CNN's Sanchez Erupts Over McCain Not Rebuking Hillary as 'Bitch' --11/14/2007
2. ABC on '08: Will 'Brilliant' Bill Damage 'Independent' Hillary?
3. New Republic: Hillary's Garnered 'Strikingly Positive Coverage'
4. NBC's Williams Time Person of Year Nominee: 'Abused' Mother Earth
5. On Fox & Friends, MRC's Bozell Talks About His Hillary/Media Book
Trying to create a scandal over Republican presidential candidate John McCain's failure to rebuke a woman supporter who called Hillary Clinton a "bitch," CNN's Rick Sanchez led Tuesday night's Out in the Open with what he insisted was the "relevant and newsworthy" topic as he seriously asked: "Is John McCain done as a result of this?" He later speculated: "Is his campaign dead in the water?" Betraying the skew of those at CNN, Sanchez told guest Amy Holmes: "He could be in trouble for this from women, especially the ones that've been talking to me today in our newsroom who heard this and were offended." Sanchez's spin matched that of left-wing bloggers, a story in Wednesday's New York Times revealed: "The clip began showing on Web sites like Salon.com, the liberal site TPM.com and others, with bloggers asking why Mr. McCain had not taken the questioner to task."
Setting up the video, Sanchez haughtily intoned: "You're going to hear a McCain supporter. She refers to Hillary Clinton using really what is a horrible word that is used to do nothing but demean women. Well, at the time, it was a supporter who said that. It wasn't until later on, when we watched the whole tape, which is what you're about to see, that you see McCain's reaction, or lack thereof, that we decided that this is both relevant and newsworthy, and important information to this campaign." An older woman at an event in South Carolina had asked: "How do we beat the bitch?" An appalled Sanchez complained: "He says 'that's an excellent question,' after somebody refers to Hillary Clinton as a B-word which rhymes with witch. How big a mistake is this?"
[This item was posted late Tuesday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
The short November 14 New York Times article, "Question on Her Puts McCain in a Tight Spot," recounted how at the Monday event in Hilton Head "Mr. McCain was obviously uncomfortable, trying to deflect the vitriol with humor and offering to give a translation. But he did not condemn the questioner, instead calling it an 'excellent question.'" See: www.nytimes.com
On screen throughout the CNN segment:
A transcript of most of the segment which led the November 13 Out in the Open, CNN's 8pm EST show:
RICK SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: You know, this could be real bad for John McCain. I want you to watch this that we're about to show you. You will probably see its first pass here, and then I have a feeling you will be seeing it a lot. Producer comes in early in the morning today to my office and shows me this video. You're going to hear a McCain supporter. She refers to Hillary Clinton using really what is a horrible word that is used to do nothing but demean women. Well, at the time, it was a supporter who said that. It wasn't until later on, when we watched the whole tape, which is what you're about to see, that you see McCain's reaction, or lack thereof, that we decided that this is both relevant and newsworthy, and important information to this campaign.
BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, CREDITED TO "FROM FOX NEWS MONDAY"
WOMAN: How do we beat the bitch?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: "That's an excellent question," he says. This is a fellow Senator that he's talking about. No matter what you think of Hillary Clinton, is John McCain done as a result of this? Is this going to become a viral video? This is the kind of questions that we've got to examine at this point. We're going to be looking at a lot of these issues. With me tonight, conservative strategy Amy Holmes, who's also a CNN political analyst.
It's probably not surprising to learn that when ABC correspondent Claire Shipman convened a panel of women voters to discuss Bill Clinton defending his candidate wife, the ladies mostly gushed over the political couple. Shipman, who reported on the segment for Tuesday's Good Morning America, found one voter who lauded: "As a strong woman, like, there's a part of her that appeals to me, even though I don't agree...even though I'm, I'm a Republican." Not one of the females selected by ABC harshly criticized the '08 contender.
Shipman also spun Bill Clinton's comments in the wake of the last presidential debate, in which he accused fellow Democrats of swift boating Hillary, in the most generous terms. The GMA reporter fretted that "[Mrs. Clinton's] support could muddle her so far successful image of independent strength." Shipman recited the usual talking points that Bill Clinton is "obviously" a "brilliant strategist for her campaign." (The media always ignore pesky facts that would contradict the notion of Bill Clinton's brilliance, such as the fact that he never received 50 percent of the popular vote or that he was impeached.)
[This item, by Scott Whitlock, was posted Tuesday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
Shipman and co-host Diane Sawyer also credulously accepted Clinton spin. Sawyer seriously wondered if Bill and Hillary Clinton weren't coordinating with each other on strategy. Shipman asked if the ex-Commander in Chief coming to the defense of his wife was strategy or "just the chivalry of a former president and spouse who can't help himself?" GMA viewers shouldn't be shocked, however, at Shipman's effusive praise of the Clintons. After all, this is the same correspondent who once raved that one of the New York Senator's strong points is her "hot factor." See January 19, 2007 CyberAlert: www.mrc.org
A transcript of the segment, which aired at 7:13am on November 13:
DIANE SAWYER: And now, we're going to switch topics and turn to the race to '08. About seven weeks now until the first vote of the primary. Senator Clinton remaining the Democratic front-runner, amid the debate about her fellow candidates pressing the advantage against her and her playing somewhat of a gender card. In fact, her own husband made a statement about Hillary versus "the boys." Is that good strategy? What's the reaction? Who knows better than senior national correspondent Claire Shipman in Washington. Claire?
FNC's Brit Hume on Tuesday night highlighted how Michael Crowley, Senior Editor of the liberal New Republic magazine, concluded in his piece in the November 12 issue, "Bunker Hillary: Clinton's strategy for crushing the media," that "despite all the grumbling, however, the press has showered Hillary with strikingly positive coverage." Crowley observed how "the media has paved a smooth road for signature campaign moments like Hillary's campaign launch and her health care plan rollout and has dutifully advanced campaign-promoted themes like Hillary's 'experience' and expertise in military affairs."
Hume in his November 13 "Grapevine" segment:
Planted questions apparently are not the only way the Hillary Clinton campaign has sought to influence media coverage. Michael Crowley writes in The New Republic that the Clinton campaign uses frequent rebukes, late-night complaint phone calls and the withholding of access as tools to control reporters. Crowley writes, quote: "Even seasoned political journalists describe reporting on Hillary as a torturous experience...Privately, they recount excruciating battles to secure basic facts. Innocent queries are met with deep suspicion. Only surgically precise questioning yields relevant answers." Quote: "Despite all the grumbling, however, the press has showered Hillary with strikingly positive coverage. 'It's one of the few times I've seen journalists respect someone for beating the hell out of them,' says a veteran Democratic media operative."
Crowley's look at the masochistic press, -- how Hillary brutalizes them and they love her anyway -- begins with how Team Clinton disliked a New York Times puff piece on Barack Obama playing hoops: "If grumbling about a basketball story seems excessive, it's also typical of the Clinton media machine. Reporters who have covered the hyper-vigilant campaign say that no detail or editorial spin is too minor to draw a rebuke. Even seasoned political journalists describe reporting on Hillary as a torturous experience."
Despite all the grumbling, however, the press has showered Hillary with strikingly positive coverage. "It's one of the few times I've seen journalists respect someone for beating the hell out of them," says a veteran Democratic media operative. The media has paved a smooth road for signature campaign moments like Hillary's campaign launch and her health care plan rollout and has dutifully advanced campaign-promoted themes like Hillary's "experience" and expertise in military affairs. This is all the more striking in light of the press's past treatment of Clinton -- particularly during her husband's White House years -- including endless stories about her personal ethics, frostiness, and alleged Lady Macbeth persona.
It's enough to make you suspect that breeding fear and paranoia within the press corps is itself part of the Clinton campaign's strategy. And, if that sounds familiar, it may be because the Clinton machine, say reporters and pro-Hillary Democrats, is emulating nothing less than the model of the Bush White House, which has treated the press with thinly veiled contempt and minimal cooperation. "The Bush administration changed the rules," as one scribe puts it -- and the Clintonites like the way they look. (To be sure, no one accuses the Clinton team of outright lying to the press, as the Bushies have done, or of crossing other ethical lines. And reporters say other press shops -- notably those of Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards -- are also highly combative.)
[This item is adapted from a posting by Tim Graham on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
Now this is where Crowley goes off the rails. There is no doubt that Team Bush has been a tough nut to crack on access, and it's also true that maintaining a fairly leakproof White House can signal "press hatred." (So can carrying a copy of Bernie Goldberg's bias for photographers.) Bush's press office certainly calls reporters and complains about coverage. But to suggest the Clintons are aping Bushies is insulting to the Clintons, who were beating the national press like a drum fifteen years ago. Bill went around in 1992 strangely insisting "no candidate in history" was as demeaned as he was, and he even condemned the "knee-jerk liberal press" in his first days in the White House.
It's also quite hyperbolic to decry "endless" stories about Hillary's ethics. That simply isn't accurate, even as rhetoric. Crowley found reporters were frightened to complain, even anonymously:
Though few dare offer specifics for the record -- "They're too smart," one furtively confides. "They'll figure out who I am" -- privately, they recount excruciating battles to secure basic facts. Innocent queries are met with deep suspicion. Only surgically precise questioning yields relevant answers. Hillary's aides don't hesitate to use access as a blunt instrument, as when they killed off a negative GQ story on the campaign by threatening to stop cooperating with a separate Bill Clinton story the magazine had in the works. Reporters' jabs and errors are long remembered, and no hour is too odd for an angry phone call. Clinton aides are especially swift to bypass reporters and complain to top editors. "They're frightening!" says one reporter who has covered Clinton. "They don't see [reporting] as a healthy part of the process. They view this as a ruthless kill-or-be-killed game."
But why do the media love to be hounded so? Why wouldn't all the complaining lead them to put down their cream-puff pans? One theory circulating inside the Beltway is that liberal reporters want a brutal Democratic nominee, someone who won't wait three weeks to engage a "Swift Boat" campaign like John Kerry did. The experience of seeing Hillary in brutal primary mode makes them like her better, makes them think that she won't take the "Republican noise machine" and the "vast right-wing conspiracy" lying down.
For Crowley's piece in full: www.tnr.com
It might be highly predictable than the media elite would favor a green sheen on Time's Person of the Year debate, but NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams has taken his "Mother Earth" campaign to a whole new level of goo on his Daily Nightly blog page: "I made my annual pilgrimage to the Time magazine luncheon designed to narrow down the nominees for "_____ of the Year" on the cover of Time. Forgive the blank, but over the years it's been a noun, a pronoun, a proper noun -- it's been a lot of things. My nominee was a woman -- a victim of abuse. A strong, resilient woman who is a constant topic of discussion these days: Mother Earth."
[This item is adapted from a posting, by Tim Graham, on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
For the November 8 Daily Nightly post by Williams: dailynightly.msnbc.msn.com
Brent Bozell, President of the MRC, appeared Tuesday morning on FNC's Fox & Friends to discuss his new book published by Crown Forum, Whitewash: What the Media Won't Tell You About Hillary Clinton, But Conservatives Will. Flash video of the November 13 segment is now on the MRC's home page: www.mrc.org
For Windows Media, Real or MP3 audio, check this node on the MRC's blog: newsbusters.org
Bozell also appeared Monday night on FNC's Hannity & Colmes. For Flash video on You Tube of the segment with Bozell, as well as downloadable Real video, Windows Media video and MP3 audio, go to this page on the MRC's blog: newsbusters.org
Bozell's book: Uncovering a Fifteen Year Love Affair
How could America's presidential front-runner be a woman who has held only one elective office and had staggering numbers of personal, political, and financial scandals?
How did the First Lady to a disgraced, impeached president become a presidential front-runner despite never having held elective office before 2001? And how did this happen given her staggering number of personal, political, and financial scandals -- and her leftist political agenda?
Authors L. Brent Bozell and Tim Graham peel back the layers of Hillary Clinton's success to expose the real shocker -- not Travelgate or Whitewater -- but a fifteen year love affair by the liberal media, starting with Time magazine, who first introduced Hillary Clinton to the country as an "amalgam of Betty Crocker, Mother Teresa and Oliver Wendell Holmes." The elite media's continued and unprecedented favoritism is the key to Hillary's mythic political standing. They have downplayed or ignored her every scandal and recast her ultra-liberalism as being in the political center.
What's even more stunning is the incredible number of stories that have been under-reported, excused and buried. To expose the truth, the authors interviewed dozens of leading conservatives who want Americans to hear the whole story, including Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Cal Thomas, Newt Gingrich and many others.
Whitewash: What the Media Won't Tell You About Hillary Clinton, But Conservatives Will
Order your copy today! Go to: www.mrc.org
Tuesday, November 13 was the release date and so it should be in bookstores this week.
-- Brent Baker