| |
|
By Geoffrey Dickens
 Donald Trump’s first year in office isn’t even half over but the liberal media is ready to bury it. Journalists went crazy over the James Comey dismissal with constant comparisons to Watergate.
CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin called it “A grotesque abuse of power...the kind of thing that goes on in non-democracies.” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews opined that the move had a “whiff of fascism.” His colleague Mika Brezezinski went as far as to declare the Trump administration “over.”
Meanwhile a re-emergence of Hillary Clinton at a women’s conference caused reporters to gush about her new found authenticity as CNN’s David Chalian gushed that the 2016 loser was: “Authentically raw, authentically bitter, authentically pissed off, if you will, at these election results.” Fellow CNNer Christiane Amanpour asked Clinton if she was “a victim of misogyny?” While on ABC’s The View, co-host Sunny Hostin bizarrely blamed Hillary’s loss on “racism.”
The following is a compilation of the worst media outbursts from the past few weeks:
Media’s Mission Accomplished Moment
“Donald Trump’s ignorance of everything about government, his ignorance about the FBI, his ignorance about the law, his ignorance about James Comey himself as a person, has now led Donald Trump to the greatest danger of his life. The only danger that he has ever faced that is greater than the bankruptcy of Atlantic City casinos, President Donald Trump now sits at the threshold of impeachment. John McCain said tonight, that the Trump scandals have reached a ‘Watergate size and scale.’ Watergate got President Nixon impeached. On the verge of impeachment he resigned. He resigned as he faced impeachment in the house of representatives for exactly, exactly what James Comey’s memo says Donald Trump did, obstruction of justice.”
— Host Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC’s The Last Word, May 16.
“I personally think it’s over. I don’t think there’s anything that can be done that can stop this at this point. This cacophony, this gushing of lies, problems, questions, chaos that will stop its presidency in its tracks because they won't be able to get anything else done and tomorrow there will be something new. And tomorrow there will be something new. There was always more chaos on the horizon.”
— Co-host Mika Brzezinski on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, May 11.
Going Crazy Over Comey Dismissal
“A grotesque abuse of power, by the President of the United States. This is the kind of thing that goes on in non-democracies. That when there is a investigation that reaches near the President of the United States, or the leader of a non-democracy, they fire the people who are in charge of the investigation. I have not seen anything like this since October 20, 1973 when President Nixon fired Archibald Cox, the Watergate special prosecutor....Can we point out that emperor is not wearing any clothes?”
— Legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin on CNN’s The Situation Room, May 9.
“In the end, he [Richard Nixon] destroyed the public’s confidence, hollowed the presidency, and tarnished his legacy forever...The question for Washington this morning, is another president using his power to stop an investigation and will Congress stand by and watch while it happens?... It was not so long ago that the United States endured through a president obsessed by his enemies, who felt looked down by the press and by elites, and believed that he had to play dirty to win an unfair game....The capital is filling with echoes of Watergate and the question this morning is whether the centuries-old system of checks and balances will swing into action?”
— Host Joe Scarborough on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, May 10.
“A little whiff of, fascism tonight, I think it’s fair to say. A little whiff of, ‘I don’t care about the law, I’m the boss.’”
— Host Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball, May 9.
More Dangerous Situation Than Watergate
“I think this is a potentially more dangerous situation than Watergate and we are at a very dangerous moment. And that’s because we are looking at the possibility that the President of the United States and those around him during an election campaign colluded with a hostile foreign power to undermine the basis of our democracy: free elections....What we see is that at every turn this President is impeding the ability of those who were chosen to investigate to do so. Including the House and Senate committees. So it is truly a dangerous moment. It is different than Watergate.”
— Carl Bernstein on CNN’s Reliable Sources, May 14.
It’s Up to Media to Save “American Democracy”
“Donald Trump in much of his rhetoric and many of his actions poses a danger to American democracy....There is just one real check on the president – impeachment....There are only two forces left that can place some constraints on Donald Trump, the courts, and the media....The media must cover the administration’s policies fairly. But it also must never let the public forget that many of the attitudes and actions of this president are gross violations of the customs and practices of the modern American system, that they are aberrations and they cannot become the new norms....Our task is, quite simply, to keep alive the spirit of American democracy.”
— Host Fareed Zakaria on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS, May 14.
“Prayer Is Not Enough” to Save Us From Trump
“I see politicians putting power and politics over principle... and I am incredulous. I see lies treated as truths...and I am disgusted. I see justice denied and likely obstructed....and I am fearful....I find myself returning in my mind to dark days from the past, trying to remember how we as a nation felt, when Pearl Harbor was attacked, when Kennedy was shot, when Watergate took down a President, when terrorists rained terror from the skies. We somehow overcame. And I do believe that we shall overcome, someday. Perhaps, hopefully, someday soon. But in the end, prayer will not be enough. Action, sustained action, will be required.”
— Disgraced former CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather in a May 16 Facebook post.
“Smartest Woman in the Room” That Still Lost?
“She’s one of the smartest people, she will always be the smartest woman in the room, I think.”
— The Hill reporter Ami Parnes on PBS’s Charlie Rose show.
Tossing Softballs to Hillary
“What do you imagine your election as the first female president of the United States might have said to the world and to the women of the world who were looking for validation, for somebody to shatter that highest and hardest ceiling?...Do you think [you] were a victim of misogyny?”
— Anchor Christiane Amanpour questions to Hillary Clinton at international women’s conference as aired on CNN’s Wolf, May 2.
Gushing over “Pissed Off” Hillary
“After covering Hillary Clinton for more than 15 years and looking at many of her public appearances, I found this to be perhaps the most astonishing Hillary Clinton appearance I’ve ever seen. It was perhaps her at her most authentic....Authentically raw, authentically bitter, authentically pissed off, if you will, at these election results.”
— CNN political director David Chalian discussing Hillary Clinton’s appearance at international womens conference on CNN’s Wolf, May 2.
Hillary Lost Because of Sexism
“I think what Jim Comey did was to throw overboard Justice Department procedures because of political reasons – his own internal politics – because of the hatred for Hillary Clinton within the FBI and because of this delicate balancing act he was trying to pull off with Republicans in Congress principally. And I think that, that was a horrendous decision on his part and one that he should and probably does regret. I think there was misogyny. And I think we tolerate sexism in this country, whether it’s in, you know, the legal profession or corporations or in our politics.”
— CNN political analyst David Gregory on CNN’s New Day, May 3.
A White Woman Lost Election Because Country is Racist?
“What cost her the election is FBI Director Comey, what cost her the election, in my humble opinion is Russia’s hacking and what cost her the election is if you look at the stats, people – this was – I agree with Van Jones in a sense, this was a ‘white-lash.’ There’ve been studies. Twenty percent of people voted because of racism, and I think after eight years of a black president there was no way that this woman was going to win. There was no way....She was the most qualified candidate for president that we have ever had!”
— Co-host Sunny Hostin on ABC’s The View, May 3.
White Christians Voted for “Judas” Trump Because They Are Racist
Comedian John Fugelsang: “Donald Trump allowed right-wing Christians to finally vote for Caligula, Judas, and the Golden Calf all in one convenient package.”...
Host Joy Reid: “What is it that they want? What are the policies that Trump is putting forward that is the reason they support him? Or is it race?”
— MSNBC’s AM Joy, May 13.
Missing Obama...
Hardball host Chris Matthews: “I’m going to start right across the table. American eloquence certainly.”...
Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson: “It is wonderful to hear that man [Barack Obama] speak. I mean, the eloquence is so impressive. This was basically a speech to my ears about the Affordable Care Act, about health care, and that was the one area of substance that he really went into and he said it is a profile in courage for the freshmen Democratic members of Congress who voted for the ACA to do so knowing that they were risking their political careers.”
— MSNBC’s The Profile in Courage Award: Barack Obama, May 7.
...But Discovering a New Thrill
“Your speaking ability is really thrilling. You have a thrilling — you have a mastery — no, when you’re making your point. This is not a comedy act when you’re doing it. It’s damn good political salesmanship. It’s rhetoric of the best political kind. You get your audience riled up and you get them roused up. They’re happy. As, Mario Cuomo used to be able to do this, you leave people upbeat about what they can get done at the end of the speech. It’s not eating spinach. It’s not the stations of the cross. When they’re done with you, they’re happy and they go out and fight.”
— Host Chris Matthews to Sen. Elizabeth Warren on MSNBC’s Hardball, May 2.
Hoping for Families of Republicans to Die
“As one w/ preexisting condition: I hope every GOPr who voted 4 Trumpcare sees a family member get long term condition, lose insurance, & die. because I want them to be tortured. GOPrs only gain empathy when they are touched by the consequences, never before. I wish it on the ppl who chose it for me. Why should they not feel the consequences of their inhumanity?”
— May 5 tweets by Newsweek writer Kurt Eichenwald.
Republicans to Blame for ObamaCare Failing?
Congressman Chris Collins: “It was a campaign promise the President made and every one of us made to replace the failure of ObamaCare, where today, 94 out of 99 counties in Iowa don't have an insurance carrier at all.”
Substitute host Katy Tur: “Part of the reason is because of the lack of confidence in ObamaCare because of the way that Republicans have gone about gutting regulation and also saying that they would repeal it. Part of the reason that there’s only one health care provider or no health care providers, is because of the insurance markets and insurance providers pulling out because of what Republicans were – the rhetoric they were putting forth and what they were doing.”
— MSNBC’s Meet the Press Daily, May 4.
Throwing People Off Insurance Just to Keep The Base Happy
“The question of a victory though. I was struck by Paul Ryan this morning saying ‘I’m proud of this.’ That could be an ad again him. Because the fact is that yes, they feel good that they kept their promise, as he kept saying. And their campaign chairman says, you know, ‘We need to keep our base excited in an off year election.’ Keeping your base excited at the expense of people losing health care I don’t think works well politically.”
— Political analyst Cokie Roberts on ABC’s This Week, May 7.
Trump Is a Traitor For Doing the Same Thing Obama Did
“He is speaking to the Russian foreign minister Lavrov and Ambassador Kislyak. He is the guy who Michael Flynn got fired for, talking to him. Possibly talking about sanctions. And in the room, there is Trump talking to these Russians, and guess who – the Russian press is there covering it. Guess who is missing from that room? The American press is not allowed. They were barred from the room. OK? All I’m saying in this lengthy speech that I hate to give, this is treason to me. This is un-American. Unpatriotic. Americans should be furious. Furious. This is the American press being left out – It hurts my feelings frankly.”
— Co-host Joy Behar on ABC’s The View, May 11. The Huffington Post noted in July 24, 2014 article about the Obama White House “The press corps has rallied together in recent months to protest restrictions on White House access, but despite their demands they continue to be locked out of major events in and out of the Oval Office.”
|
|
By Curtis Houck
 As the news was unfolding out of Manchester, England on Mondaynight with what we now know was an act of radical Islamic terrorism, the 7:00 p.m. Eastern hours of CNN and MSNBC felt that it was more important to spoon-feed viewers the latest bombshell reports about President Trump and the intelligence community.
All told, CNN’s Erin Burnett OutFront and MSNBC’s Hardball combined for one hour, four minutes, and 35 seconds on Trump’s overseas trip and a Washington Post report that he had asked intelligence community leaders to deny the possibility of collusion between his campaign and Russia.
In contrast, the coverage that they mustered on the Manchester bombing totaled only 50 minutes and 42 seconds. Both shows featured a handful of commercial breaks as well.
Fox News Channel’s The Story dedicated the entire commercial-free hour to Manchester with a combination of blocks with usual co-host Martha MacCallum, lead breaking news anchor Shepard Smith, and simulcasting United Kingdom’s Sky News.
Smart aleck liberal media journalists think they’re golden for sending three-picture tweets of how the Fox News Channel wasn’t covering a huge story from The New York Times or Washington Post the way they want them to.
However, when it comes to a horrible story like this one and how it was clear almost from the onset that something bad had happened, CNN and MSNBC continued on with business as usual before finally coming to their senses in the next hour.
|
|
By Kristine Marsh
 Twenty-two people are confirmed dead and dozens more injured, after a suicide bomber set off a bomb in a concert arena late Mondaynight in Manchester, England. Even more sickening is the fact that thousands of young children and teens were at this concert. Despite the horrific nature and impact, ABC was eager to downplay the motive behind the deadly attack. In fact, ABC was more worried about the perpetrators than the victims, warning that this could provoke an “ anti-Islamic backlash” across Europe.
Good Morning America had multiple reports on the terror attack Tuesdaymorning but early on, ABC’s Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl praised President Trump for leading in the way in not “rushing to judgement” to put the blame on Islam.
“The President’s choice of words was quite deliberate,” Karl noted. “It’s striking how different this was from the way we have seen Donald Trump respond to previous major terrorist attacks. There was no reference to radical Islamic terrorism, no talk of profiling,” Karl touted. He continued:
He did issue a call for unity for fighting terrorism and what he said, ‘The wicked ideology is forever obliterated.’ Very tough words Robin. But unlike what we’ve seen from him previously, there was no rush to judgement and no suggestion whatsoever that Islam was responsible.
Afterwards, anchor George Stephanopoulos spoke with correspondent Martha Raddatz and counterterrorism expert Matthew Olsen. After Olsen explained how this attack had the hallmarks of an ISIS attack, Stephanopoulos pushed back against the idea that radical Islam was responsible:
“But what you don’t have yet is a claim of responsibility,” he stated. To Raddatz Stephanopoulos then fretted that this attack would encourage “anti-Islamic sentiment” in Manchester. Raddatz agreed, saying it would “likely create backlash.”
STEPHANOPOULOS: And Martha, as you said, the people in Manchester are determined to kind of go back to daily life. This is also likely to inflame anti-Islamic sentiment across Britain, across Europe.
RADDATZ: It sure could George. Manchester itself is a very multicultural city. There’s a large Muslim population with many there for generations. So headscarf attracts little attention there. And notably, Manchester did not vote in favor of Brexit. But an attack like this, as you said, is much bigger than Manchester itself and will likely create backlash, depending on course, of the details of this attack.
On NBC’s Today show, counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke also worried about anti-Muslim sentiment expressed previously by Donald Trump:
CLARKE: They have a good police and security service and so do we, but we have no ostracized, we’ve embraced our Muslim Americans. That's why the talk against Muslims in the last year in the campaign and since has been very counterproductive. The only way to solve this problem is to have everyone think they're on the same side.
|
|
By Nicholas Fondacaro
 On Tuesday, former CIA Director John Brennan appeared before a Senate committee to testify on what he knew of the allegations that members of Donald Trump’s campaign were in contact with the Russians. In Brennan’s statements, he explained how the investigation got started. For MSNBC’s spotty political historian, Katy Tur, this meant that someone in Obama administration was to blame for not leaking to the press so they could smear Trump before the election. But for one Obama lackey that blames rest on the media’s shoulders.
Tur’s interest in who should be blamed seemed to be piqued by NBC News investigative journalist Ken Dilanian. “I found that revealing. I also found it a little bit infuriating. Not in a partisan sense, but as a reporter,” he told her after noting that Brennan was well aware of the investigation. “It’s now clear the U.S. intelligence community and the Obama administration knew a lot more than they let on.”
“Why did we not know more about it then? What was the reasoning behind keeping it – keeping the cards close to the vest,” she demanded to know. Dilanian explained that “My reporting tells me that the Obama administration was very concerned about appearing to put their thumb on the scale in an election they were convinced Hillary Clinton was going to win.”
Later on in the program, Tur invited Ned Price, a former spokesperson for the National Security Council, onto her program and grilled him about why the Obama administration didn’t leak the information to the press:
Ned, because we were just talking about the Obama administration not releasing that intelligence. Walk us through the reasoning on your end, why was this not made more public? Why was a bigger deal not made of this? Especially considering that this was a foreign power trying to interfere in the election. Why didn’t voters have a chance to know about that before they went to the polls?
A hilarious argument about who was to blame for not smearing Trump then ensued. “Well, Katie, I’d actually dispute the premise of your question. Voters did have an opportunity to know it. In fact they--” Price began to argue before Tur cut him off. “Did they know it – did they know the significance of it? Were they really forcefully made aware of it by U.S. officials,” she spat.
“Well, Katy, we can only do so much,” Price exclaimed as he proceeded to ramble on about the intelligence community’s tedious verification process. “The other interesting thing about that day, Katy, October 7th, 2016, that is the same day that the Access Hollywood tape came out and that led to a media bonanza that covered that almost exclusively,” he noted as he shifted blame to the media. “So when you ask why we didn’t do more, some of this was taken out of our hands by the media coverage.”
The MSNBC host had to make sure she got the last hit before quickly changing the subject. “Fair point, Ned. Although there is critics out there who would say that – would wonder why the administration didn’t more forcefully go out and try to really raise red flags about that reporting,” she chided.
This hilarious and ludicrous argument exposes just how desperate the media was, and still is, for anonymous sources to help knock the administration around. It also shows just how much they wanted to aid in the victory of Hillary Clinton.
Transcript below:
MSNBC Live
May 23, 2017
2:05:26 PM Eastern
(...)
KATY TUR: Ken, we’re learning a whole lot more than we knew before. Just cut through the fat for us because we’ve had a lot of testimonies, and sometimes all of this information can seem to jumble into one big blog-- blob.
KEN DILANIAN: So bottom line, John Brennan gave us a road map for how this FBI investigation got started. He said very clearly that he was aware of contacts between Trump associates and Russians. He was disturbed by it. He passed that information on to the FBI. We know the FBI then began investigating. I found that revealing. I also found it a little bit infuriating. Not in a partisan sense, but as a reporter. I, like all of my colleagues, were trying to learn everything we could back before the election about what the Russians were doing in their hacking and interference campaign and whether there were any ties to Russia. It’s now clear the U.S. intelligence community and the Obama administration knew a lot more than they let on.
TUR: We were – I remember this bubbling up back in the summer, especially around the time of the Democratic National Convention. Once those DNC e-mails were coming out, Donald Trump of course from that infamous news conference saying that he hopes Russia is going to release the e-mails if they have them, find them, he wanted to see them, Clinton’s e-mails. Why did we not know more about it then? What was the reasoning behind keeping it – keeping the cards close to the vest?
DILANIAN: My reporting tells me that the Obama administration was very concerned about appearing to put their thumb on the scale in an election they were convinced Hillary Clinton was going to win. They were also very concerned that the Russians would go further and actually interfere with the vote. That’s what they were most concerned about stopping, and that didn’t happen in the end.
TUR: And Brennan said he spoke to the Russian officials and he warned them. And he said, “If you keep interfering, there will be severe consequences, relations with the U.S. will be severely hurt.” Does that seem like it’s happening now?
DILANIAN: I mean this is the Russians’ dream scenario. They have completely disrupted our democracy. We’re tied in knots over this issue.I just want to remind you, too, Katie, Harry Reid, the former Senate Majority Leader, wrote a letter back in October to Brennan saying, “You possess explosive information about ties between Trump and Russia.” Many people kind of wrote that off.
TUR: Well, because people didn’t necessarily know what he was talking about and we thought maybe Harry Reid was somebody who was an outgoing senator and who knows what his motivations were at the time. I remember that’s the feeling everyone had.
DILANIAN: It turns out he was exactly right.
TUR: Yeah.
(...)
2:08 PM
TUR: With me now, Ned Price, national security council spokesperson and senior director under President Obama, and an MSNBC national security analyst. We also have Naveed Jamali, an former FBI double agent. Ned, because we were just talking about the Obama administration not releasing that intelligence. Walk us through the reasoning on your end, why was this not made more public? Why was a bigger deal not made of this? Especially considering that this was a foreign power trying to interfere in the election. Why didn’t voters have a chance to know about that before they went to the polls?
 NED PRICE: Well, Katie, I’d actually dispute the premise of your question. Voters did have an opportunity to know it. In fact they –
TUR: Did they know it – did they know the significance of it? Were they really forcefully made aware of it by U.S. officials?
PRICE: Well, Katy, we can only do so much. But I’ll tell you what we did. On October 7th, there was an unprecedented statement released by the DNI and the Department of Homeland Security that made very clear the fact that we had information leading us to believe with high confidence on the part of all 17 intelligence agencies that Russia was involved in this effort, sanctioned at the highest levels of the Russian government, to interfere in our electoral process.
And to let you know how we got there, it’s very important that you follow a formula in cases like this. And that formula first rests upon the intelligence community coming to this high-confidence assessment. You want that information to be bulletproof because you know it will be assailed in all directions if it’s not.
Second, you have to ensure that the intelligence community and the law enforcement community verify the fact that this information can be released without jeopardizing sources or methods or impinging upon law enforcement investigations. This process is not one that is quick. It is one that can take some time. But we got there, more than a full month ahead of the election.
The other interesting thing about that day, Katy, October 7th, 2016, that is the same day that the Access Hollywood tape came out and that led to a media bonanza that covered that almost exclusively. So when you ask why we didn’t do more, some of this was taken out of our hands by the media coverage.
TUR: Fair point, Ned. Although there is critics out there who would say that – would wonder why the administration didn’t more forcefully go out and try to really raise red flags about that reporting. But putting that aside for a moment – and that did happen on the Access Hollywood day, you’re absolutely right.
(...)
(h/t to MRC's Kyle Drennen)
|
|
By Scott Whitlock
The Washington Post’s executive editor has convicted Donald Trump. One would assume the only solution is impeachment. Appearing on CBS This Morning, Tuesday, Marty Baron touted the Post’s war against the President. He concluded, “When I was coming out of high school, there was Nixon and Watergate. And so, I wasn't in the middle of that, obviously. But this feels like that in many ways.”
Richard Nixon was driven from office in the wake of impeachment inquiries and The Washington Post's reporting. Baron admitted this might not be a “perfect analogy, but what does his comment suggest the newspaper has in mind for Trump?
The interview included a lot of journalistic self-love as the CBS hosts thrilled over the “stunning” Post, saying it has “never been better.” Gayle King noted that the paper has been scooping its liberal competitor, The New York Times:
This has got to be a very satisfying feeling for you. You're very calm and very controlled. Aren't you guys over there doing the hula about what is happening?
 Assume for a minute that the Post has the goods on Trump and he’s actually guilty of crimes. “Satisfying?” “Doing the hula?” Would that be the reaction for such a tumultuous, difficult time for the country?
The best the CBS reporters could manage was for King to lightly broach the topic of relying on anonymous sourcing. She wondered, “Help us understand the leak process, how it operates at your place. How can you trust the people that are leaking stories to you?” King then followed up by cheering, “And don't you double check, triple check? It's not like you rely on just one source.”
 Nowhere in the fawning interview were examples of the Post getting things wrong when it came to investigating Trump. The MRC’s Brent Bozell and Tim Graham explained on May 16:
Since Trump won the election, the Post has been caught in a string of over-aggressive anti-Trump stories that were based on anonymous sources and turned out to be untrue. Just last week, the Post reported deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein offered to resign in the wake of the firing of FBI director James Comey. Rosenstein denied ever doing such a thing. The Postalso reported the FBI asked for additional resources for its probe of Trump campaign collusion with the Russian government. The acting FBI director testified under oath that was not true. It's a shame Congress doesn’t get to put the media’s anonymous sources under oath.
At one point, Baron asserted, “This is an administration, like every administration, requires scrutiny and we have more people probably covering the White House now than I think The Washington Post ever has had.” Where was that scrutiny during the Obama administration? Where were all those investigative reporters over that eight year span?
This type of fawning coverage of other journalists is common for CBS. On May 16, the hosts talked to the publisher of Rolling Stone about the magazine’s 50th anniversary. King explained away the publication’s fake claim of rape at the University of Virginia, excusing the false reporting, “It happens so rarely to you.”
A transcript of the segment is below:
CBS This Morning
5/23/17
8:32am ET
CHARLIE ROSE: Political news has dominated headlines from the 2016 campaign into the beginning of President Trump's administration. The Washington Post has been behind several of the biggest stories. They include the leaked Access Hollywood video and the Justice Department's concern about Michael Flynn. The paper won a Pulitzer Prize for its investigation into Mr. Trump's charitable donations. The newspaper also broke the story about President Trump's revelation of highly classified information to Russian official. And yesterday, the Post reported that Trump asked top intelligence officials to deny evidence that his campaign colluded with Russia. Marty Baron is executive editor of The Washington Post and we’re pleased to have him at this table. Welcome.
 MARTY BARON: Thank you.
ROSE: What’s happened to The Washington Post? I mean, everybody is saying it's never been better and you’ve got remarkable reporting.
BARON: Well, thank you. We appreciate that we have a great team. Great team in the newsroom. Very proud of what they are doing.
ROSE: Has the addition avenue ownership made a difference?
BARON: Yeah. Jeff Bezos is now our owner. He's owned us for about three and a half years. He's brought not only financial capital, but intellectual capital. I think he has helped us adjust to the digital age and that’s been — He’s been a tremendous owner and stood behind us.
ROSE: Look at today's news. I mean, how does a paper cover this kind of story?
BARON: Well, we have a tremendous team that covers politics and policy and The Washington Post, of course, has done that for a very long time. And this is an administration, like every administration, requires scrutiny and we have more people probably covering the White House now than I think The Washington Post ever has had.
GAYLE KING: Have you ever seen this many leaks, Marty, the President has called you all fake media, leaks that the media is out to get him. Help us understand the leak process, how it operates at your place. How can you trust the people that are leaking stories to you?
BARON: Well, look, there are a lot of people in government who are concerned about what's happening. They feel it's information that the public needs and deserves to know. Our reporters have a lot of experience. Over the many years they've cultivated sources in government. People who know them. They know the source. These are reporters on our staff who have a lot of experience and expertise. And so, when people want to talk they talk to us.
KING: And don’t you double check, triple check? It’s not like you rely on just one source.
BARON: Absolutely. We do not rely on one source. We always have to have extra confirmation of anything. In many instances, the White House has said something that was not true and then a day later or two days later who confirms it? The President of the United States actually confirmed our reporting.
NORAH O’DONNELL: Marty, this is another stunning piece of reporting, an excellent original reporting about the president asking his intelligence chiefs to deny collusion. One of the things I read between the lines is he asked them to do it just days after Comey testified. So there's this very short period of time where the President is ramping up his activity, not only against Comey, but the intelligence chiefs. On the question of leaks, though, just to contextualize about that, people are not calling The Washington Post giving you information. Your reporters are asking questions and then they give up information, correct?
BARON: Yes. For the most part. These are reporters who have a lot of experience, a lot of expertise. They talk to a lot of people over many, many years. They developed their confidence. Earned their confidence because of the quality reporting they've done. Now people are willing to talk to them.
O’DONNELL: And they trust them. So, let me ask you this: You're the editor. What questions remain unanswered for you?
BARON: Well, there are a lot and that's why there's an investigation taking place. And obviously we want to know all the same things that the FBI is investigating. That the committees in Congress are investigating. We want to know, obviously, whether there was obstruction of justice, what constitutes obstruction of justice? We do want to know if there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. We can't say for sure at the moment.
O’DONNELL: And yet, on Friday your paper, the Post, reported that a current White House official is a significant person of interest in the Russian investigation. But you didn't name who that person is. Do you know who that person is?
BARON: Well, we didn't name the person. I don't plan to name the person because we haven't confirmed who that is.
KING: If you could just give us the initials, please.
BARON: If we can confirm — this is what we do. When we can't confirm, we don't report.
ROSE: So what do you need to confirm?
BARON: We need an additional source or two.
ROSE: So you do have sources that said it's a certain person. You need that to be confirmed by other people.
BARON: We need more confirmation. That’s about all I can say.
O’DONNELL: What does that mean? There's a single person who is a person, a significant person of interest?
BARON: Well, it's a person who is the subject to investigation. Someone who the FBI and others are looking at very closely to see whether there was a particular connection to the Russians that had some influence in what the Russians that had some influence in what the Russians
KING: Are you close to confirming that person? I know you said you’re still looking. Are you close?
BARON: I really can’t — I really can't say any more about it.
ROSE: A broader question, what is this feel like for you? You're in Boston where they made a remarkable movie of what happened when you were editor there. Think about this: I mean in terms of — you've lived through a lot of political drama. Has it ever been, in your feeling, in you judgment, anything like this?
BARON: Well, look, when I was coming out of high school there was Nixon and Watergate. And so, I wasn't in the middle of that, obviously. But this feels like that in many ways. Now, that's not to say that it's a perfect analogy. We'll have to see. We need to see the evidence. We need to do more investigating. The law enforcement officers, the FBI and the congressional committees need to do more investigating and we in the journalism community need to do more investigating as well.
KING: I like Charlie's question, though, because I think there seems to be such a competition between The New York Times and The Washington Post. Norah pointed out in the green room that it's something The New York Timesis quoting The Washington Post. This has got to be a very satisfying feeling for you. You're very calm and very controlled. Aren't you guys over there doing the hula about what is happening?
BARON: No. We really don't do that. We're very serious about what we do.
KING: I understand that. I understand that.
KING: People know that we're held to account like everybody else is held to account like everyone else is held to account. But we need to make sure our information is accurate.
KING: And you do that. That takes a lot of hard work. With regard to The New York Times, great. We do not coordinate with The New York Times, great. We compete with The New York Times. I think it's to the public benefit that there are two news organizations, and other news organizations as well, that are vigorously pursuing this story. That's what the meaning of the First Amendment is. The press and public, by the way, supposed to hold their government to account. That's the meaning of self-governance.
ROSE: Great to have you.
O’DONNELL: Your speech at Penn State is a must read for everybody and for certainly journalists. Thank you for being here. Congratulations to all the great reporters at the Post.
|
|
By Kristine Marsh
 Overly sensitive students at college campuses everywhere have learned that if you protest a conservative speaker on your campus, you will be lauded by the media as “brave” and “patriotic.” That’s exactly what happened on Tuesday’s The View, when the panel finally got around to discussing Notre Dame’s graduation ceremony last weekend, where a large group of students walked out during Vice President Mike Pence’s commencement speech to his alma mater.
Instead of criticizing the students’ disrespectful behavior as an attempt to stifle free speech, the hosts, with the notable exception of Jedediah Bila, praised the students as “very American” and “taking a stand.” They actually argued that students shouldn’t have to listen to anything they disagreed with, with Whoopi comparing Pence’s appearance to a speech delivered by a member of the white supremacist KKK.
Whoopi led the discussion by characterizing the walkout as “civil disobedience.”
“Isn’t that what civil disobedience is supposed to be?” Whoopi asked. Co-host Jedediah Bila answered that though students had a right to protest, it wasn’t productive or helpful:
It bothers me. They have a right to do it but it bothers me because it seems like the younger generations have a hard time listening to stuff they disagree with and just listening. There's a lot of times I go into a room and someone is speaking, I don't like their policies, I don't necessarily like what they advocate for, I don’t necessarily agree with them. But I sit and listen and sometimes I leave that room more passionate about how I feel and saying wow, I really don't like that guy and sometimes I learn something and say there's another side or I hadn't thought about that. It's okay -- I think the message needs to be, it's okay to disagree. You don't always have to get up and walk out.
But the panel seemed to miss Bila’s entire point. Instead, her fellow liberal hosts argued, people shouldn’t have to stay and listen to anything they disagree with, and the students were right to walk out:
JOY BEHAR: Jed, they're not there to really listen or not listen. They're there to make a point. When they walk off, they're making a point. [Applause] The point is, I'm an LGBT person let's say. You do not represent me. You are hostile to my people.
SUNNY HOSTIN: And maybe you need to rethink your policy!
BEHAR: We're making a point now and a statement.
Hostin then praised the students as doing something that was “very American,” calling the protest a “bedrock of our society”:
HOSTIN: It's very American. It's the bedrock of our society, the ability to get up and walk out and make these points. I mean, I went to Notre Dame and it's a very conservative university, and in 2009 when Obama came conservatives were very upset and protested because of stem cell research. And so bottom line is this is something that's a tradition for Notre Dame and I want my Notre Dame fellow members and graduates and alum to stand up for what they believe in. That's what we should be doing. [ Applause ]
Afterwards, Bila argued students should be able to appreciate “diversity of thought” by not walking out. But Behar and Whoopi shot back that the students “knew” what Pence was “thinking already.”
Whoopi then outrageously compared Pence to the KKK, saying she shouldn’t have to sit through a KKK member’s speech, as a black woman:
BILA: But, but part of that should an appreciation for diversity of thought and the fact is --
BEHAR: They know what he's thinking already.
BILA: They don't have to agree with him, and maybe their protest is --
WHOOPI: If there's a guy -- if there's a man -- because sometimes if you know what somebody has to say, you don't want to hear it. I don't -- you know, [Applause] I think most of these folks made a very specific decision because what he was about affects them in such ways that they don't want to hear it, because really if -- you know, I shouldn't have to listen to a guy who's wearing a -- you know, wearing a hood, who I know wants to string me up.
Seemingly the only one with an ounce of common sense at the table, Bila pointed out the obvious, saying “This is different.”
“No, it's not!” Whoopi shot back, before they started talking over each other. Hostin tried to back up Whoopi by mistakenly calling Pence the former “governor of Louisiana,” before Bila called out Whoopi’s KKK comparison.
“He’s [Pence] trying to murder people? C’mon,” Bila stated. Whoopi then went on a rant against ‘-isms’:
Listen to me. -ism, whether it's racism or you don't like gay people, when you say to somebody, I don't believe that you actually feel that way because I believe that God has told me -- forget what God has said to you. God told me that you shouldn't be who you are. When you're sitting with someone who is saying that to you, you don't want to sit and watch and you don't want to disrupt it. You don't want to scream, but you want to get up and say I'm not going to take it. [cheers and applause]
Feeling left out, Behar piped up to brag about her walkout during a Bill O’Reilly appearance on The View in 2010. Behar relied on the audience’s short term memories to recall the event, falsely accusing O’Reilly of saying something he didn’t say during that appearance:
BEHAR: When we walked off -- Whoopi and I walked off the set one day. Everybody who watches the show knows we walked off the set when Bill O'Reilly was talking against a certain group of people, against Muslims and saying that Muslims -- all Muslims were terrorists and they're responsible for 9/11 and to sit there with him and argue the point seemed futile to me.
BILA: See, that’s different though Joy --
BEHAR: My position was I'm not going to sit here and listen to this. Barbara Walters was upset with us. She said to both of us -- Whoopi and I both walked off. She said you should have sat there and argued with him. Then we were like, no, we didn't want to argue with that.
Bila ended her argument with the panel by saying that “unity” won’t happen if people won’t listen to each other. Of course, listening to the other side is not something hard core liberals like Whoopi, Behar and Hostin understand, so they rejected that notion, again. Instead, Whoopi repeated Hostin’s point earlier, that Pence should’ve changed his viewpoints to accommodate the students’ politics:
BILA: All I'm saying is if we want to be a country that has unity, you have to be able to sit and listen --
WHOOPI: No, no, listen. What needs to start -- what needs to happen is he needs to stand up and say some of what we're doing is not good for America.
BILA: But he doesn't believe that.
WHOOPI: Then, you know, those people have the right to get up and walk out. We'll be right back. Up and walk out. We'll be right back. [ Applause ]
As if three against one wasn’t enough, afterwards, the panel brought on actress Debra Messing to have her weigh in on the topic. Messing, who infamously urged for “someone” to “take down Mother Pence” at this year’s GLAAD Awards, agreed with the liberals on the panel, obviously:
I think that Mr. Pence has made himself very clear about his positions, you know, saying that conversion therapy is the way to deal with homosexuality. I don't think that there's any reason to wait to hear his point of view because the point of view has been made so clear
|
|
By Kyle Drennen
On Monday and Tuesday, the broadcast networks all read from the same liberal script as anchors and correspondents blasted the Trump administration’s proposed budget for making “deep cuts” to “social safety nets” that would be “especially cruel” to the poor. Not once was the nation’s nearly $20 trillion debt mentioned in any of the one-sided coverage.
On ABC’s Good Morning America on Monday, co-host George Stephanopoulos ominously warned viewers: “...this week Congress is going to get its first look at President Trump’s full budget. He promises to balance the budget in 10 years with big cuts in safety net programs like Medicaid.” Congressional Correspondent Mary Bruce amped up the fearmongering: “...and one of his top targets, entitlements....will reportedly slash these safety nets by $1.7 trillion, including massive cuts to Medicaid, food stamps, and other anti-poverty programs.”
Bruce fretted that the budget plan would provide a “big boost in military spending” while “coupled with cuts to foreign aid and other domestic programs.” However, she quickly added that the proposal was “being met with a bit of a cold shoulder by members of both parties.”
In the discussion that followed, Chief Political Analyst Matthew Dowd reinforced the idea that the plan had no chance in Congress:
I think the problem Donald Trump has, in order to do something this dramatic, and draconian in many ways, that requires a lot of political capital and he doesn’t have a full gas tank. He doesn’t even have half a gas tank. He has a third of a gas tank of political capital, so it’s going to be really tough to get this through.
On Monday evening’s NBC Nightly News, National Correspondent Peter Alexander employed the same talking points as ABC to denounce the budget:
The proposal, entitled A New Foundation for American Greatness, calling for sweeping cuts to entitlement programs. Medicaid, $800 billion slashed over the next decade. $190 billion from the federal food stamp program, called SNAP, that fed 42 million Americans last year. The Los Angeles Regional Food Bank now bracing for impact.
On Tuesday’s Today, he went further, arguing that President was harming his own supporters: “...because it focuses so heavily on programs benefitting the poor and disabled, it would likely hurt many of the rural and low-income Americans that voted him, President Trump, into office. As one top Democratic senator says, it’s especially cruel for people who need a handout.”
Monday’s CBS Evening News provided a full report of Chief Congressional Correspondent Nancy Cordes bashing the budget : “The White House wants to balance the budget in 10 years, partly through deep cuts to social programs....would also reportedly cut funding for subsidized school lunches and programs like Habitat for Humanity. Food stamps funding would be slashed by about 25%, with a new work requirement imposed on some recipients.”
She touted how the proposal “will likely meet with resistance from both parties,” before playing a soundbite of Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer declaring: “All of these are favored, these programs are favored by the American people. They’ve been favored by a vast majority of my Republican friends across the aisle.”
On Tuesday’s CBS This Morning, co-host Charlie Rose worried: “The New York Times says President Trump is proposing deep funding cuts in many social safety net programs....The cuts include an $800 billion reduction to Medicaid over a decade. Food stamp funds would be cut by nearly 30%.” He concluded: “The plan is expected to meet stiff opposition in Congress.”
While all of the network coverage sounded the alarm over the proposed "cuts" to the federal food stamp program, none of the reporting bothered to note that under the Obama administration food stamp enrollment increased by a stunning 70%. All of the reporting promoted the laughable notion that simply decreasing the rate of spending increases somehow qualifies as a "cut."
Here are excerpts of the May 22 network coverage:
GMA
7:09 AM ET
 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And as those investigations continue on Capitol Hill, this week Congress is going to get its first look at President Trump’s full budget. He promises to balance the budget in 10 years with big cuts in safety net programs like Medicaid. Our Congressional Correspondent Mary Bruce is on Capitol Hill with the details. Good morning, Mary.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: White House to Unveil Budget Plan; Major Cuts to Entitlement Programs Expected]
MARY BRUCE: Good morning, George. Well, we’re getting a new glimpse at the President’s spending priorities, and one of his top targets, entitlements. The President’s budget, which will be released tomorrow, will reportedly slash these safety nets by $1.7 trillion, including massive cuts to Medicaid, food stamps, and other anti-poverty programs.
Now, as the President promised on the campaign trail, he is not touching Social Security or Medicare. Now, the President has also called for a big boost in military spending, $54 billion, coupled with cuts to foreign aid and other domestic programs. But already the President’s plan is being met with a bit of a cold shoulder by members of both parties. But, George, as always, the President’s budget just a jumping off point for negotiations up here on Capitol Hill.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Just the beginning. Okay, Mary, thanks very much. Let’s talk about it more now with our Chief Political Analyst Matthew Dowd. And you talk – you look at that description that Mary just gav
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment