ABC's Terry Moran: For Obama, Presidency Is a 'Step Down' --2/23/2009

1. ABC's Terry Moran: For Obama, Presidency Is a 'Step Down'
Nightline co-anchor Terry Moran gave an interview on Friday to the Media Bistro's "Morning Media Menu" podcast and compared Barack Obama to George Washington. Talking to host and editor Steve Krakauer, Moran gushed: "I like to say that, in some ways, Barack Obama is the first President since George Washington to be taking a step down into the Oval Office. I mean, from visionary leader of a giant movement, now he's got an executive position that he has to perform in, in a way."

2. Cuomo Assures Viewers: Bill Clinton Had No Role in Bank Scandals
Good Morning America news anchor Chris Cuomo interviewed Bill Clinton on Friday and skipped any questions as to what role his administration might have had in creating the current economic scandals that are now plaguing America. Cuomo, whose Democratic brother Andrew was the former Housing and Urban Development secretary under President Clinton, and whose father was the former Democratic governor of New York, instead offered a summery defense of the ex-President. After the interview, he concluded the piece by asserting, "President Clinton has been brushed with blame about this [the banking collapse]. These toxic assets we're talking about, those securities, they took root during his administration. He says he now regrets that he deregulated derivatives, those assets." Cuomo continued, "But, he says, don't say he's to blame. He regulated banks more. That the banks he believed in didn't get us in this trouble. That was about the next administration."

3. CBS: 'Hardline' Netanyahu May 'Dim Hopes for Peace' in Israel
On Friday's CBS Early Show, correspondent Jeff Glor reported, through the prism of the "peace process" as the most relevant concern, on conservative leader Benjamin Netanyahu being chosen as Israel's Prime Minister: "Israel's president chose hardline Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu today to form a new Israeli government. As prime minister, Netanyahu will try to cobble together a coalition of right-wing parties. Such a government might dim hopes for peace with the Palestinians."

4. MSNBC: Capitalistic Oil Wealth to Blame for Sexism in Middle East
During the 3:00PM EST hour Friday on MSNBC, anchor Norah O'Donnell discovered the source of sexism in the Middle East was not Islamic fundamentalism, but rather, capitalism: "And to another big story, is oil behind sexism in the Middle East? It's a provocative new theory out there today, suggesting the real culprit of the lower status of women in the Middle East is because of the region's oil wealth." O'Donnell then turned to Sally Quinn of the Washington Post, who wrote about the theory on the newspaper's On Faith blog: "This is a hot topic, Sally. Do you believe that oil is behind sexism in the Middle East?" Quinn replied: "Well, I do think that it has a lot to do with it...when you have an oil-rich country, there's much less manufacturing, so that there are fewer jobs for women. But also because the country is so rich that women don't need to work and therefore they're comfortable and they stay home." Later, O'Donnell concluded: "But it's a very interesting question, it's not necessarily Islam, it may be more, and you would know this better than I, as -- because of what you're doing -- it may more be the wealth of that country."

ABC's Terry Moran: For Obama, Presidency
Is a 'Step Down'

Nightline co-anchor Terry Moran gave an interview on Friday to the Media Bistro's "Morning Media Menu" podcast and compared Barack Obama to George Washington. Talking to host and editor Steve Krakauer, Moran gushed: "I like to say that, in some ways, Barack Obama is the first President since George Washington to be taking a step down into the Oval Office. I mean, from visionary leader of a giant movement, now he's got an executive position that he has to perform in, in a way."

[MP3 audio clip [1] of Moran's quote]

On his Twitter page later, the ABC journalist attempted to explain his over-the-top comparison. Moran contended: "I said like only Washington, Obama came to office as more than a politician, a visionary leader for many. Now 's he's got a job." See Twitter: twitter.com [2]

[This item, by the MRC's Scott Whitlock, was posted Friday afternoon, with an audio clip, on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [3] ]

And while Moran seemed to link Obama to Washington, a man that many consider the greatest President ever, he still found time to critique other journalists. Speaking of Matt Lauer's pre-Super Bowl interview with the President, he described the NBC host's tone as "kind of, 'Hey, it must be neat to be President.'" Moran derided: "Which to me struck kind of an off-note, because you know, now he is President, and there is a necessary bit of distance there, which I detected."

Co-host Glynnis MacNicol, also an editor at Media Bistro, asked the Nightline anchor about journalists who have gone to work for the Obama administration and whether they're in the pocket of the Obama. Moran admitted: "I don't think its any secret, and it hasn't been for 30 plus years, that journalists in their personal views at the national level tend to be more liberal than the rest of America, and I think that every poll has basically shown that."

Moran then added that he didn't think this bias skewed coverage in the President's favor. Predicably, he offered up a common journalist canard about the Iraq war: "Many people said that the coverage of the run-up to the Iraq war was skewed to the right, rather than the left." In fact, as a study by the Media Research Center found, the media, and ABC in particular, was extremely negative and critical of the Bush's motives for going to war in Iraq. See the MRC's "Peter's Peace Platoon" at: www.mediaresearch.org [4]

See Morning Media Menu to listen to entire podcast: www.mediabistro.com [5]

Just over a week earlier Moran's reverence for Obama came through during an interview. The February 11 CyberAlert item, "ABC's Moran: Obama 'Too Nice,' Empathizes: 'You Got No Honeymoon,'" recounted:

In excerpts aired on Tuesday's World News, of Terry Moran's interview with President Barack Obama for Nightline, Moran was as sycophantic toward Obama as he was during the campaign, lamenting Obama "got no honeymoon" and bemoaning the new President had been "too nice" to Republicans. "Mr. President," Moran rued in overlooking the ongoing honeymoon from the media, "you got no honeymoon. Not a single Republican vote in the House on your first major piece of legislation." Moran speculated: "I wonder in coming into the presidency, maybe you were too nice? If I'm a Republican Senator or a Republican Congress, I think you're a very nice guy but maybe I don't have enough reason to fear you."

See: www.mrc.org [6]

Thanks to MRC intern Mike Sargent for transcribing the podcast. A partial transcript of the "Morning Media Menu" podcast interview follows:

STEVE KRAKAUER: I want to talk about another issue, just sort of the campaign and covering Barack Obama. You know, you were on the campaign trail covering the President, interviewed him several times before he was elected, and since have sort of gone back on this trail of sorts as he tries to sell the stimulus plan around the country. And interviewed him as well last week. What do you see as the difference in coverage that he's getting since he's been in office?
TERRY MORAN: Well, now he's got the job. I like to say that, in some ways, Barack Obama is the first President since George Washington to be taking a step down into the Oval Office. I mean, from visionary leader of a giant movement, now he's got an executive position that he has to perform in, in a way. And I think that the coverage reflects that. How does he do? Uh, how does he do navigating the shoals of politics in Washington and Congress? How does he do formulating actual policy, as opposed to articulating ideals? And do we like that policy? Will it work? So he's getting more regular scrutiny, as is necessary. I also think that there's something in the White House Press Corps, which is healthy, where you're judged by your peers, to some extent, on how tough you can be. How sharp your questions are, how aggressive your coverage is, that's the standard for success among White House reporters. And I think he's essentially learning, for many White House reporters, they wake up every morning thinking 'How do I take a pound of flesh out of the President today?' And all that is healthy.
KRAKAUER: Wow. All right. When you interviewed the President last week, and you actually, also, another Twitter reference here, you tweeted about what the first question should be, what you should ask him, and (NOISE) I'm sort of thinking about this here, how did you see his demeanor, was it the same as when you've interviewed him in the past?
MORAN: Well, he had just walked out of a big rally, so he was pumped. So, that was similar. But I think there's no question that the office changes a person, and ought to. I get a sense of distance there. I think for a lot of reporters that covered him, he's a very informal man by his nature, relaxed, friendly like a lot of politicians, and I think that bred a kind of familiarity in interviews. You saw that in some ways in Matt Lauer's Super Bowl interview, that still kind of, 'Hey, it must be neat to be president.' Which to me struck kind of an off-note, because you know, now he is President, and there is a necessary bit of distance there, which I detected. He's still a genial, friendly person, but I would say that the responsibility of office removes him from being someone you can shoot the bull with, necessarily, to something else. It wasn't a huge change, I would say. I actually think that George Bush changed a lot more by the end of his presidency than Obama has so far, but yeah, there's a bit of a change.
KRAKAUER: We've got time.
GLYNNIS MACNICOL: It's strange, the blanket coverage he's getting. He's actually only been in office for less than a month, or a month today, I guess.
KRAKAUER: Yeah, a month
MACNICOL: Yeah, a month today. We've been talking a lot this week about a lot of journalists decamping to work for the administration, and a number of people have commented on that, as being a sign that Obama has the media in his pocket. I'm wondering if you think that's what it is, or if it has more to do with the terrible economy and the pain that the media industry is suffering right now?
MORAN: Well, I think it's both economic and ideological. I don't think its any secret and it hasn't been for 30 plus years that journalists in their personal views at the national level tend to be more liberal than the rest of America, and I think that every poll has basically shown that. I don't think that means that their coverage has necessarily been skewed. Many people said that the coverage of the run-up to the Iraq war was skewed to the right, rather than the left. And the way Bill Clinton was covered, I don't think betokens a liberal bias, necessarily. So, the one doesn't necessarily follow the other, but I think it's hard for journalists to deny, that on many social issues certainly, we tend to be more liberal. That said, I don't think Obama's going to get a pass as President, no President does, or should, as we talked about earlier. He'll get a good grilling, a good going-over. And then the economics of it, as you pointed out. This is a very, very uncertain time if you're in the journalism business. You know, what comes next? And I think a lot of people are trying to add another dimension into their career, and serve the country, let's remember that. You know, It is public service, something that is honorable and a great adventure. So I think all those things are a part of what you're seeing.

Cuomo Assures Viewers: Bill Clinton Had
No Role in Bank Scandals

Good Morning America news anchor Chris Cuomo interviewed Bill Clinton on Friday and skipped any questions as to what role his administration might have had in creating the current economic scandals that are now plaguing America. Cuomo, whose Democratic brother Andrew was the former Housing and Urban Development secretary under President Clinton, and whose father was the former Democratic governor of New York, instead offered a summery defense of the ex-President.

After the interview, he concluded the piece by asserting, "President Clinton has been brushed with blame about this [the banking collapse]. These toxic assets we're talking about, those securities, they took root during his administration. He says he now regrets that he deregulated derivatives, those assets." Cuomo continued, "But, he says, don't say he's to blame. He regulated banks more. That the banks he believed in didn't get us in this trouble. That was about the next administration."

[This item, by the MRC's Scott Whitlock, was posted Friday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org:newsbusters.org [7] ]

If Cuomo actually asked Clinton about any of this, it didn't make it into the taped piece. Instead, he began the segment by cooing, "You know, it's interesting. For all the former President's intelligence, it's his experience that he had that may be most instructive here." The ABC news anchor was referring to the similarly Democratic Congress that Clinton presided over when he took office in 1993. (Of course, despite that Democratic Congress, Clinton failed on big ticket issues such as health care. So, it's unclear how much of an expert he would be.)

Cuomo did not ask about the former Commander in Chief's role in pushing the Community Reinvestment Act and the idea that banks should offer loans to low income individuals. He also skipped the fact that the February 23 issue of Time magazine named him one of the "25 People to Blame" for the current economic meltdown. See Time: www.time.com [8]

On the issue of President Obama, the GMA host did offer some challenging questions. Regarding the stimulus plan, he queried, "Why should we be confident that spending is the way out of this situation?" On Obama's relentlessly negative outlook over the last few weeks, Cuomo pressed, "Would you like to see him be more positive? He's had some dour proclamations recently. And, yet, he kind of came in on this wave of hope. 'I'm the voice of hope.'"

A transcript of the February 20 segment, which aired at 7:04am:

SAWYER: But we have a big interview on all of this. Former President Bill Clinton. Joined now by Chris Cuomo. You sat down with him.
CHRIS CUOMO: I did. You know, it's interesting. For all the former President's intelligence, it's his experience that he had that may be most instructive here. Remember, President Clinton dealt with a Congress where Republicans and Democrats were completely divided. Now, despite the current lack of bipartisanship, President Clinton believes President Obama is making all the right moves. That all the billions in stimulus is justified and that he may have even asked for more. Most of the work on the economy so far has been directed at the banks. Only now are we seeing direct action for homeowners. Do you believe that was a mistake? That we should have tried to help regular families, homeowners, earlier?
BILL CLINTON: Yes. But that's not President Obama's mistake. I think that should have been done a year ago. I personally believe, based on my experience over the years with the economy, that if we had moved aggressively on this home problem a year and a half ago, even a year ago, as much as 90 percent of the current crisis could have been avoided.
CUOMO: The stimulus plan, obviously, that is the Obama administration. Why should we be confident that spending is the way out of this situation?
CLINTON: I believe the stimulus plan is a bridge over troubled water. I think it's absolutely the right thing to do. And I'm a fiscal conservative. You know, I balanced the budget. I paid $600 billion down on the debt for the American people. I don't like deficit spending. He has no choice. The economy is contracting. He has to prop it up.
CUOMO: You would have done this?
CLINTON: Absolutely. You know, we might have had differences around the edges. But the point is, you have to have a stimulus plan now to get you from here to the time when the bank performs and the other financial changes kick in. I might have even proposed more money.
CUOMO: What does it mean that he has got no Republican partnership at all, relatively on this? And that was a big promise of then-candidate Obama. I'm the guy who can reach across the aisle?
CLINTON: I think some of them are still wedded to the economic philosophy that they have espouse espoused. Then, I think some of them that- where a few of them were cynical. They figure they ought to be the just-say-no party. That was Newt Gingrich's position in '93 and '94. And it worked for them then. But America was a different country then. So, sooner or later, I think if he keeps chugging along, keeps the door open. Invite them to every economic conference, invite them to every meeting, eventually he'll start getting some votes.
CUOMO: Would you like to see him be more positive? He's had some dour proclamations recently. And, yet, he kind of came in on this wave of hope. "I'm the voice of hope." Has not been that hopeful lately.
CLINTON: I'll tell you what I'd like. First of all, the last thing you want to do when you take office in a time like this, is give people a lot of inane happy talk and false promises about how quickly we can get out of this. Now, the only thing I would like him to do, I would just like him to end by saying that he is hopeful and completely convinced we're going to come through this.
CUOMO: People need to hear that, don't they?
CLINTON: Yeah. And it's worth reminding the American people, that for more than 230 years everyone who bet against America lost money. It's a mistake to bet against this country over the long run. I just want him to, to embody that and to share that. But I actually- I like the fact that he didn't come in and give us a bunch of happy talk. I'm glad he shot straight with us. I just want the American people to know that he's confident that we are going to get out of this. And he feels good about the long run.
CUOMO: Let me ask you just two or three quick questions. If you give the administration a grade so far, what would it be?
CLINTON: A.
CUOMO: Hope index. Zero being no hope, ten being 100 percent confident we'll get through it. Where are you on the hope index?
CLINTON: Nine-plus.
CUOMO: Nine-plus?
CLINTON: Absolutely.
CUOMO: When do we hear good news?
CLINTON: November 8th at 3:30 in the afternoon. No. I say that to make the following point. This is really important for the American people to understand. Over $30 trillion of wealth has disappeared in the last five months. There's no known model that will calculate, number one, the economic impact of what we're doing. Number two, the economic impact of what others are doing. And number three, the continuing echo-contraction of what's already happening. That's why no one can give you an answer. But, I think you will see some good economic news from the stimulus, fairly soon.
CUOMO: Circle that date, November 8th, 3:30. Very precise. You know, it was very interesting. President Clinton has been brushed with blame about this. These toxic assets we're talking about, those securities, they took root during his administration. He says he now regrets that he deregulated derivatives, those assets. But, he says don't say he's to blame. He regulated banks more. That the banks he believed in didn't get us in this trouble. That was about the next administration.
SAWYER: You do love hearing him say that everybody who bet against America-
CUOMO: They lose.
SAWYER: They lose. They lose big.

CBS: 'Hardline' Netanyahu May 'Dim Hopes
for Peace' in Israel

On Friday's CBS Early Show, correspondent Jeff Glor reported, through the prism of the "peace process" as the most relevant concern, on conservative leader Benjamin Netanyahu being chosen as Israel's Prime Minister: "Israel's president chose hardline Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu today to form a new Israeli government. As prime minister, Netanyahu will try to cobble together a coalition of right-wing parties. Such a government might dim hopes for peace with the Palestinians."

[This item, by the MRC's Kyle Drennen, was posted Friday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [9] ]

An article on the CBS News Web site stressed the importance of Netanyahu forming a moderate centrist government: "Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, in a seeming about-face, indicated she might be willing to come on board a Netanyahu government. But Livni, a centrist, would certainly exact a high price: sharing the prime minister's job she so fervently sought with a reluctant Netanyahu. Should he balk, his alternative would be an unstable coalition of right-wingers sure to collide with the Obama administration and its ambitious plans for ending 60 years of conflict between Israel and the Palestinians." Later, the article stated: "With Livni out, Netanyahu might have little choice but to forge a coalition with nationalist and religious parties opposed to peacemaking with the Palestinians and Israel's other Arab neighbors."

On the February 11 Early Show, correspondent Richard Roth discussed the implications of a Netanyahu victory: "...there's a clear sign Israel shifted to the right. It may take weeks to create the next government here, but whoever leads it, is likely to have obligations to parties on the fringe of Israeli politics." On the May 31, 1996 CBS Evening News, then anchor Dan Rather reported on Netanyahu's previous election as Israel's prime minister: "Right-wing hardliner Benjamin Netanyahu is declared Israel's new Prime Minister."

[Read the CBS News/Associated Press article here: www.cbsnews.com [10]

Read the February 12 CyberAlert about Roth's report here: www.mrc.org [11] ]

MSNBC: Capitalistic Oil Wealth to Blame
for Sexism in Middle East

During the 3:00PM EST hour Friday on MSNBC, anchor Norah O'Donnell discovered the source of sexism in the Middle East was not Islamic fundamentalism, but rather, capitalism: "And to another big story, is oil behind sexism in the Middle East? It's a provocative new theory out there today, suggesting the real culprit of the lower status of women in the Middle East is because of the region's oil wealth." O'Donnell then turned to Sally Quinn of the Washington Post, who wrote about the theory on the newspaper's On Faith blog: "This is a hot topic, Sally. Do you believe that oil is behind sexism in the Middle East?" Quinn replied: "Well, I do think that it has a lot to do with it...when you have an oil-rich country, there's much less manufacturing, so that there are fewer jobs for women. But also because the country is so rich that women don't need to work and therefore they're comfortable and they stay home."

Later, O'Donnell concluded: "But it's a very interesting question, it's not necessarily Islam, it may be more, and you would know this better than I, as -- because of what you're doing -- it may more be the wealth of that country." Quinn replied: "Well, it is the wealth. The -- part of it, too, has to do with culture. I mean, that they come from a culture where women don't work. And so, because the oil-rich countries, all of the jobs that are involved around oil are much more male-oriented jobs."

[This item, by the MRC's Kyle Drennen, was posted Friday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [12] ]

Quinn also suggested that the oil-wealth of Middle Eastern countries made people so financially "comfortable" that women can afford to stay at home and therefore have become complacent to sexist treatment: "...it obviously follows that here you have these oil-rich countries and women are sort of cosseted and it's a double-edged sword. Because on the one hand, they're much more comfortable, they don't have to work, they can shop, they can gossip, they can go to lunch. On the other hand, they're held back and living in a totally male dominated society...I think most of them are bored out of their minds, the rich ones...I think a lot of women, and this certainly goes for women in this country too, would probably rather spend more time at home when they have little children and not have to work full time. But I think that, in general, most women would prefer a full -- a more fulfilling life than just sitting around and eating bonbons all day."

Here is the full transcript of the segment:

3:26PM SEGMENT:
NORAH O'DONNELL: And to another big story, is oil behind sexism in the Middle East? It's a provocative new theory out there today, suggesting the real culprit of the lower status of women in the Middle East is because of the region's oil wealth. According to a World Bank report, women make up less than a third of the work force in the Middle East. Let's bring in Sally Quinn on the Washington Post and co-founder of On Faith. Sally, I just want to read from your blog post about the theory posed by Michael Ross. Quote, 'the concentration of the production of oil eliminates manufacturing, where women have the best chance for jobs. But more interestingly, because the average woman living in an oil-rich country does not need the extra income she stays home. Therefore the culture and society are dominated by men and women have much less political influence.' This is a hot topic, Sally. Do you believe that oil is behind sexism in the Middle East?
SALLY QUINN: Well, I do think that it has a lot to do with it. And I -- this was a whole new idea for me. I just came back from Doha, from a Brookings conference on Islam. And I was stunned and as you can imagine, this was very controversial in the panel where this paper was introduced. But what he did say was, first of all, that when you have an oil-rich country, there's much less manufacturing, so that there are fewer jobs for women. But also because the country is so rich that women don't need to work and therefore they're comfortable and they stay home. So my question is, do you -- do women really want to work-
O'DONNELL: Right.
QUINN: -or do they work because they have to? I mean, when you look at the most oil-rich countries in the United -- I mean in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman, those countries have the fewer women vote -- they don't -- they have the fewest women in parliament. They have much more reluctance to grant women the vote. Fewer women in the work force and fewer women's rights.
O'DONNELL: Yeah.
QUINN: And -- and so, it obviously follows that here you have these oil-rich countries and women are sort of cosseted and it's a double-edged sword. Because on the one hand, they're much more comfortable, they don't have to work, they can shop, they can gossip, they can go to lunch. On the other hand, they're held back and living in a totally male dominated society.
O'DONNELL: In Saudi Arabia, women make up 5% of the work force. Women in Saudi Arabia cannot drive, although the King may reconsider that this year because one of his family members is pushing for him to change that, that could be a real change. But it's a very interesting question, it's not necessarily Islam, it may be more, and you would know this better than I, as -- because of what you're doing -- it may more be the wealth of that country.
QUINN: Well, it is the wealth. The -- part of it, too, has to do with culture. I mean, that they come from a culture where women don't work. And so, because the oil-rich countries, all of the jobs that are involved around oil are much more male-oriented jobs. There aren't that many jobs for women anyway. And yet, these women are very well educated. A lot of them go to school in the United States or England. They come back, they're well educated. I think most of them are bored out of their minds, the rich ones.
O'DONNELL: Yeah.
QUINN: I think a lot of women, and this certainly goes for women in this country too, would probably rather spend more time at home when they have little children and not have to work full time. But I think that, in general, most women would prefer a full -- a more fulfilling life than just sitting around and eating bonbons all day.
O'DONNELL: It's a provocative theory and it's great. Sally Quinn, great blog, really interesting. Thanks so much. We appreciate it.
QUINN: Thanks.

-- Brent Baker