NBC Gives Most Coverage to Newsweek Cover Controversy, But Uses it to Paint Bachmann as 'Extreme'
While anchor Brian Williams described Newsweek's controversial cover photo of Michelle Bachmann as "clearly a misfire" on Monday's NBC Nightly News, on Tuesday's Today, correspondent Andrea Mitchell saw an opportunity to portray Bachmann as "extreme." Meanwhile, CBS completely ignored the story and ABC only provided a news brief on the topic.
On Tuesday's Today, while Mitchell described the Newsweek cover, she skipped over accusations that it was sexist. She did manage to include a defense of the cover from both Newsweek editor Tina Brown and the author of the Bachmann article, Lois Romano, both of whom argued the clearly unflattering picture somehow captured Bachmann's "intensity." A statement was included from Alex Wagner of The Huffington Post labeling the cover "unfair."
Later in the report, Mitchell made Bachmann herself the source of controversy: "She's also generating excitement among evangelical voters...by making no apology for her positions on social issues....Also controversial, Bachmann's own must-reads, a list the New Yorker showed includes a book defending slavery." A sound bite was featured of the New Yorker's Ryan Lizza proclaiming: "I don't think we have seen a candidate with sort of the views – and frankly, the extreme views that she holds – last in national politics."
On Tuesday's Good Morning America on ABC, news reader Josh Elliot framed the Newsweek controversy as mostly upsetting Bachmann supporters: "And the latest issue of Newsweek has conservatives and others seeing red....Tea Party advocates call the cover chauvinistic." However, unlike Mitchell, he did make a point to note that: "The National Organization for Women calls the cover sexist."
The anchor brief by Williams on Nightly News took direct aim at the liberal magazine: "Newsweek magazine tonight is catching heat for a cover photo many people consider a cheap shot. Calling Michele Bachmann 'The Queen of Rage' is one thing, but the photo is clearly a misfire. It received widespread criticism today, some called it biased and insulting....Several wondered if a male politician would be treated in similar fashion."
Here is a full transcript of Mitchell's August 9 report on Today:
7:01AM ET TEASE:
ANN CURRY: Also ahead this morning, we're going to take a look at this Newsweek cover, it's featuring Michele Bachmann and it's caption is 'The Queen of Rage.' But it's the unflattering photo that has a lot of people crying foul. We'll get details on that coming up this morning.
7:14AM ET SEGMENT:
CURRY: We're now going to turn to presidential politics. Republican hopeful Michele Bachmann has grabbed her share of the early headlines, but now her most recent magazine cover is causing quite a stir for all the wrong reasons. NBC's Andrea Mitchell now joins us with details on this story. Andrea, good morning.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: "The Queen of Rage"; Newsweek's Controversial Cover of Michele Bachmann]
ANDREA MITCHELL: Hi there, Ann. She has rocketed to become the front-runner in Iowa in the critical days before this week's straw poll in Ames. But now Michele Bachmann faces a whole new challenge, an unflattering Newsweek cover.
MICHELE BACHMANN: Come to Ames, we're going to have a ball.
MITCHELL: Campaigning in Iowa, Michele Bachmann is energetic, focused, taking aim at President Obama.
BACHMANN: When the ratings downgrade came out last week, where was President Obama? Did he rush to the microphone to give confidence to the American people? He got in the helicopter, he took off for the weekend.
MITCHELL: Those close to her say she is unfazed by this week's Newsweek cover photo, captioned as 'The Queen of Rage.'
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Have you seen it yet?
BACHMANN: I have not.
MAN: Okay, it's a big close-up, sort of a wild-eyed photo with the headline 'Queen of Rage.'
BACHMANN: A-ha. Well we'll have to take a look at that, won't we?
MITCHELL: In a statement, Newsweek editor Tina Brown said, 'Michele Bachmann's intensity is galvanizing voters in Iowa right now and Newsweek's cover captures that.' Lois Romano wrote the cover story.
LOIS ROMANO [NEWSWEEK/THE DAILY BEAST]: It's a very provocative photo. She's a very provocative candidate. She is stirring a lot of intense passions among the electorate and a lot of intense passions among her own party and I think the cover reflects that.
MITCHELL: But how could a woman even critics describe as attractive be made to look this bad?
ALEX WAGNER [THE HUFFINGTON POST]: She looks sort of blank and confused. And I did think it was unfair.
MITCHELL: In the cover story, Bachmann tells Newsweek, 'You used the word anger. It's not anger. Americans aren't expressing unhinged anger, people are saying the country is not working.' Bachmann has built a fan base for her opposition to raising the debt ceiling.
BACHMANN: Do not raise the debt ceiling.
MITCHELL: But she's also generating excitement among evangelical voters, key to winning in Iowa and South Carolina, by making no apology for her positions on social issues. On Sunday, Bachmann was in an Iowa church, where the pastor played a video celebrating the so-called conversion of a gay man who says he is now straight.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN B: Homosexuality is an abomination.
MITCHELL: Also controversial, Bachmann's own must-reads, a list the New Yorker showed includes a book defending slavery.
RYAN LIZZA [THE NEW YORKER]: I don't think we have seen a candidate with sort of the views – and frankly, the extreme views that she holds – last in national politics.
MITCHELL: The Newsweek cover is not Bachmann's first clash with the media. On Fox News Sunday a while ago she was once asked, 'Are you a flake?' Anchor Chris Wallace later apologized. And, in fact, Bachmann's advisers believe that talk about the Newsweek cover will only help her with conservative primary voters. Ann.
CURRY: Certainly not the last we've heard about that.
MITCHELL: Not at all.
CURRY: Alright, Andrea Mitchell, thank you so much this morning.
- Kyle Drennen's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
So What?
Submitted by GeneralAl on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 12:50pm.
So what? Let them call us all extreme! The damage they have done to this country needs extreme measures to make the necessary repairs. I'm proud to be a Bachmenn Extremist!
"Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away"!
You'd think Andrea Mitchell would be a little more sensitive.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 12:52pm.
Newsweek did a cover story on her back in 2000, but pulled the less-than-complimentary cover photo right before press.
Mitchel is Just Jealous
Submitted by JoelinPDX on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 12:54pm.
Andrea Micthcell is jealous that she hasn't been featured on the cover of Newsweek...as the "Queen of B*tchiness." Bachmann shouldn't worry too much about the Newsweek cover anyway. No one reads Newsweek any more.
Tina Brown
Submitted by Texndoc on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 12:55pm.
She knew what she was doing, the dirty #####. She'll be on Morning Joe tomorrrow grinning. And I would bet this is the beginning with covers of St. Obama and Evil Republicans that will border on The Onion territory. Let's see who calls this ##### a ##### to her face.
Pray the Gay Away
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 12:59pm.
If only it was that easy. With all of the preying evangelicals in this country you would almost expect one big group prayer to end homosexuality once and for all.
It's voluntary*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 1:05pm.
When a homosexual walks into Dr Bachmann's clinic for help, it is entirely voluntary. Just like acupuncture, herbalists, and dozens of other alternative methods of treatment.
It's you again
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 1:20pm.
So your position is that because it's voluntary, treatments are possible and successful. How do they test the success of such therapy? I hope they assign a tracker to each patient, just in case he or she may visit an airport restroom and start tapping toes with the person in the next stall.
You're drama-queening again, Marilyn
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 1:25pm.
Where did Cajun say it was successful? Or even remotely imply it?
This is an annoying habit you have.
It's not hard
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 1:44pm.
To put 2 and 2 together.
Math is difficult*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 3:03pm.
When you keep coming up with 2+2 =5
A list of alternative methods of medicine and treatment.
Shall we discuss the sheer numbers, success and failure rates for each one? My comment was to put Dr Bachmann's methods of therapy in its proper place, among hundreds of other alternative treatment methods. Give it as much importance as you please, but do not infer an opinion clearly not stated in my post.
And once again, you put sexual identity before all points of discussion by referring to sexual "behavior". You can't seem to separate the two. "Behavior" is what most of these alternative methods of treatment bases as its primary causation. I was not aware that this would be too difficult for you to comprehend.
My next reply to you will. be. a . lot. easier. for. you. to. understand.
Marilyn gave you a free tarot reading and you're complaining?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 3:17pm.
;)
OK SoL*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 3:28pm.
I will admit that he is a "card"....;-)
Avoid at all costs
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 3:57pm.
Do you ever respond to direct questions? Instead of answering the questions you tend to write an compendium of personal opinions based in who knows what. As if I can't include your posts from previous discussions as information relevant to this discussion. Need I remind you of your own position regarding gays? Gays are dysfunctional narcissists, right? Isn't that what you said? Disfunction is caused by disease. Do you think homosexuality is a disease? Can it be cured? Will you even respond? Or do I get to read your next dissertation on the subject of why I'm wrong and you're right?
wrong again Jack*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 7:34pm.
We were discussing militant gays in the earlier thread. As I pointed out, those that live their entire existence around their sexuality and sexual behavior are like other dysfunctional individuals, gays, heterosexuals, alcoholics or druggies.. You have obviously misread every one of my posts because you continue to infer an opinion about gays that I have never stated. That tells me you are locked in to a particular view and unwilling to comprehend. Your continued distortion and inference from other posters as well reveals your obsessive behavior toward one subject.
The country is in the middle of a major economic crisis and you are obsessed with anger and hatred toward Christians and heterosexuals. Only your view is rational, demanding major accommodations from all our institutions to comply with your lifestyle. That is the definition of narcissist. You need not worry about another attempt to correct your posts. You have shown you sing a one note tune.
Homosexuals who live ordinary lives not totally centered around their sexuality, work, independent, live with values and morals, do not deserve anyones hatred nor bigotry. If that person's sexuality is not the most singular part of their life, they would probably appear to be just like any other ordinary American.
If you fail to comprehend my comments then there is nothing I could post that you would understand. c'est tu fini
What do you know about my lifestyle?
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 7:40pm.
Have you been peeking through my bedroom window?
Are you not aware of the content, Marilyn,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 7:49pm.
of your own posts?
Your "lifestyle" drips from every condescending word you type.
Typical.
Like those before you, you want to "debate, discuss, or argue", until such time as it finally dawns on you that you aren't getting anywhere, then it's Snark City.
MD
Try real hard
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 7:55pm.
And tell me anything I've stated about my personal life.
Well, Marilyn---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 8:22pm.
it involves no amount of effort whatsoever to read your posts.
You make it most obvious you are a homosexual - therefore your lifestyle is put RIGHT there in posts for all to see.
It's there; what does describing the decor of your domicile, what you wear, or where you dine out have to do with a heterosexual not understanding what your personal life amounts to?
Is homosexuality not about your personal life?
Deny, deny, deny, if that is what works for you; just explain, if you would, what it is, exactly, that you are denying.
MD
Denying?
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 8:30pm.
I've really denied nothing so far as I recall. Does one need to be gay to support the rights of all Americans, not just heteros?
I referred, Marilyn, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 9:14pm.
to what I perceived as a denial that your personal life was not in any way reflected or affected by your sexuality.
As far as who can-may-might support all Americans, ALL Americans should support one another until given a reason not to.
Illegal aliens are NOT Americans, and no one should support lawbreakers, whether through amnesty, welfare, or any other kind of assistance. Only aspect related to illegals that I would support would be a free ride back to the border they illegally crossed.
Poor people are just poor, welfare weenies and queens are nothing more than leeches, period. Only stupid-assed Lib-Dims support perennial welfare.
The gays, abortionists, and socialists that you mentioned in another thread ---
I consider abortion, outside of being a necessary life-saving measure for the female, to be murder. NO support from me.
Socialists - don't like capitalism? Go somewhere else.
Gays - I would hope they can live their life unfettered by either social pain or stigma; and I will support that end up until militant gays start getting in my face and dictating what I shall or shall not accept in the way of their demands.
MD
Quit whining, Marilyn---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 7:27pm.
your side has been heard, ad nauseam, from a number of homosexuals who have visited here to trash heteros because there are some who disagree both with them and their lifestyle.
Tell you what, I'll amend that to "who have visited here to try and rationally explain the whys and wherefores of homosexuality to those who are not 'inclined' in that direction".
Ultimately, though, because they cannot convince anyone not of their persuasion to agree with their perspective OR lifestyle, they get snarky, smarmy, and then nasty.
You are right on course.
It has always been a male homosexual, who, to coin a phrase, "flames out".
Why is that?
MD
A disease?
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 7:30pm.
No.
A state of mind?
Most likely.
I still don't think that the
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 1:00pm.
I still don't think that the photo is any big deal...........but the 'Queen of Rage' headline is out of line, for sure. And I was just reading that the ol' global-warming blowhard, ALGORE, had a little snit at some speech..............I'm sure we could see many photos of Barry having his own petulant little adolescent moments.......
It doesn't really matter, cause nobody reads Newsweak anyway.
MITCHELL: Also controversial,
Submitted by HypocriteHater on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 1:56pm.
MITCHELL: Also controversial, Bachmann's own must-reads, a list the New Yorker showed includes a book defending slavery.
Since I don't read the New Yorker (and wouldn't if you paid me), does anyone know what must-read book allegedly defends slavery?
Yeah, HH---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 7:33pm.
it is the magnum opus that is the Internal Revenue Tax Code.
It's actual title is "The Eternal Revenue Tax Code". :o)
MD