MRC president and NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell appeared on the October 15 "Hannity & Colmes" to discuss the New York Times ignoring retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez's recent complaints about shoddy, biased, and inaccurate media coverage of the war in Iraq.
Video (3:36): Real (2.64) and Windows (2.20 MB), plus MP3 audio (1.64 MB).
Among other complaints, Sanchez hit the media for its "unwillingness to accurately and prominently correct your mistakes and your agenda-driven biases sometimes contribute to this corrosive environment."
Below is the opening exchange between Bozell and liberal co-host Alan Colmes:
COLMES: [I]n terms of criticizing the media, where as the media? The New York Times pretty much did the Bush administration bidding for it. Judith Miller using Ahmad Chalabi as a source. They've since apologized for that. Where were the hard questions the media was asking before this war?
BOZELL: Alan, not even you believes that the New york Times does the bidding of the Bush administration."
COLMES: They did in the Iraq War before the run-up to the war they did.
BOZELL: But let me correct something. Here's the interesting thing. You said that he [Sanchez] made a statement about the media. In fact, more than half of his speech, in his entire speech, was devoted to the biggest tongue-lashing I have ever heard from a military person to the media, and you know the New York Times didn't report a word of that?
COLMES: Well, I don't speak for the New York Times. The New York Times, as I said, was complicit in the run-up to the war...
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"COLMES: Well, I don't speak
October 16, 2007 - 10:32 ET by Jimbo"COLMES: Well, I don't speak for the New York Times. The New York Times, as I said, was complicit in the run-up to the war..."
Read that again and think about what he said there. Are you kidding me?
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
I've always had trouble
October 16, 2007 - 10:45 ET by Chris NormanI've always had trouble watching H&C, but Colmes has become so obnoxious, it's unbearable now.
I'm with you, Chris; I
October 16, 2007 - 13:11 ET by motherbeltI'm with you, Chris; I can't stand him any more. Every time he insinuates that Hannity and others should approve of some maniac or tinhorn dictator (e.g. Ahmedinejad) because "he's a conservative" Or when he refers to any conservative or Republican in the past as: when your guy was (insert outrage here)...it was OK.. I want to throw something at the TV.
mb, and it's the tactics
October 16, 2007 - 13:18 ET by Chris Normanmb,
and it's the tactics he employs (see below). He sneaks his nasty comments in, while the guest is speaking, or at the end, very quickly, then ends the segment before the guest can respond. It's a cowardly way to debate.
You're right Chris, and
October 16, 2007 - 15:05 ET by motherbeltYou're right Chris, and it's immature too...like the little kid getting in one last "did not!" or "did too!" at the last second.
Is Colmes just Annoying Man?
October 17, 2007 - 22:38 ET by Edward LeeMy wife and I were debating Colmes' annoyingness recently. She suggested that maybe he's really an arch conservative professional straw man whose real purpose is to make the opposition look so lame and annoying that people will agree with the point of view that the network wants you to believe. Saturday Night Live use to parody this common form of manipulation with its "Annoying Man" character brought on their SNL News skit for an "alternative viewpoint". A sincere attempt at this was Alan Alda playing a conservative candidate on West Wing (I had to temporarily disable automatic error correction in my word processor to write that).
Anyway, the whole basis for her hypothesis was that nobody could be that annoying unless he was really trying. I had to remind her about Olbermann.
Logic??
October 16, 2007 - 10:43 ET by kdoliverHave you stopped and noticed that any time a liberal or liberal organization comes to the same conclusion as a conservative or conservative organization, then the liberals are complicit to the ...(conservative view/cause). Could it be that they based their view on the facts prior to learning what conservative view may be? Then changing it so they can be different.
Or am I just too cynical? :)
http://thelazytriathlete.blogspot.com/
Dig deeper, Alan
October 16, 2007 - 10:49 ET by landsharkIf the NYT was on board for the invasion of Iraq, do you think they were doing the bidding of this administration? Or were they doing the bidding of the Dems who were still on the same page as the last administration? Which scenario seems more likely? Hmmm..........
Even still, I would love to see some evidence of the NYT being gung-ho to go to war. That's a charge that's been repeated many times and I'm not sure how true it is. There may have been some editorials supporting the notion of ousting Saddam but, again, that just puts them on the same page as the Clinton administration.
not to mention
October 16, 2007 - 10:51 ET by landsharkthat by changing the subject, Colmes can avoid having to answer the charge that the media failed to report on the General's scathing assessment of their conduct.
Nice straw man.
that's a typical liberal
October 16, 2007 - 13:16 ET by motherbeltthat's a typical liberal tactic: sidetrack the argument. That's how one starts out arguing illegal immigration with a liberal and ends up having to prove to the liberal that he doesn't hate Mexicans.
Colmes
October 16, 2007 - 11:01 ET by iveseenitallI, also, can not watch H&C any longer. Besides being just an ignorant contrarian, Colmes is among the most obnoxious commentators on t.v. I no longer want to get sick listening to him each night before bedtime.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
The MSM continue to ignore
October 16, 2007 - 11:01 ET by mattmThe MSM continue to ignore the boots on the ground.
A local hero - Sgt. John Kiesel, who almost died in Iraq - had his remarkable story covered on local news last night, but this portion of what he said to a crowd of supporters was not included in the report:
"...good things are happening everyday in Iraq, you only hear the bad things about when somebody dies or there's a suicide bomb or something, you don't hear about the kids in those schools. I can honestly tell you, we are winning and my two friends that died in the vehicle with me, sgts Corey Rystad and Bryan McDonough, and later ssgt James Wosika who died they didn't give their life for no reason OK, it was for a good cause and it is going well. I would go back and I would do it again in a minute cuz it is worth it!"
...nuff said.
matt, remember, when things
October 16, 2007 - 13:19 ET by motherbeltmatt, remember, when things were not going too well, the cry from Democrats was "Listen to the generals!!!" Then when Gen. Petraeus showed up with a report they didn't like, it became "The General is a patsy for the administration!"
I saw this last night, I
October 16, 2007 - 11:13 ET by bigtimerI saw this last night, I almost posted here but decided to wait until morning, glad I did now.
As usual Mr. Bozell made the points that needed to be made, as usual Colmes interrupted and talked over as much as possible Brent...it is really hard to listen to him, my other half can't, he gets to angry, as I do at times too.
Anyway, all I can say is excellent job Mr. Bozell...your patience is extraordinary.
BT,Colmes is a sneak.
October 16, 2007 - 12:02 ET by Chris NormanBT,
Colmes is a sneak. Have you noticed how, instead of making his liberal talking points (and insults) out in the open, he inserts them, almost under his breath, either while the guest is still speaking or at the end of the interview? He speaks hurriedly, to preclude any response. He's a smart aleck.
Chris... ....throw in
October 16, 2007 - 13:21 ET by bigtimerChris...
....throw in jack-ass too...fits him perfectly.
I added to my reply to
October 16, 2007 - 13:26 ET by Chris NormanI added to my reply to motherbelt above that he is cowardly in the method he uses. He just won't come out and disagree, he throws his nasty comments in, from the side, like a sniper. I wish some guest would call him on it.
By the way, did you watch the Bill O'Reilly segment with Ann Coulter last night? It's getting so Coulter can't get a comment out before she's interrupted and dragged off on a tangent. This happens in the H&C segments also. She has some great lines, but they're lost in all the cross talk. Annoying.
Yeah I caught it too
October 16, 2007 - 13:30 ET by bigtimerYeah I caught it too Chris...
It is aggravating when they interrupt, but I did enjoy that show far more than any single thing in the world when it comes to Colmes mouth, Geraldo is right up there too...of course I am just talking about Fox here, we don't want to go to msnbc and Matthews and his ilk....lol.
Her interviews are becoming
October 16, 2007 - 13:33 ET by Chris NormanHer interviews are becoming a mess, with all the cross talk and interruptions. She can barely get a line out before she she has to stop and respond to something else. O'Reilly acts like he's scared to death that she'll get a complete line in, over him.
That's because the latest
October 16, 2007 - 15:11 ET by motherbeltThat's because the latest conservative fad is to dump on Coulter, whether it's to disagree with her, or to just scold her on her delivery. I wish I could remember who it was that once said in a column that a wimpy Republican always wants to show liberals that he's not as bad as they (the liberals) think and he wants to work with them. Then to prove it, on the way out, he shoots his buddy.
Alan Colmes WMD defense is indeed lame, but..
October 16, 2007 - 14:39 ET by Gary HallAlan Colmes' shifting of the discussion from the MSM's coverage of the war to the pre-Iraq lead up to the war on the issue of WMD's is indeed lame.
Any valid discussion of that single issue shoud be limited in context to the period of time before the war began - perhaps shortly afterward, when even then we had Al Gore saying that he "absolutely, absolutely" believed that the WMD's were there.
After the war started, well into the summer of 2003, we still had Bill Clinton, Secretary's William Cohen and Albright stating for the public record that they thought the WMD's were there. Cohen, found himself among many, who were claiming that the Iraqi's were still moving them around, as they did prior to the war, so that they could not be found.
Generally speaking, Alan Colmes is talking about 2002 and perhaps early 2003, at best. Ever since that period of time the NY Times, as well as every other MSM outlet and pundit have pounded on Bush non-stop over the WMD's. Brent was on target here, there's just not enough time on-air to give Alan the thrashing he deserved, as Alan's excuse (the official Democrat talking point version) is and has been way too many thousands of times now. It was never in context, and it is old and tired.
However - leaving the pre war WMD issue aside, the larger point missed here, is that the NYTimes and the MSM has done excatly what Gen. Sanchez stated that they did in their constant negative and selective reporting on every other issue of the Iraq war, for the past 4 1/2 -5 years now.
Confirmation of Omission.....is confirmed by Omission..again
October 16, 2007 - 14:59 ET by JayTeeG.H. ....I didn't think about that.....the MSM confirmed a Complaint of Omission, by omitting a Complaint against the MSM.
That one was over their heads.....even if they had thought about it.....they wouldn't think anyone would notice them not thinking.
Uh....Let me Quote Obama on this....
"Let me make one thing Clear"
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
What the MSM hears
October 16, 2007 - 16:23 ET by nkviking75The MSM reminds me of a classic Gary Larson "Far Side" cartoon. In the first panel a man yells at his dog "Ginger" for dragging the garbage out of the garbage can and spreading it all over the place. He uses the dog's name 2 or three times. The second panel represents how the dog hears what the man says: "Blah blah blah Ginger blah blah blah blah blah Ginger blah blah blah blah Ginger." In other words, the MSM only hears what it wants to hear.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
OK, we're getting OT here,
October 16, 2007 - 19:12 ET by motherbeltOK, we're getting OT here, but on the TV show "7th Heaven" they did something similar one time....the parents were constantly lecturing the kids about everything, and they showed the parents' mouths moving, and what the kids were "hearing" was like that "Wha, wah, wah" trombone thing they used to do in the "Peanuts" specials when the grownups talked.
They listen politely, and then just go and do what they want.