In conjunction with the tour for his new book Whitewash, NewsBusters publisher and MRC president Brent Bozell was invited on to FNC's "Fox and Friends" to discuss the liberal media's constant search for bad news in Iraq.
In his Thursday appearance, Bozell noted that things are so ridiculous that some liberal journalists are bemoaning how fewer deaths in Iraq harms the cemetery business there. Watch the video above, on YouTube, or download the video in Windows Media, Real or listen to MP3 audio.
Transcript is below the fold...
GRETCHEN CARLSON: Did you fall over when you saw the New York Times yesterday morning?
BRENT BOZELL: Well yeah, especially since in the editorial pages less than a month ago, they said flat-out that the surge would never work. I'm waiting now for the editorial to come out and say that 'We were wrong about this.'
But look, one story in the New York Times really doesn't mean anything. There have been hundreds of stories in the press over the last three years about how everything was going wrong day after day after day, so you simply can't write just one story and say, now I've done my job, let's move on and let's go find something else wrong in Iraq like Blackwater or desertions.
We looked at the network coverage and it's unbelievable. In the last month and a half, guess how many stories ABC has done on the surge working.
BRIAN KILMEADE: You did--they did three, correct?
CARLSON: But they were the best of the bunch?
BOZELL: They were the best. NBC: 1. CBS: Not one. Now CBS, to its credit, has reported in these little anchorette briefs that casualties are down by 50 percent.
KILMEADE: This is unbelievable, Brent. If you had predicted this a year ago. If you had--before we had even knew the term "surge" and the new strategy that needed to be refocused and Donald Rumsfeld was just finding his way out the door--if you had said in a year things will be fine, the Shias and Sunnis will be able to cross Baghdad no problem, violence will be down 70 percent, the Al Anbar province will be a place the president will go visit and walk down the street, they would've said you're drunk--again.
BOZELL: Absolutely. But look, in television, the old saw is good news is no news, bad news is great news. But beyond that, the media have such a hatred for George Bush and all things George Bush, they simply do not want to give him credit for anything in Iraq.
You look at the coverage on television, again, ABC and NBC they've yet to report that casualties are down by 50 percent. I mean--
CARLSON: There was another news service, this was your favorite headline from October 16--
BOZELL: --Yeah, you've gotta read this one--
CARLSON: As violence falls in Iraq, cemetery workers feel the pinch.
(Laughing)
KILMEADE: That sounds like a joke.
BOZELL: That's the McClatchy paper chain. That's their headline.
KILMEADE: Yeah, the glass is always half empty.
—Matthew Sheffield is the creator of NewsBusters and its Executive Editor.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Yeah!
November 22, 2007 - 05:16 ET by heldmywGo on Brent!
Keep up the pressure on the MSM the Democrat "leadership" in Congress, and the perceptions of the American People!
Doubtless there will still be difficulties and setbacks, but, to quote Winston Churchill, "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
At least for Iraq.
Cal Thomas has a great
November 22, 2007 - 07:23 ET by motherbeltCal Thomas has a great column at townhall.com today discussing how the Democrats can't afford to have this success, since they are running on failure. The headline says it all: None Dare Call it Victory
Violence in Iraq is
November 22, 2007 - 07:39 ET by KevroyViolence in Iraq is down...
Women and minorities hardest hit.
Is it ok
November 22, 2007 - 07:45 ET by sarcasmoTo be happy that violence/death is finally down, and still believe the Iraq War is a fiscal disaster despite the recent good news?? I hope so, because that's what I think...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Happy Thanksgiving sarc
November 22, 2007 - 07:55 ET by Cool ArrowWhat the heck, WWII was fiscally even worse.
Probably coulda' come out fiscally ahead paying tribute to the Barbary Pirates too. But if we sign off on the LOST treaty we'll have accomplished same.
More than ever, we need a leader who will stand for the USA and care less about global standing.
No, not really
November 22, 2007 - 08:20 ET by sarcasmoIn WW2, we had everyone from real celebrities to Buggs Bunny selling bonds. Today we have politicians who are scared of both free speech and real money printing monopoly-money, and it's not even over yet so we can't even estimate the final-cost. Here's CATO's take on the 2 different wars' costs, but clearly the different financing mechanism have vastly-different implications. For me, those implications are both fiscal and moral.
And nobody on the side that was stupidly-ignored (or mocked by that witch!) when it was trying to revive the Founders' idea of Letters of Marque & Reprisal is (or was) talkin' about "tribute" to anyone, so please drop that canard, or take it up with these guys. We both know the choice wasn't a binary: "have a war with Iraq or pay tribute." More than ever, we need a President who'll keep us out of expensive, undeclared UN-Wars by getting us out of the UN, which is only an antigun dictators' club anyway.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
}}---> Celebrity war
November 22, 2007 - 08:26 ET by Cool ArrowOK, got it again.
If Hollywood doesn't endorse it, it's not worth fighting for.
More like
November 22, 2007 - 08:30 ET by sarcasmoIf it's not-declared & not-honestly-financed...But nice try! :)
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Please help me with this
November 22, 2007 - 17:31 ET by Gary P JacksonPlease help me with this one. Congress authorized the use of force in both Afghanistan and Iraq. How is that not a "declared" war?
Not an expert on these things, but weren't we still AT war with Iraq since the Gulf War, and much like North Korea operating under a cease fire agreement? And didn't Saddam repeatedly violate that agreement by firing at coalition planes as they patroled the no-fly zone?
That and Saddam was in violation of what, 17 UN resolutions?
Again, not an expert, but nothing about the Iraq war seems illegitimate, except those who grasp at straws trying to make it so.
Dittos Gary
November 22, 2007 - 19:42 ET by acumen"...weren't we still AT war with Iraq since the Gulf War..."
Great point Gary that to my knowledge has not been discussed by the demedia.
Something else equally distressing is the ingratitude of the demedia at Bush preventing another attack on US soil since 9/11.
It is preposterous to ignore Iraq when considering the fact America has not been hit again by al qaeda post 9/11.
It is an established fact al qaeda decided to take the fight to America on Iraqi soil when the US returned to Iraq in response to Saddam's continued violations of the peace agreement.
Had America not resumed military operations in Iraq post 9/11 it is not a stretch to assume al qaeda would have carried out more operations on American soil. What then would have been the cost to the US in terms of human life and financial resources if one or more 9/11 type operations had been carried out again on US soil? Is there still not a large hole in the hearts of over 3000 US families not to mention still a large hole in the ground of NY City 6 years after 9/11? How many decades would it take Americans to recover emotionally and financially if more attacks on civilians were to occur on US soil?
It is a hollow argument to make the charge that fighting wars on foreign soil is morally and financially wrong while a large number of Islamo fascists on foreign soil have declared war on the US. Al qaeda did in fact declare war on the US. To ignore that act would be akin to setting ourselves up for a much more costly war waged against US civilians on American soil. I don't understand why some have such a hard time grasping that concept.
Like you Gary I am no expert on the matter. Still, it seems to me it saves more US lives and property by having our highly trained military destroy the terrorists where the terrorists live and train rather than sit back and wait for another hit on civilians and property here in the US.
Perhaps some reader here that is dismayed at the cost of fighting the terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc can explain how vastly reducing the number of terrorists available to attack Americans on our own soil is more costly than sitting uneasily within our borders while the terrorist cancer continues to grow.
They're just following the
November 22, 2007 - 10:07 ET by PeskyDaneThey're just following the Stalin template. Gratitude is for dogs.
I will be happy for the day
November 22, 2007 - 10:22 ET by zhombreI will be happy for the day when these media organizations start to file Chapter 11.