Open Warfare…
Well we’re way past feud status this week. Round 3 (or 4 depending on what day you started counting) of the war between O’Reilly and NBCMSNBCBrokawEngelOlbermannScarboroughMatthews happened tonight starting with The Factor’s Talking Points Memo.
…again dissent about the war? Fine. Rooting for America to lose? Disloyal. And then there’s the press. Unfortunately many in the media now have a vested interest in seeing the U.S. fail in Iraq. No doubt about it. If Iraq were to turn and go America’s way, President Bush would rise in the polls and Republicans would have a better chance in 2008. The Left wing media does not want that to happen. NBC News is leading the way in that regard. Listen to this question by Chris Matthews…
What would justify sending 30,000..40,000 GIs into the streets of Baghdad to kick down doors and kill Sunnis? What would convince you that was the right policy?
Kick down doors and kill Sunnis….very nice. Listen to this comment by Tom Brokaw about Saddam’s execution…
He was a goddawful man Saddam Hussein and he did have a trial. But uh to not have control of the execution and to have it really just fuel more sectarian violence at a time when we’re trying to dampen that is…is not helpful. Which is an understatement.
Well Brokaw was wrong. There has not been a rise in violence since Saddam’s execution according to Stratfor, a non partisan group that analyzes Iraq.
One final thing about NBC News. The Center for Media and Public Affairs study concluded that network favored John Kerry more than any other network in the 2004 election.
(If it was this study which does say that the gap between favorable towards Kerry than towards Bush was greatest at NBC, O’Reilly neglected to mention that the same study concluded that FNC was far more negative towards Kerry than Bush. But O’Reilly didn’t specify which study so we don’t know for sure. And I did look for other studies.)
So next week when the President announces his new Iraq strategy expect overwhelmingly negative coverage from NBC News and others. I hope I’m wrong.
O’Reilly then segued to an interview with Andrea Mitchell…
O’Reilly: Now I want everybody to know that you’ve been a correspondent over there for thirty years at NBC and we checked you out thoroughly…we couldn’t find any bias in your reporting. None. Okay? So, I don’t have a problem with you. I do have a problem with NBC News. Tell me where I’m going wrong.
Mitchell: You’re wrong because things are taken out of context. Tom Brokaw said it’s not helpful. I think he’s absolutely right. It wasn’t helpful.
O’Reilly: No he said flat out that it was going to lead to a rise in more violence. He was wrong.
Mitchell: And we’ve only had about a week.
O’Reilly: It’s been wrong.
Mitchell: We don’t know what the timeframe is for that.
O’Reilly: So far he’s been wrong. Would you give me that?
Mitchell: No. Because what you took was five seconds out of what was a much longer conversation.
O’Reilly: It was much worse. What Brokaw said…Do you want me to run the whole clip? We did it last night. What Brokaw said was much worse. I mean he condemned every part of that execution as a fiasco…a wild west hanging.
Mitchell and O’Reilly continued back and forth on this a bit longer. Mitchell gave a passionate defense of NBC News and all its ancillaries including MSNBC. O’Reilly brought up the Kerry study and wanted Mitchell to comment. Mitchell disputed the conclusions.
O’Reilly did admit that he had it in for NBC News…
O’Reilly: …like, I have it in for NBC. I’ll admit it. I don’t like you guys. I like you. I like the Today Show. But I think your management made a conscious decision to go to the left…
Mitchell: That’s not true.
O’Reilly: That’s my opinion. Based upon reems of material
O’Reilly returned to the 2004 election study and hammered the point home. Mitchell did however parry and say…
Mitchell: I don’t think that any of our reports…yours, mine, CNN’s…any of…CBS, ABC…I don’t think you can take that kind of a statistical analysis to the textural and contextual work that we do.
O’Reilly: But then there’s no reality. See if you can’t analyze what was actually said and written in any journalistic enterprise, there’s no reality.
O’Reilly then tried to pin down Mitchell to name one Conservative at NBC. Mitchell sort of balked at the question and said that there are probably privately conservative and liberal people at NBC. O’Reilly continued to press about everybody being Liberal naming off Curry, Lauer, Vierra, and Couric when she was there. They then argued over whether Chris Matthews was liberal. Then O’Reilly let up…
O’Reilly: I’m giving you way too much of a hard time. I am. And I apologize. It’s not your fault.
Mitchell: I don’t think it’s fair to describe journalists as liberals or conservatives.
O’Reilly: I do. Because I think that it’s filtered through a prism. But I want to apologize to you. I’m giving you way too hard a time. It’s not your fault. And your book is excellent. And I have to tell people to buy your book because you are fair. You are balanced. You are accurate. And you have had a window on history for the last thirty years that none of us have had. And you can learn a lot from reading your book. But I am distressed…and I am…about what’s happening over where you work. And I’m sorry that I had to take it out on you.
Mitchell: Well I appreciate your comments but I have to tell you that I don’t feel that there is bias in what we do at NBC News. And I don’t think there’s bias at CBS or ABC.
O’Reilly: What about Fox?
Mitchell: I don’t think…look I think that Fox News is a terrific organization.
O’Reilly: Are we biased?
Mitchell: There are commentators that are biased and I don’t think that the newscasts are biased.
O’Reilly: Shepard Smith will be thrilled.
Meanwhile over at MSNBC, in the same hour (!), the rapid reaction force at Countdown returned fire for the earlier O’Reilly/Mitchell interview by putting O’Reilly in the WPITW segment…
A Bronze tonight…for BillO.
His paranoia about NBC tonight reaching the stages of tertiary syphilis; attacking Chris Matthews and me by trying to push around Andrea Mitchell on the air. Then telling her, “We’ve checked you out. You’re ok”…like some twenty five cent edition of Joe McCarthy…or like you could carry Andrea Mitchell’s pencil.
Listen big boy, if you want to hit Matthews or me come on down and do it like a man. Not like a Bill O’Reilly…
Let the record show that O’Reilly never mentioned Olbermann. He mentioned Matthews but not Olbermann. In the past there have been times when O’Reilly would imply Olbermann and not name him but in this particular case it’s very apparent that O’Reilly never named nor implied Olbermann at all in either segment. Olbermann was incorrect saying that O’Reilly attacked him. He did not.
Let the record show that Olbermann incorrectly quoted O’Reilly. O’Reilly never told Mitchell “You’re ok.”
Let the record also show that O’Reilly blasted NBC News and beat Andrea Mitchell over the head with a study which also named FNC as being more negative towards Kerry than Bush than any other network. That study cuts in two directions but O’Reilly, for whatever reason (which I am not privy to), only highlighted the part critical of NBC.
Once again, neither side came out smelling like a rose. They should both just stop it. But given the recent heat, that ain’t happening any time soon. We’re nearing critical mass territory on this though…
UPDATE: The video of the Mitchell interview is here. (via NewsBusters)
UPDATE 2: After thinking it over I’ve decided that Mitchell didn’t tip off the Countdown crew to the contents of the interview. More likely someone was watching the interview and they then prepared a response. Unfortunately for them it had errors in it. So I removed that Mitchell guess from the blog entry.
YAWN…who cares? I ask BO this.. FNC is ran by Roger Ailes…former republican campaigner….so that makes FNC leaning waaaaaaaaaay towards the right. He accuses NBC of being liberal just because some former democratic political honchos are working there. BO, look and take care of things at home before lurking up a tree you cant be brought down from!
Comment by Big Dave — January 6, 2007 @ 12:12 am
“Once again, neither side came out smelling like a rose. They should both just stop it.”
Spud: I’ll jump in first before the foreign precincts check in and agree that your conclusion is absolutely correct.
As I have said before, BOR’s problem with NBC goes back a few years. He worked with Rather and Jennings but never at the Peacock. Maybe Brokaw rejected him, who knows?
It is nearly as ridiculous as The Donald-Rosie feud.
Comment by Ira — January 6, 2007 @ 12:15 am
Good job finding the study. O’Reilly just DESTROYED Mitchell, and I’m glad he apologized a bit at the end… it’s not her fault… but he was clearly dominant in that interview.
As for the study, you neglected to mention all of the findings in it… some of which change perspective a bit. Here are the relevant parts:
• Among non-partisan sources, Kerry’s evaluations were almost three-to-one positive; Bush’s were over two-to-one negative.
• Among the networks, the gap between the candidates was largest on NBC; the coverage was most balanced on ABC.
• Fox News Channel was about as negative towards Bush as the broadcast networks, but Kerry’s evaluations were negative by a five-to-one margin.
• There was little difference in the evaluations of party- and campaign-based partisan sources, but Bush fared over four times as well as Kerry among non-partisan sources.
—-
Additionally, we must remember comparisons between the network news broadcasts and FNC are like comparing apples to oranges… yeah they’re fruit, but not the same fruit. FNC by-and-large is a network built around the concept of commentary and opinion, while the broadcast channels stand on the “un-biased truth” platform.
As for Olbermann getting his facts wrong, and/or not actually doing any research (how can he report on something that hasn’t yet aired… oh wait, we saw him do that with Chris Wallace too)… well I think *yawn* sums it up nicely. I’d love to see Bill debate Keith… but I thought Keith said that news debates make him ill.
Comment by ImNotBlue — January 6, 2007 @ 12:27 am
True enough. But the overall point is the same study that faults NBC faults FNC. And I mean faults as in O’Reilly is using the results to fault NBC, not that the report itself assigns guilt.
As for the Mitchell interview, it’s never a fair fight when one side comes armed with facts prepared in advance and the other side doesn’t. I think Mitchell did ok under the circumstances though I don’t like the way she balked at the name one conservative question. I did find a flaw with O’Reilly’s logic though. At the end he praised Mitchell for being fair and balanced and accurate yet totally discounts her appraisal of NBC News. How can one say that one is fair and balanced and then totally blow off what they’re saying?
BTW, Countdown airs live. The Factor is taped. So yeah they did turn it around in half an hour and got it on the air. But judging by the results it seems sort of obvious that Olbermann had never seen the interview. How could he? He was on the air. But whoever filled him in did a poor job.
Comment by Spud — January 6, 2007 @ 12:30 am
Big Dave- Your comment didn’t make much sense. How do you justify MSNBC’s “former democratic political honchos,” but complain about FNC’s “former republican political honcho”? Why does that make FNC lean “waaaaaaaaaay” right, but doesn’t make MSNBC lean “waaaaaaaaaay” left?
To quote South Park… “That does not make sense! Chewbacca is a wookie!”
Comment by ImNotBlue — January 6, 2007 @ 12:35 am
Spud- True enough. I’m interested to see if Bill calls back Bernie and Jane to talk about FNC next week. He said he would after that interview… maybe then they’ll bring back the study.
Comment by ImNotBlue — January 6, 2007 @ 12:38 am
Like I said the other day, O’Reilly is finally on the offensive again. This isn’t the feud. O’Reilly has made this bigger than Olbermann or Scarborough or Brokaw; and like you said, he has come armed with facts. He has been sitting back and planning for quite some time, saving up little tidbits that happened weeks or months ago, that he’s never mentioned before. And his timing seems perfect.
And congrats to the Olbermann team on the quick (if not entirely accurate) response. In the past I have seen several day old stories used in the WPITW segment; not this time!
I was yawning a week ago. Not any more.
Comment by erljr — January 6, 2007 @ 2:01 am
When Olby calls out somebody with the “be a man” line, that’s laughable.
Comment by eddiebear — January 6, 2007 @ 2:35 am
Oreilly is just a big old wannabee He always brags when he is coming out on one of the 3 major networks. In his own mind he is still a tabloid reporter who gets no respect.
Comment by alice cervantes — January 6, 2007 @ 3:53 am
O’Reilly went out of his way to be nice to Andrea Mitchell. However, he also made her look foolish. She knows there’s not a single conservative at NBC News, and that’s why she couldn’t name one.
The problem the mainstream media has is they accuse of FOX having a conservative bias (which, among its main commentators, it does), but they can never see their own liberal bias, although almost every single person working there is a liberal.
Comment by bigred — January 6, 2007 @ 5:17 am
I saw that O’Reilly interview with Andrea Mitchell, and they were mostly sparring about the presence of “bias” in NBC’s reporting. If Brokaw indeed said the things quoted here, I agree he is wrong. The execution was carried out by the Iraqi government, and there was no surge in violence in the aftermath. Why would Brokaw have any problem in executing a brutal dictator responsible for killing thousands of his countrymen with poisonous gas?
On the Chris Mattthews’ quote: That, without doubt, is irresponsible. That makes it appear like American soldiers are savages. They have a mission to do there, which is to
end the insurgency that has resulted in the impasse we have been seeing. To reduce a complex problem to the level that Matthews did is not only unfair to coalition soldiers, but reeks of tabloid journalism. Matthews ought to apologize for those vile remarks.
There is free speech in this country, but let’s make sure what is being said is fair, responsible, and not harmful to the solution we are seeking for the problems in Iraq. The president does not need to be bopgged down by armchair experts whose tongues are ever so loose to criticize him at every turn, and yet without having to shoulder that heavy burden. That’s a big difference.
Comment by RGL — January 6, 2007 @ 7:39 am
Are they excited when loud overenergetic reactions reflect from senior media person? Yes!
When i knew Tom Brokaw he wore a clair ‘college cut’ haircut ,much plain look in eyes with simple loose suits and nothing as flashy like’kick the doors and kill the sunni’s???? Who were his eyes meeting!
Although since mideighties when i got off the seat leaving CBS NBC and ABC the prime US Television before Sat Tele were introduced before CNN after that i didnt need to fornicate until Fox and now the internet! I dont think i will really push into matches of Reilly one after another as the new wave blasts away the old glamoursome media and their tight lipped high rollers who might also be talking newer logic to lies because the merry go round they tell the world leaders are riding on Washington’s expense both home or abroad .
but im looking at a very sound and respectable writing expression here.. I think complimenting someone for his work could be like ’subervience’ unless you have the cash innhand to promote it ,but the way you write SPUD your a partie friend and worth a million too !
Comment by greatglobalist — January 6, 2007 @ 10:03 am
BTW, regarding Matthews’ question, I would hold off rendering judgement because I would want to see the full context first. It’s possible that that Matthews came up with that question on his own. But, based on the limited information we have at the moment…namely just the question and only the question…we don’t know if Matthews was quoting something somebody else said and turned it into the form of a question. I won’t pretend that Matthews has a liberal background because he does. And I won’t pretend that at times he has been liberal in his questioning (though if you ask the far left, who last time I checked are still trying to boycott Matthews over the Bin Laden/Michael Moore comparison, Matthews ain’t that liberal. And there have been other times, particularly the Impeachment of Clinton, when Matthews was not towing the Liberal line.). But I think to render an informed judgement and not guess at it we need to know the exact circumstances under which that question was asked. Otherwise we’re all just guessing.
Comment by Spud — January 6, 2007 @ 11:09 am
Spud, You make too much good sense for these drones.
Brokaw’s comment was consistent with many other analysts including the usually wrong Charles Krauthammer.
As for Chris Mathew’s blunt comment, while it may not have been the most politically correct way of expressing it, it was reflective of the fact that the U.S. may have to ultimately take sides in this war in order to end the sectarian violence.
Comment by elmonica — January 6, 2007 @ 11:49 am
“The usually wrong Charles Krauthammer”????? Are you kidding me? He is one of the most insightful & intelligent columnists/pundits on there, if not the most. I’d love to see examples of how he’s “usually wrong”.
Comment by bigred — January 6, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
The Matthews quote was in context - I saw it. The Brokaw quote, which I also saw, was NOT a partisan/biased comment.
The thing I like about Matthews is that he is the only anchor on MSNBC or CNN who wears his liberal viewpoint on his sleeve. And that’s a GOOD thing; FNC has lots of anchors who readily admit their liberal or conservative leaning bias: John Gibson, Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, Bob Beckel, Brit Hume, Geraldo Rivera, Rich Lowry. CNN has NONE! MSNBC has one admitted conservative, one admitted libertarian, and one admitted liberal. FNC doesn’t deny that their hosts/anchors lean more right than left; they simply promise that we’re going to hear both sides of the debate.
I agree with O’Reilly that Matthews, and many others on the left, are invested in losing the war. That’s something voters and viewers need to know. And the ones who really want to win this war are not on the far right; they are the moderates, like Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman, and John McCain. The media has a responsibility to tell us about this; instead the MSM (CNN especially) pretend to be objective and try to manipulate their viewers.
Comment by erljr — January 6, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
Red,
I meant it tongue and cheek since I know he is a sometime Fox All-Star. I agree he is a smart guy and I like reading or hearing his commentaries. However, since his political philosopy is different from mine I often consider his opinions to be wrong.
Comment by elmonica — January 6, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
Krauthammer is definately a conservative, but he doesn’t tow any party lines. There should be more pundits like him out there, on both sides.
Back to O’Reilly vs. NBC, I think it’s time FOX fights back against all the slams of conservative bias by exposing the rampant liberal bias in the mainstream media, especially at NBC. To borrow a football term, the best defense is a good offense. Exposing liberal bias in the MSM can only help FOX.
Comment by bigred — January 6, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
Honestly, what exactly is the point of the whole labeling of networks in certain ways? In all honesty, if you don’t like a select network, CHANGE THE CHANNEL, we have things called remotes people! I mean, in all respects, NBC has the best reporters in my own opinion of the big three, then again, maybe I think that since I’ve watched them on a regular basis for years.
In all honesty, I think Bill should be worried because he is what causes FNC to be accused of Republican-leaning ideas! I mean, many of the reporters do nothing more than that, report, but the commentative hosts are what is the main focus of the network. I mean, if you walked up to some random person and asked them about FNC, they’d probably say they know names like O’Reilly or Hannity, but would wonder who in the world is this Jon Scott, Shepard Smith, or Martha MacCallum?
Comment by Chris — January 6, 2007 @ 10:35 pm
Chris, I’m more of an ABC viewer myself, but totally agree with your second paragraph.
Comment by Anon — January 6, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
Chris -
How old are you? Three of your sentences start with “I mean,” two of them start with “In all honesty,” and one starts with “Honestly.”
In all honesty, Chris, since you’ve been watching NBC for so long, you should like “Fox News Sunday,” with Chris Wallace, one of your NBC alumni, tomorrow morning.
Comment by erljr — January 7, 2007 @ 12:15 am
This is for Bigred, from the American Conservative.
While it is difficult to be more dishonest than Ledeen, it is difficult to be more wrong than Charles Krauthammer. Prior to the invasion, Krauthammer used his various media platforms—his column at the Washington Post and his almost daily appearances on Fox News—to warn that Iraq was rapidly building up its WMD capabilities and that the U.S. risked running out of time if it did not invade immediately. He assured Americans that the war would pay for itself with oil revenues and that Iraqis would greet Americans as liberators.
http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_01_15/article1.html
Comment by Kewalo — January 7, 2007 @ 2:10 am
Thanks. So Krauthammer was wrong about Iraq having WMD. I guess he isn’t so smart. I would’ve thought he knew more than Hillary, Bill Clnton, the UN, Tony Blair, the governments of France, Germany & Russia, John Kerry, John Edwards, Al Gore, the leaders of Egypt & Jordan, intelligence agencies around the world and all those other not-so-smart people who thought Iraq had WMD.
Comment by bigred — January 7, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
bigred, it’s amazing how it’s only conservatives who are liars about the WMD, isn’t it? But the libs who made similar statements, even during the Clinton years, are always forgiven for any miscalculations they may have made.
Comment by Missy — January 7, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
Bigred, you said you would love to be shown where Krauthammer was wrong. So, I posted an article that showed he was not just wrong once, but over and over again. Personally, I can’t think of one reason to listen to him now.
I certainly don’t contend he was the only one that was wrong about the WMD’s, but it looks like he would like to pretend that he never said the things he did. Why not just own up to them and go on. Isn’t that what personal responsibility is all about?
Comment by Kewalo — January 7, 2007 @ 9:45 pm
Missy, I wouldn’t dream of calling anyone a liar about being taken in about WMD’s. Many people were fooled, good people own up to being fooled. This isn’t right or left, conservative or liberal, no matter how people would like to frame it. It’s about being a grown-up and admitting when one has been wrong. Seems simple to me.
Comment by Kewalo — January 7, 2007 @ 9:50 pm
I highly doubt Charles Krauthammer reads this blog Kewalo. This is not the place to be demanding an apology from him. I’m told he’s easy to find; he’s the one trying to run everybody down with his wheelchair.
Comment by erljr — January 8, 2007 @ 2:14 am