|
2. CNN Hits GOP Candidates from Right as They Hit Dems from Left
3. CBS Pounces on 'Potential Political Embarrassment for Giuliani'
4. NBC & CBS Morning Shows Skip Bill Clinton's Flip-Flop on Iraq War
5. Poll: Twice as Many See Media as Too Liberal as Too Conservative
Not only did General Kerr ask a question via a YouTube video -- "I want to know why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians?" -- but he was also present in the audience to assess the answers and pose a follow-up. General Kerr's, whose question came 47 minutes into the 9pm Eastern hour the debate, is also part of the Servicemembers' Legal Defense Network's advisory council, an organization "dedicated to ending discrimination against and harassment of military personnel affected by 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and related forms of intolerance." See: www.sldn.org [2] Host Anderson Cooper first directed Kerr's question to California Congressman Duncan Hunter, followed by responses from Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. Cooper then asked Kerr if he was satisfied by those who had answered his question, and was given a minute to address the candidates. Senator McCain then replied to Kerr's question. During the post-debate coverage on CNN, Bill Bennett mentioned that he was receiving "a ton of e-mails" about Kerr being on Hillary Clinton's "gay steering committee" and a bit later during the post-debate coverage Cooper confirmed the tips Bennett received: "Apparently, there was a press release from some six months ago. Hillary Clinton's office saying that he had been named to some steering committee. We don't know if he's still on it. We're trying to find out that information. But certainly, had we had that information, we would have acknowledged that in using his question, if we had used it at all." [This item is adapted from a Wednesday night posting, by the MRC's Matthew Balan, on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [3] ] A full transcript of the exchange between Kerr, Cooper, and the candidates:
BRIG. GEN. KEITH KERR, U.S. ARMY (RET.) IN VIDEO: My name is Keith Kerr, Santa Rosa, California. I'm a retired brigadier general with 43 years of service, and I'm a graduate of the Special Forces Officer Corps, the Command and General Staff Course, and the Army War College. And I'm an openly gay man. I want to know why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians? A full transcript of the exchange between Bennett and host Anderson Cooper, which took place at the bottom half of the 10pm Eastern hour:
BILL BENNETT: On that 'don't ask, don't tell' [question], I'm getting a ton of e-mails saying that this guy who asked the question was part of Hillary Clinton's gay steering committee. I don't know if that's true or not, but if he is, that certainly should have been disclosed...."
At the close of the 10pm Eastern hour of post-debate coverage, host Anderson Cooper confirmed the tips Bennett received:
[This item, by the MRC's Brad Wilmouth, was posted Wednesday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [4] ] The July 24 CyberAlert item, "CNN's You Tube Debate Delivers Questions from the Left," recounted: During Monday night's CNN/You Tube Democratic presidential debate, the candidates were hit with questions from the left over the right by nearly a 3-to-1 margin: 17 liberal questions posed in You Tube clips versus six conservative clips. With CNN's You Tube forum with Republican presidential candidates set for September 17, CNN has eight weeks to ensure an equal approach of of pushing each party from the direction of its base, so Republicans should be pressed from the right by about 3-to-1 over from the left. But if most of the questions to Republicans also come from the left, the CNN/You Tube debates will have served as little more than prime hours dedicated to advancing liberal causes. Amongst the questions from the left at Monday night's event, one about reparations ("African-Americans ever going to get reparations for slavery?"), Katrina ("Do you believe the response in the wake of Hurricane Katrina would have been different if the storm hit an affluent, predominantly white city?"), getting out of Iraq ("How many more soldiers must die while these political games continue in our government? Is the reason that we are still in Iraq and seemingly will be for some time due to the Democrats' fear that blame for the loss of the war will be placed on them by the Republican spin machine?"), "free" health care ("What would you, as President, do to make low-cost or free preventative medicine available for everybody in this country?") and two advocating same-sex marriage. For the complete rundown: www.mrc.org [5] On Wednesday, November 28, three questions were asked from the right on the issue of illegal immigration. One questioner charged that under Rudolph Giuliani's leadership, New York City was a sanctuary city, and asked if the former mayor would "aid and abet" illegal immigration as President. Another questioner requested that the candidates pledge to oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants as President. Then came the first question from the left in the form of an employer requesting more immigrants as guest workers to fill their demand for employees, followed by another question from the right challenging Mike Huckabee over his support for awarding in-state college tuition rates to some illegal immigrants in Arkansas. Other questions asked from the right included three questions about cutting government spending, and two questions that pushed for either cutting taxes or resisting tax increases. The issue of guns was the subject of three questions asked from an arguably conservative point of view, including one question that challenged Giuliani for his past support of gun control. The subject soon turned to abortion, with one questioner asking if the candidates would support a federal law banning abortion, which could arguably be categorized as being posed from the right, with a second questioner asking about what penalty there should be for a woman who has an illegal abortion, a question most likely asked from a liberal point of view. As the topic turned to religion, one questioner asked how Jesus would approach the death penalty, arguably an anti-death penalty question, while another asked candidates if they believed in the entire Bible, which seemed to come from a conservative point of view. After about 9:20pm EST, as the debate turned toward foreign policy and military issues, more questions started to slant toward a liberal point of view. One questioner asked how America would repair its image with the Muslim world in the face of the Iraq war, while another questioner queried how most of the candidates could support waterboarding of terror suspects in the face of John McCain's opposition to the practice. Then came the final question that was asked from a conservative point of view, as one man challenged the candidates to pledge commitment to a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq. Additional questions from the left included a question from an animated Dick Cheney wondering how much power each candidate would delegate to his Vice President, followed by two questions about gay rights. The first gay rights question came from a retired Army general who, as documented in #1 above, turned out to be affiliated with Hillary Clinton's campaign, which was brought to CNN host Anderson Cooper's attention by conservative commentator Bill Bennett about half an hour after the debate ended. The last ideological question came as one questioner asked the candidates whether they would accept the endorsement of the Log Cabin Republicans.
Reporter Byron Pitts asserted "the Giuliani campaign is once again fending off new questions about an old affair," explaining that "according to the Web site Politico.com, in 2000, as Giuliani was beginning his not-so-secret extramarital relationship with Judith Nathan, the woman who eventually became his third wife, he billed obscure city agencies thousands of dollars in expenses for his police security detail in the Hamptons off Long Island where Nathan was living." For the Politico story: www.politico.com [6] [This item was posted Wednesday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [7] ] The November 12 NewsBusters posting, "CBS on Kerik: 'Poster Child as to Why Giuliani Shouldn't Be President,'" recounted:
In the Hsu story, CBS reporter Sandra Hughes didn't warn about any negative impact on the Hillary Clinton campaign or speculate about what Hillary Clinton knew about Hsu's criminal past or suspect bundling. But in the Giuliani piece, Pitts predicted: "Kerik's legal problems could mean political problems for Giuliani and the inevitable questions of the presidential candidate: What did he know and when did he know it?" In an exchange with Kerik, Pitts proposed: "There are people who say that you, forgive me, are a poster child as to why Giuliani shouldn't be President, because of your own troubles."... For the entire item: www.mrc.org [8] The MRC's Brad Wilmouth corrected the closed-captioning against the video for the November 28 CBS Evening News story:
BYRON PITTS: On a night when they would rather fine tune answers for tonight's GOP debate, the Giuliani campaign is once again fending off new questions about an old affair. According to the Web site Politico.com, in 2000, as Giuliani was beginning his not-so-secret extramarital relationship with Judith Nathan, the woman who eventually became his third wife, he billed obscure city agencies thousands of dollars in expenses for his police security detail in the Hamptons off Long Island where Nathan was living. For example, in one instance, $34,000 worth of travel expenses were placed in the budget for the New York City Loft Board. [UPDATE: On Thursday night, November 29, both ABC's World News and the NBC Nightly News aired stories on this subject, with denials from Giuliani about any impropriety. The CBS Evening News also ran a follow up with Giuliani denouncing the attack as "a political hit job."]
After acknowledging that the ex-President did call for the U.N. weapons inspectors to have more time, Tapper clarified the record: "...[Bill Clinton] was hardly, at least publicly, an opponent of going to war against Saddam Hussein." The ABC journalist then read from a 2003 speech on the Clinton Foundation's Web site that featured the former Commander in Chief asserting: "I supported the President when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." So, despite the fact that ample information exists calling into question the validity of Clinton's recent statement, only GMA covered the story. (Tuesday night, the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscast all aired stories. See item #3 above.) [This item, by Scott Whitlock, was posted Wednesday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [9] ] One point that no reporter has mentioned is that this isn't the first time Bill Clinton has offered confusing explanations for a conflict with Iraq. On July 31, 1992, the New York Times featured a quote from then-candidate Clinton about the first Gulf War: In the Associated Press article, Mr. Clinton is quoted as saying that, if he had been a member of Congress, he probably -- not certainly -- would have voted with the majority to grant the President war-making authority, but that he personally agreed with the arguments voiced by the minority, that the United Nations sanctions ought to be given more time to work. "I guess I would have voted for the majority if it was a close vote," Mr. Clinton was quoted as saying. "But I agree with the arguments the minority made." For entire article, see the July 31, 1992 edition of the New York Times: query.nytimes.com [10] A transcript of the GMA segment, which aired at 7:03am on November 28:
CHRIS CUOMO: Now to presidential politics in this country and whether former President Bill Clinton helps or hurts Hillary's run for the White House, especially after his latest comments on the Iraq war. Our senior political correspondent Jake Tapper is in Washington. Morning, Jake.
By two-to-one, 40 percent to 21 percent, Americans "believe the media is too liberal" over "too conservative," the just-released "National Leadership Index" poll by the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, determined. Harvard's findings in the survey taken in September match a Gallup poll, also conducted in September, which found "more than twice as many Americans say the news media are too liberal (45%) rather than too conservative (18%)." In the Harvard poll, while 68 percent of Republicans said they think "the press is too liberal," 35 percent of independents agree and even 25 percent of Democrats consider the media to be too liberal, nearly as many as the 28 percent who see it as too conservative. The Harvard survey discovered widespread dissatisfaction with how the media are coving the presidential campaign as 64 percent "say they do not trust the news media's campaign coverage," 88 percent "somewhat or strongly agree that the news media focuses too much on trivial rather than important issues," 84 percent "believe the news media has too much influence on voters' decisions" and 83 percent think "large corporations have too much influence over what information the news media reports during the campaign." An excerpt from the PDF of the report released on November 28 by the Center for Public Leadership, directed by David Gergen, at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government: ....Leaders in the press have inspired less confidence than leaders in any other sector during each of the three years of the National Leadership Index (2005-2007). Given the central role of the news media in covering presidential politics, Americans were asked how they felt about media coverage of the 2008 campaign. 64% of Americans say they do not trust the news media's campaign coverage... 88% somewhat or strongly agree that the news media focuses too much on trivial rather than important issues 84% believe the news media has too much influence on voters' decisions 83% believe that large corporations have too much influence over what information the news media reports during the campaign... Americans say that what they want most, but are getting least, from news media coverage of the election is substantive information about what the candidates stand for. For instance: 92% say that it is somewhat or very important that the news media provide information on candidates' specific policy plans, but 61% believe that the news media is not providing enough coverage of policy plans 89% say that information on candidates' personal ethics or values is somewhat or very important, but 43% say that the news media is not providing enough coverage of candidates' ethics and values... More than 40% of Americans also believe that the news media does not provide enough coverage of candidates' general political values or philosophy, past positions on political issues, and sources of campaign contributions. Americans say they are getting too much coverage of the campaign topics they are least interested in, such as candidates' personal lives, negative ads, and "gotcha'" moments. For instance: 70% say that coverage of negative ads is not very or not at all important, but 65% say the news media is providing too much coverage of negative ads 67% say that coverage of embarrassing incidents or mistakes that make a candidate look bad is not very or not at all important, but 68% say the news media is providing too much coverage of embarrassing incidents and mistakes. 52% say that coverage of candidates' family and private lives is not very or not at all important, but 48% say the news media is providing too much coverage of candidates' family and private lives... Do you think that the press coverage of the election is politically biased? If yes, do you think it is too liberal or too conservative? 61% of Americans believe the news media's election coverage is politically biased: 40% believe the media is too liberal 21% believe the media is too conservative Only 30% believe that media coverage of the campaign is not biased in a liberal or conservative direction.... Republicans have the strongest attitudes -- 68% believe that the press is too liberal. Independents and Democrats are more ambivalent: 34% of Independents believe that the press is not politically biased, and 35% believe that it is too liberal Democrats are the most likely to believe that the press is not politically biased (38%), and are statistically equally likely to believe that the press is too conservative (28%) or too liberal (25%)...
END of Excerpt For the PDF of the full report: www.ksg.harvard.edu [12] Two previous CyberAlert items which documented polls earlier this year showing public recognition of liberal bias: The August 13 CyberAlert article, "Most See Media as Liberal, More Trust Military than Media on Iraq," recounted: Many Americans do not believe the news media are fair, accurate or even moral, according to a new survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The poll of 1500 Americans conducted late last month found that most of the public thinks news organizations are politically biased (55%) and often publish inaccurate stories (53%), and that roughly a third of the audience say the media are too critical of America (43%), hurt democracy (36%) and are immoral (32%). Half of Americans (52%) label the media as liberal, led by self-described Republicans (75%) but also large percentages of independents (49%) and even Democrats (37%). And while journalists tout themselves as the public's objective eyes and ears, many more Americans are confident that the military provides an accurate view of the war in Iraq (52%), compared with 42 percent who trust that the press offers accurate reports. Perhaps not surprisingly, Pew discovered that those who have chosen to bypass traditional news outlets in favor of the Internet give the "harshest indictments of the press." For the entire CyberAlert rundown: www.mrc.org [13] The July 17 CyberAlert item, "Rasmussen Poll: By 2-to-1, Nets Biased to Left; FNC Less Biased," reported: As highlighted Monday night by FNC's Brit Hume, a new Rasmussen Reports poll discovered that, by about two-to-one or greater, the public recognize a liberal bias over a conservative bias on ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, NPR as well as in the New York Times and Washington Post. "By a 39 percent to 20 percent margin," a Friday summary of their survey relayed, "American adults believe that the three major broadcast networks deliver news with a bias in favor of liberals." The public perceive liberal bias by 33 percent to 16 percent for CNN and 27 percent to 14 percent for NPR. More believe FNC delivers the news with "neither" a bias in favor of liberals or conservatives than see ABC, CBS, CNN or NBC as unbiased: While 25 percent consider the broadcast networks to be without a slant, 32 percent think CNN is "without bias," but even more, 36 percent, say that about the Fox News Channel. On the newspaper side, in results released Sunday, Rasmussen learned than Americans see the Washington Post as liberal over conservative by about two-to-one (30 to 16 percent) while it's closer to four-to-one (40 to 11 percent) for the New York Times. "One of the more startling details," Rasmussen proposed, is that while liberals see all broadcast outlets and most newspapers as having a bias in favor of conservatives, even "25 percent of liberals see a liberal bias at the New York Times while only 17 percent see a conservative bias. This makes the New York Times the only media outlet that liberals are more likely to see as having a liberal bias than a conservative bias." For the rest of the CyberAlert article: www.mrc.org [14] -- Brent Baker
|
CNN, as part of its Republican debate with YouTube on Wednesday night, failed to mention that retired General Keith Kerr, who announced he was gay after his retirement from the Army, is a member of Hillary Clinton's "LGBT Americans For Hillary Steering Committee." See: 
Wednesday night's CNN/YouTube presidential debate for the Republican candidates largely lived up to its promise to be a debate fitting for Republican voters as the vast majority of the questions used were asked from a conservative point of view. But the GOP debate's slant toward conservative questions was less than the July 23 CNN/YouTube Democratic debate's slant toward liberal questions. On Wednesday, out of a total of 34 video questions presented, conservative questions outnumbered liberal questions by 14 to 8, with the remaining questions ideologically ambiguous or neutral. During the Democratic debate, out of a total of 38 video questions, the slant toward liberal questions came in at 17 liberal to 6 conservative, with the remainder ambiguous or neutral. 
Less than three weeks after the CBS Evening News used the indictments of Bernard Kerik to relay how "people" say he's "a poster child as to why Giuliani shouldn't be President," Katie Couric pounced on a revelation not considered newsworthy by ABC and NBC as she teased Wednesday's newscast, "A potential political embarrassment for Rudy Giuliani: Questions about how he billed New York City taxpayers for his security. Was he trying to hide something?" ABC and NBC ran full stories on Bill Clinton's inaccurate claim that he "opposed Iraq from the beginning," a remark CBS limited to a brief item from Couric following the Giuliani story. 
The CBS Evening News, which has aired only one full story on the scandal surrounding Hillary Clinton's fugitive donor Norman Hsu, on Friday night ran its second full story on the impact on Rudy Giuliani of Bernard Kerik's indictments as Byron Pitts told Kerik that "people" say you're "a poster child as to why Giuliani shouldn't be President." Back on August 31, in the newscast's only full story on Hsu, fill-in anchor Harry Smith didn't even mention Hillary Clinton's name in his introduction, but on Friday Katie Couric put Giuliani front and center: "Kerik isn't the only one who could face trouble. It's also bad news for his friend and mentor, Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani." 
KATIE COURIC: Now to the presidential campaign and new problems tonight for Rudy Giuliani. Some potentially embarrassing questions came up today that date back to his days as mayor of New York. Byron Pitts is covering the Giuliani campaign. 
MIKE ALLEN, POLITICO.COM: These were records that the city controller had tried to get in the past, but the mayor's offices said they couldn't be released because of security. 
Wednesday's editions of the CBS Early Show and NBC's Today show both ignored Bill Clinton's incredible assertion on Tuesday that he opposed the Iraq war from its inception. Only Good Morning America correspondent Jake Tapper pointed out the obvious fact that Clinton was no vocal critic of the military action. Filing a report on the subject, Tapper incredulously wondered: "Bill Clinton opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning?" 