pioneers like Elizabeth Cady Stanton who fought for voting rights, Margaret Sanger for reproductive rights, Rosa Parks for racial equality and for political parity Shirley Chisholm and so many others."

     Steinem told Couric: "It took 100 years for us to become human beings and to vote. If it took us a century to get identity not surprising that it will take a century to get equality."

     Over footage of last year's pro-abortion march, Couric rhapsodized: "Is feminism dead? By the looks of this March in Washington D.C. last April, more than a million strong, it's alive and well and attracting a whole new following."
     Clip of Steinem, addressing crowd: "More than a third of this march is women under 25-years-old."
     Couric explained the march displayed "New people, new energy, new attitudes."

     After more celebration of the march, Couric reported on a 2003 Harris poll in which "more than half of women and a third of men called themselves feminists. But there is some backlash against the word itself."
     Steinem: "There's been the same kind of demonizing of the word feminist as words like liberal or affirmative action and so on."
     Couric added: "For some women today it [the word feminism] seems too radical for comfort."

     But Couric rewarmed all of the same old lines about feminine inequality: "While nearly as many women are now in the workforce as men they are still paid less. About 76 cents for every dollar a man makes. Up from 59 cents in the seventies. For poorer women stuck in lower income jobs the gap is even wider."
     Steinem: "It will take, I don't know half a century at that rate we're going to get even to equal pay."
     Couric fretted: "And working mothers still struggle with inadequate, costly childcare. And workplaces that are far from family friendly. So many of the changes are being implemented at home. Recent studies show that younger women are putting less pressure on themselves to advance at work, opting for balance in their lives. And more men are assuming their share of the burden when it comes to raising children and household responsibilities. Progress the architects of feminism consider most pivotal."
     Steinem: "Until we have democratic families we're never gonna have true democracies outside the family."

     Couric soon concluded the segment: "In a culture that sometimes celebrates women more for their breasts than their brains it's important to recognize the doors that have been opened and those who have walked through them. And the ultimate women's liberation, the freedom to choose your own path."
     She asked Steinem: "As you see young girls how do you think they'll be different than you were or I was in terms of their opportunities and choices?"
     Steinem: "My generation said I'm not gonna be anything like my mother because we wrongly blamed our mothers for their subservient positions. But young women now say I hope I can have as interesting a life as my mother. Not the same life but as interesting a life. And that brings tears to my eyes you know because it's just, just so, so, so different."

Conservative women could have balanced NBC's portrait with some harsher assessments of where professional feminist groups have traveled today. At the Independent Women's Forum, for example, Carrie Lukas denounced the focus on "wage gap" statistics and noted the feminist silence of 2004:
"Throughout the campaign, the feminist movement belittled the progress of women in Afghanistan and Iraq. Reasonable people can disagree about whether the United States ought to have toppled Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. But only blind partisans would focus solely on the challenges and fail to celebrate that young girls are now free to attend school in Afghanistan and that Iraqi women no longer live in fear of a dictator."

For the whole article, which was one-half of a balanced Arizona Republic editorial-page debate with NOW President Kim Gandy, see: www.iwf.org

NBC could also have interviewed Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America, who has this take on how young women are leaving the feminist ideology behind:
"Today's young women have seen friends' ambitions short-circuited by the "sex is no big deal" culture, and they are turning away from the destructive lifestyles. Abortion rates among young women are declining because many of them are realizing that instead of solving problems, abortion can make them worse, like a lifetime of regret or infertility. Young women are growing increasingly knowledgeable about the realities of the sexual revolution's disastrous consequences for their mothers and grandmothers; they are a lot wiser and much more conservative." For more, see: www.cwfa.org

Lastly, it's worth noting that Couric's late sister, Emily, then a Democratic state senator in Virginia, starred in ads produced by Gloria Steinem's Voters for Choice group, which attacked George Allen, the subsequently-successful Republican Senate candidate. For details: www.mrc.org

Couric More Enthusiastic for Socialism
Than Even the French?

The French have let Katie Couric down. The co-host of NBC's Today led the liberal media's cheerleading when French Socialists imposed a 35-hour mandatory work week a few years ago, but Tuesday's Wall Street Journal reported that with their economy stagnating and productivity plummeting, the French now appear ready to back away from their anti-free market rules.

[The MRC's Rich Noyes submitted this item for CyberAlert.]

"Break out the band, bring on the drinks," NBC's Keith Miller trumpeted back on the August 1, 2001 Today. "The French are calling it a miracle. A government-mandated 35-hour work week is changing the French way of life." After hearing Miller's report, Katie Couric was enthusiastic: "The French, they've got it right, don't they?"

Since then, the French rules have proven to be an economic failure, and the Journal reported that France's National Assembly planned to loosen their rules and "allow private-sector employees to work longer weeks in exchange for overtime pay." The MRC's Charles Simpson noticed the item in Tuesday's International section of the Journal.

"The 35-hour regulations were passed by the Socialist government in the late 1990s to reduce unemployment," reporter Andres Cala related. "The theory was that companies would hire more workers to compensate for the fewer number of hours worked by each employee.
"However, the law didn't have the hoped for effect. France's unemployment rate has remained high -- around 10% -- and productivity has declined. French executives complain that the rule has damaged the French work ethic."

As recounted in the August 2, 2001 CyberAlert, the previous morning's Today show celebrated the socialist mandate as a wonderfully progressive step for the French. In setting up the segment, a giddy Couric insisted that the French were "making it work":
"Okay, so how does this sound to you shorter working hours, longer holidays and no paycuts? Economists said, 'no way Jose or Josette,' but the French are making it work. Unemployment is down, the French economy is strong and workers are smiling a lot more these days. NBC's Keith Miller has the story."

In his introduction, Miller was equally celebratory: "Break out the band, bring on the drinks. The French are calling it a miracle. A government-mandated 35-hour work week is changing the French way of life. Two years ago, in an effort to create more jobs, the government imposed a shorter work week on large companies, forcing them to hire more workers."

When the segment was over, Couric added her own exclamation point: "So great that young mother being able to come home at three every day and spend that time with her child. Isn't that nice? The French, they've got it right, don't they?"

For more on that segment, go to: www.mrc.org

Of course, just because the French have surrendered to economic reality doesn't mean that liberal journalists will.

On NBC's Law & Order: Murder of a "Conservative
Talk Show Host"

The plot of tonight's (Wednesday) Law & Order on NBC revolves around the murder of a "conservative talk show host."

The plot summary, for the February 9 episode, as posed on NBC.com:

"OBSESSION
"TALKED-ABOUT TALK SHOW HOST IS SILENCED BY GUNSHOTS AS DETECTIVES QUESTION MERRY WIDOW -- After a controversial and conservative talk show host is shot to death, Detectives Fontana (Dennis Farina) and Green (Jesse L. Martin) consider a wealth of likely suspects but focus on Miranda (guest star Paula Devicq ) - who would inherit his estate only upon death - as well as on Karen (guest star Dana Eskelson), a tormented woman who claims she had an affair with the new widow. As new A.D.A. Borgia (new series regular Annie Parisse, 'National Treasure') sizes up the case, she finds disturbing evidence that Karen was stalking the widow, whose secret love life yields a treasure trove of evidence. Sam Waterston, S. Epatha Merkerson and Fred Dalton Thompson also star."

NBC's page for the program: www.nbc.com

-- Brent Baker

Sign up for CyberAlerts:
Keep track of the latest instances of media bias and alerts to stories the major media are ignoring. Sign up to receive CyberAlerts via e-mail.

questions and comments about CyberAlert subscription

You can also learn what has been posted each day on the MRC’s Web site by subscribing to the “MRC Web Site News” distributed every weekday afternoon. To subscribe, go to: http://www.mrc.org/cybersub.asp#webnews