MRC President and NewsBusters Publisher Brent Bozell appeared on the May 9 edition of Fox News Channel's "Fox & Friends" to discuss media coverage of the Democratic primary race. Bozell held that while the conventional wisdom that Clinton's candidacy is all-but-over may be accurate, political reporters who should be objectively reporting the campaign have taken on the role of pundits and commentators. What's more, Bozell added, it's precisely this sort of cheerleading by the referees that has called the game for Obama well before the clock's run out. [audio available here]
Below is a transcript of Bozell's first segment on "Fox & Friends.":
STEVE DOOCY, co-host: Not waiting for hard numbers, Time magazine's coverage screams, ‘And the winner is...' with Barack Obama front-and-center. Why does it seem that the mainstream media has anointed him the Democratic nominee and dismissed Hillary Rodham Clinton already? Brent Bozell is the president of the Media Research Center, joins us from D.C. Good morning to you, Brent.
BRENT BOZELL, MRC President: Good morning, how are you?
DOOCY: Fine, thanks, very much. We know that a lot of members of the mainstream media feel a tingle in their leg when they think about Barack Obama, on one channel at least. Does it appear to you that the mainstream media is ganging up now against Hillary Clinton?
BOZELL: You know, Steve, it's a bit of a toughie. If you were to ask my opinion of where the race stands at this moment, I would say exactly what people like Bob Schieffer and Tim Russert and others have said, which is that, basically, it's just about over. The problem is that I'm a commentator and I'm giving my opinion, and these people are reporters and are supposed to be reporting. But they are asked to be analysts, and they analyze and opine. And what happens, well, if I were the Clinton campaign I'd be furious right now. Because, although it is a long shot, when the news media are declaring it over, it may be over because of the news media.
DOOCY: Alright, we've got some clips that exemplify exactly what you were talking about, let's start with Tim Russert.
[airs some video clips of ABC's George Stephanopoulos, NBC's Tim Russert, CBS's Bob Schieffer]
DOOCY: Okay, you're right, without the numbers in hand, they've declared it over.
BOZELL: Yeah, and see, if I were asked in each one of those quotes, I look at those and I think stand-alone, each one of them may be absolutely accurate. But the problem is, these are meant to be reporters who are reporting the events, not stacking the deck against Hillary Clinton, which they're doing. Inadvertently.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
BB on Fox
May 9, 2008 - 08:25 ET by GoodieIt is a Target Rich Environment with the Media and the Bias, Bias, Bias..You go Brother Brent.
Vicious Cycle
May 9, 2008 - 09:35 ET by KC MulvilleThe other day, I saw a piece with “man on the street” interviews. The reporter asked random pedestrians how they thought the election was going. The pedestrians responded with instant punditry – i.e., Obama is too far ahead, Clinton can’t catch him, etc.
And why do we put up with this?
I wish Brent would appear
May 9, 2008 - 11:05 ET by marpelI wish Brent would appear more in the evenings on Fox. I can't stomach watching Fox and Friends. Of course, O'Reilly is getting hideous too. How about showing up on Hannity and Combes, Brent? At least I'll be able to watch you then. I always admire what you have to say!
marpel.. Yep, he was
May 9, 2008 - 16:15 ET by bigtimermarpel..
Yep, he was great this morning to me...I cannot believe I caught him either...I was getting ready to make coffee ect, flipping channels around during varying commercials and he just started...
Good job as always too...said it like it is.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
The MSM manipuilated public
May 9, 2008 - 12:01 ET by stratmanThe MSM manipuilated public perception concerning the viability of Fred Thompson to become president, beginning with their attacks before he even entered the race, continuing on Day 1 of his campaign with shallow and mocking commentary on the "inappropriateness" of his dress shoes while at a fair, and concluding with the omnipresent questions of when he would give up his candidacy.
Since that charade, I have been watchful of MSM advocacy in their willingness to sacrifice people in a concerted attempt at shaping the people that would become the candidates for president. I believe that this biased and manipulative yellow journalism is not just random individuals who overexhuberently give opinion, but an approved message from higher-ups in the chain of command for their respective companies. How else does one explain how a "neutral" observing/reporting journalist is allowed to say, repeatedly, and in concert with so many of their colleagues, their biased ruminations that can alter perception and election outcomes?
As such, I am frustrated and upset that the MSM has been advocating Clinton's departure for weeks. Who the hell are they to tell any citizen when to step down? This is not about supporting Hillary. It is about preserving as much electoral fairness and opportunity as possible in today's world. It is about the right of free citizens to grasp for the brass ring and capture it or fall on their own merits without interference or manipulations to the contrary.
While no presidential candidate should be allowed to "game" the system, Hillary being called to the mat for her exaggerations about Bosnia as one example, each candidate should be allowed to play out their dreams/aspirations without "journalists" dictating the decisions on how their campaigns are run. That is the realm of the opinion writer, not the "neutral" journalist.
In advocating the departure of a candidate, and the massaging of another candidate to elevate him in perception, the MSM has become the closest ever to oppressive Soviet Media styled propaganda, something that I believe most Americans would abhor upon recognition.
BTW, does anyone recall the MSM crying out for Ron Paul to drop out? What about Huckabee? Or when McCain was in the gutter and just about out of gas? I seem to recall the MSM did push for Romney, Thompson and Giuliani to exit though. Wonder why.
On the Democrat side, did Edwards receive this treatment? Any of the other Dem candidates?
Seems like the MSM has had quite a hand in pushing specific candidates upward and downward. And there has been little reigning in by management/owners.
The behaviour of the MSM is not only shameful, it is downright frightening.
Yes, they've said many times Ron Paul should drop out
May 9, 2008 - 12:10 ET by sarcasmoHe just won't listen, and the news media knows it.
So they went back to their old strategy (which worked quite well, even when he was raising lots of money, to the point that fans literally launched a blimp) of ignoring him entirely. But there was extreme antilibertarian bias displayed by the media (especially the New Republic's well timed hit piece) BEFORE Super Tuesday, and we all saw it. Huckabee has also been told to drop out many times.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Paul has taken hits from
May 9, 2008 - 16:11 ET by stratmanPaul has taken hits from the MSM but those shots pale in comparison to what was done to Romney and Clinton. Giuliani took more heat as well.
The New Republic is an opinion outlet. From their About page:
My comments concern supposedly "neutral" reporting that has become advocacy journalism.
Additionally, Clinton had a real chance to win the nomination, yet pundits and journalists said it an "impossibility". The MSM is doing just about anything in their power to dissuade voters from Clinton and onto Obama, including powder puff lovefest interviews where the hard questions are off the agenda.
I know you are a Paul supporter. He had a significant grassroots campaign, and enough media attention and money to get his populous message out. Unfortunately, his message, and persona to some extent, just didn't reverberate with enough citizens. I haven't recently heard any MSM cries for him to quit, and the questions of "when" will he quit have been missing from MSM reporting for some time. It is like he has become a non-entity.
IMO, Paul was never given the scope or intensity of biased treatment as Clinton, Romney or even Giuliani. And for the Liberal MSM to undermine Clinton in this fashion shows the guttersniping rat-faced cannibals they truly are.
Welcome to the DKos generation.
I disagree, of course.
May 9, 2008 - 16:20 ET by sarcasmoBack when NOBODY knew what would happen (as became obvious later with McCain, whose campaign was past dead due to his big spending -- hmmmmmm.... -- early-on) George Stephanfullacrapolous was betting Dr. Paul his bottom dollar that he would not win instead of asking him halfway respectful questions, or even disrespectful questions about racism if he'd only include the aspect of mysteriously-large black support for Dr. Paul, which he obviously had. I know, I was at the rallies.
Also, Google searches at the time for "Ron Paul can't win" would tend to belie your theory. Let's face it, NB may have done a relatively-lousy job on it, but Paul bore the brunt of the antilibertarian bias I've repeatedly-shown in the media. It was media bias so-blatant in Fox's case that Jay freakin' Leno had to take NB's place & bust it FOR us, which he did. It wasn't a good episode of media fairness no matter how you slice it, as these examples were off the top of my head.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
They also asked Brent
May 9, 2008 - 12:20 ET by motherbeltThey also asked Brent about Obama's Sen. McCain is "losing his bearings"....was it a sly dig at his age, implying that he is disoriented? Power Line has the reply to Obama from a McCain campaign spokesman (Scroll down to "Help Me, Senator Obama..").
I was frankly (pleasantly) surprised that the McCain campaign responded so forcefully! The statement hits the nail on the head. (Breaks removed):
...let us be clear about the nature of Senator Obama's attack today: He used the words "losing his bearings" intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue. This is typical of the Obama style of campaigning...[ ]...We have all become familiar with Senator Obama's new brand of politics. First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him, distort his record and send out surrogates to question his integrity. It is called hypocrisy, and it is the oldest kind of politics there is.
Now, hopefully, McCain won't come out and apologize for this and dismiss the staffer who released this.