On Tuesday's "Good Morning America," co-host Chris Cuomo and media critic Howard Kurtz ignored the role that liberal bias has played in the decline of ratings for the network evening newscasts. At the same time, Cuomo and Washington Post reporter seemed to be proud of the media's ability to turn Americans against the war in Iraq. Kurtz, who has written a book on the subject, asserted, "I believe that these newscasts in 2005 and 2006 played the biggest single role in helping to turn public opinion against the war."
Cuomo agreed and complimented the journalist's analysis. He enthused, "It's easy to say, 'Oh, well. The war was unpopular. People were looking for the unpopularity of it. At some point, the networks gave that to them.' But you have a more penetrating look at it. You take a look at it in terms of the role of the nightly newscasts in shaping the ideas about the news..." According to Kurtz, the top three network anchors kept "framing the story in such a way" that the bad news finally had an impact. And while the two reporters wondered about the effect the iPod and internet are having on network low ratings, at no time did they discuss liberal bias or salient facts such as that journalists backed John Kerry over George Bush by a two-to-one margin.
The MRC has done extensive analysis of liberal bias and accumulated a rich database of some surprising left-wing admissions, such as when Newsweek's Evan Thomas predicted that a liberal media would give the Kerry/Edwards ticket a 15 point head start. (Media Bias Basics can be found on the MRC's website.) Could these facts and the American public's awareness of them have anything to do with the declining ratings? Cuomo and Kurtz didn't broach the subject.
However, Kurtz did enthuse over the liberal comedian Jon Stewart and his program, "The Daily Show." He gushed, "But Jon Stewart is actually becoming a very big influence even on the newscasts and I don't think it's a bad thing." Kurtz even noted how Stewart set the agenda by first commenting on Hillary Clinton's odd laugh: "When he did the bit about Hillary laughing....Well, that ended up on the 'CBS Evening News' and a lot of cable shows." "Good Morning America" was one such program, but reporter Kate Snow used Stewart's comedy as talking points to defend Hillary for "disarming her critics with a gleam in her eye and a roar straight from the belly." Is this an example of Stewart setting the agenda? And how, exactly, can there be an honest discussion of Jon Stewart and the impact he has on the news, if journalists ignore the left-wing outlook that he holds?
A transcript of the segment, which aired at 8:33am on October 10, follows:
Chris Cuomo: "Here's something you've probably heard about. The concern that the big three network nightly newscasts are fading in popularity and significance, that we're becoming an internet, information society. Well, the man with us this morning, Howard Kurtz, yes, known to some as Howie, but he is uniquely qualified to look at this situation. He covers the media for the Washington Post and has a book on exactly this subject called 'Reality Show,' Inside the Last Great Television News War.' Howie, thank you very much for joining us to talk about this. It's an important topic for us and for Americans. Two big reasons to read this book, you have the inside game and the outside game. We were joking around, saying the most read part of this book by journalists may be the index."
Howard Kurtz: "Could be."
Cuomo: "That everybody's going to look at it. But there's also the outside, the big picture here. The question about what is the fate of the nightly newscast? Your conclusion?"
Kurtz: "Well, I think the nightly newscasts are better than ever but not good enough in an iPod age of a million media choices. They're kind of like these old Detroit gas guzzlers with the tail fins, constantly talking about, you know, back pain and menopause, hormone therapy and so forth. Younger people are being driven away. And they, of course, are the future of these broadcasts."
Cuomo: "Solution?"
Kurtz: "Solution would be in part to broaden the scope a little bit. Somebody ought to have the nerve to put on a newscast for an hour in prime time and try to draw more viewers. But, I think also, as we talk, Chris, about, you know, a lot of people are writing the obituary. They're irrelevant. Well, guess what? They still have the biggest media megaphone. 25 million combined viewers a night. And that becomes very important on the outside game, as you refer to, when you talk about, for example, the coverage of the war in Iraq. I believe that these newscasts in 2005 and 2006 played the biggest single role in helping to turn public opinion against the war."
Cuomo: "And I think you really have a unique brand of intelligence in this book about this. It's easy to say, 'Oh, well. The war was unpopular. People were looking for the unpopularity of it. At some point, the networks gave that to them.' But you have a more penetrating look at it. You take a look at it in terms of the role of the nightly newscasts in shaping the ideas about the news, even though we had the internet, even though we had the cables upon us at that time. Why do you believe that?"
Kurtz: "Well, we're drowning in information but somebody has to sort it out. So, when it came to the war, despite enormous pressure from the administration that said to the media, 'You folks in the media are being too negative. You're distorting the picture.' We had brave correspondents bringing us the carnage night after night, into our living rooms, what was going none Iraq. And you had the anchors framing the story in such a way that it really punched through. Brian Williams on NBC talked about how Baghdad coffin makers couldn't keep up with the demand. Charlie Gibson, you're familiar with him?"
Cuomo: "Yes."
Kurtz: "He, one night he talked about the 6,600 casualties of Iraqis over a two month period. He said, in American terms that would be 75,000 Americans killed. So that kind of thing, I think, went up against the administration spin, even the secret off the record meetings that the anchors had with President Bush at the White House and helped people see the war was not going well."
Cuomo: "You know, you dispel in the book this idea that when things matter, when there is significance, the networks sometimes play to the best interests of the American people. I think it's an interesting point. Because when you go out and you travel the country and you hear from people, they say, 'We're all about info-tainment now.' Jon Stewart has become a prevalent influence on the media now. Why do you think that is and is it good or bad?"
Kurtz: "Well, I do think the network newscast remain a repository of serious journalism for the most part. But Jon Stewart is actually becoming a very big influence even on the newscasts and I don't think it's a bad thing. What's happening is, people are copying his technique of using videotape to show, for example, that politicians use very repetitive talking points no matter what the question. When he did the bit about Hillary laughing when she did her five Sunday show interviews and whenever the tough questions-- [Imitates Hillary laughing.] Well that ended up on the CBS Evening News and a lot of cable shows. So, I think that, you know, there's an effort to be a little more engaging by the anchors and not just be, 'Eat your peas' and I think Jon Stewart plays a role in that."
Cuomo: "I think the danger is the satirist like him or the other ones, they don't encourage people to take things seriously and that the big three still do. So, let me ask you as a final question what is the legacy for these, headed by Charlie, in my opinion, but the three network anchors right now? Are they the last generation?"
Kurtz: "Well, that is the question, because they're trying to save this franchise. And they can only do it by making it something that becomes appointment viewing even though we can get information at the click of a mouse. And how do you deal with the pressure of being an anchor, deciding whether to around tape of the Virginia Tech gunman as NBC did, deciding whether to put on the air the Mark Foley the first suggestive e-mail to a teenage House page by Congressman Mark Foley as Charlie Gibson decided not to do. Brian Ross broke the story online and Congressman Foley resigned. So they're really important. But they've got an uphill battle in this crowded media marketplace."
Cuomo: "And we're here to help them."
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.















Editor at Large

Comments Policy
Gee
October 10, 2007 - 13:47 ET by drillanwrNot only admitting bias and guilt ... But confessing to treason and conspiring with the enemy.
Give those two a well-aged Bill Clinton cigar ...
Er..... Ah.... you mean
October 10, 2007 - 15:25 ET by Sonny LykosEr..... Ah.... you mean "well-lubricated" cigar.
I don't know which is worse
October 10, 2007 - 13:57 ET by kramzI don't know which is worse...these guys bragging about liberal bias in the msm or a large portion of the public that is gullible enough to buy the garbage being fed to them.
It's the gullible public
October 10, 2007 - 13:59 ET by drillanwrIt's the gullible public that give them the power to do what they do ...
NB is forcing them to this
October 10, 2007 - 14:14 ET by TruthMongerNB is forcing them to this kind of spin duty more and more now - that's nice to see at least
A service of the new NB respect police
They're gullible because
October 10, 2007 - 20:40 ET by pbanks7they don't care enough to go beyond a 7 second sound bite. They're blissfully listening to Top 40 etc. all day. All they need is 30 minutes of news per day. It's easy to tell Dem spin talking points in seven seconds; it takes more than 10 seconds to explain logical and reality-based conservative points.
My coworkers see me as part of a group: Republicans. They can't see beyond the label. To liberals everyone belongs to a stereotypical group. Ironic, isn't it?
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
There has been only ONE constant throughout entire Iraq War
October 10, 2007 - 14:05 ET by blackrain4xmas...and that constant is the amazement of returning soldiers when they see the news we have here vs what they've seen there. It's the common denominator in all polling on the war since the first bombs fell: no one believes they are getting the "real" news. Opponents of the war read reports, make estimates of body counts, exaggerate the claims, then believe their own lies and wonder why their imaginations of the horrors of war aren't shown more. On the other side of the coin people who believe the invasion was necessary (as well as the vast majority of returning troops) turn on the nightly news, open up the daily papers and are shocked at the constant bell tolling of bad news in lieu of any good news. What's remarkable is that two men can convince themselves that they're journalists and at the same time pat each other and their cohorts on the back with congratualtions at presenting propaganda that damaged the nation's political will: "I believe that these newscasts in 2005 and 2006 played the biggest single role in helping to turn public opinion against the war."
But they know the truth. That's why Kurtz said "newscasts" instead of "news" or "facts reported." They both know what they've done, and they bath in pride at having deliberately presented half truths and false truths as facts; as "newscasts."
'Course...if they didn't bath themselves in it, wrap themselves up in the lie, pat each others' backs and comfort each other, then they'd have to face the truth that they already know: they've aided the enemy to get ratings, to get advertising dollars, to compete for a pulitzer without having to actually go and dig up a story (by relying on stringers and enemy propaganda reports for their "newscasts"). Like most Americans (L/R, D/R, etc) I don't think the msm gives us the real facts (ie they don't do their job), and that the "perspective" they try to offer (not their job) is little more than editorial, but none the less, this admission on their part disgusts me. Surely it disgusts others. Wouldn't it disgust them even more and thus drive them to ignore their sins rather than admit they have a problem?
Sick, just sick...
It's got nothing to do with
October 10, 2007 - 15:29 ET by Sonny LykosIt's got nothing to do with "sick."
It's all planned, rehearsed, and implemented.
Who sits around and watches
October 10, 2007 - 14:05 ET by Atomic CrusaderWho sits around and watches this junk without getting paid to do so? Appalling elitism, insuferable. Ignorant mindless souless immoral creeps, the lowest of the low who stand for nothing and know nothing - nothing!
The Fifth Column Media
October 10, 2007 - 14:11 ET by greenfairieThe sad part is, they're right. If anything helped turned around popular opinion of the war it was all of the daily carnage reports in the media.
How Ironic
October 10, 2007 - 16:10 ET by blackrain4xmasHistory Channel just had a show on about Tokyo Rose, treason, and her imprisonment.
This is exactly
October 10, 2007 - 14:16 ET by deerjerkydaveThis is exactly what I was saying earlier. In yesterday's Republican debate Thompson was asked why the public thinks the economy is doing poorly. The real answer is that it's-the-liberal-media-stupid! (Borrowing from the it's-the-economy-stupid phrase)
I marvel
October 10, 2007 - 14:23 ET by mattmI marvel at how amazed these Democrat propagandists can feign such amazement that their propaganda actually has an effect.
"It worked in the Vietnam
October 10, 2007 - 16:28 ET by Chris Norman"It worked in the Vietnam War and damn, it's working again!"
Just remember reporting
October 10, 2007 - 20:47 ET by pbanks7Just remember reporting under the Clinton spin machine: reporting the spin as fact, ignoring that it was spin, then marveling that they could get away with it, mindless of the fact that they were the very people letting them get away with it.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
At the same time, Cuomo and
October 10, 2007 - 15:06 ET by BDAt the same time, Cuomo and the "Washington Post" reporter seemed to be proud of the media's ability to turn Americans against the war in Iraq.
Just following in the footsteps they have followed since the 1980's when I was in Journalism school. The first day of Journalism 101 in my freshman year, the chair of the department who was the the only level headed prof in the journo school asked the 100 or so members a question.
"Do you want to be journalists to change the world? Raise your hands." I would guess 90%+ raised their hands, I was one of the few wh did not. He then informed the class that they were in the wrong field. Journalists were simply to act as honest umpires and report what had happened, not try to change the world.
Sadly, he retired a couple years later, without having any good effect on the bulk of those who wanted to change the world. Those journos are now populating newspapers all over the country and have not lost the zeal they had a students.
I often wondered what the response would be if a "Proud Journo" was asked "Are you proud of journalisms ability to get the US to abandon its allies in Vietnam??" and then ask if they are proud of the subjugation of 8+ million South Vietnamese.
edhenry This sums it up.
October 10, 2007 - 16:10 ET by Edhenryedhenry
This sums it up. terms like "framing.." "turning Americans..."
Watergate was the turning point for liberals who, by way of an exagerated film, thought they were the ones that SHOULD change the world. Same as those who say "'we need to get our rights now via the Supreme Court". To the smart (which is different from educated) people in the US, it is sad to see what the liberal media has done to the poor and uninformed.
Very difficult to stem the tide of damage wrought by the liberal media in the US. The smart remain successful, while the uninformed are being destroyed.
Tough to "argue with anyone who buys ink by the barrel"
Watergate was a seminal
October 10, 2007 - 18:16 ET by BDWatergate was a seminal momoent for sure, but you gotta remember that it was the group that came of age during latter Vietnam who led the charge.
U.S. Against Iraq
October 10, 2007 - 16:06 ET by kgNot surprising considering the media has already turned much of the U.S. against the U.S., blacks against whites, and I am sure that they have a leading role in Muslims against Christians.
Instigator comes to mind, all in the name of news.
I'm dropping this here
October 10, 2007 - 16:34 ET by drillanwrI'm dropping this here <BOOM!> because it sort of ties in with the whole media molding public opinion theme ...
(h/t instapundit)
A sample of questions asked to the republican candidates at the debate on MSNBC yesterday by CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo :
http://www.extrememortman.com/presidential-election/its-mourning-in-america/
One answer, to at least most of those above questions could/should have been:
"Ms. Bartiromo, much of the content of your question(ing) is based in public opinion. And who is it in this country that is most directly in control of shaping public opinion ... and for what reason ... and to what end?"
Great points!
October 10, 2007 - 17:06 ET by c5thenThe media have decided that their job is to shape public opinion so as to further their overwhelmingly leftist ideology.
The stats are false and/or created by the media to further their agenda. The MSM have been talking down the economy for years and causing the poor sots who listen to them to be afraid and anxious about the economy. The reality is that we are entering the 5th year of a Bull market and anyone who has been hesitant and timid abnout investing over the past 5 years (because of the MSM) has lost a significant amount of money!
If 2/3 of the American people think that we are in a recession or headed for one, there are three facts about that...
1) it is probably a made-up statistic (typical tactic of the left).
2) if not made-up it is because the MSM has been talking the public setiment down for years.
3) that 2/3 cited of the public is completely and utterly wrong.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Fred08.com
Wrong, wrong, wrong!
October 10, 2007 - 20:57 ET by pbanks71. Anyone who listens to the MSM believes that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. It's a fact!!!
2. The MSM are only down on the economy when an R is president.
3. The MSM loves to hammer a "fact," then take a poll to prove that fact. Then people who only pay attention to the MSM will believe it - bandwagon propaganda.
OK maybe only wrong.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
Howard Kurtz? Just another
October 10, 2007 - 17:03 ET by TEHoward Kurtz? Just another leftist exposed as a plagiarist: http://gawker.com/news/this-thing-looks-like-that-thing/howard-kurtzs-dan-rather-scoop-published-two-years-ago-308926.php
Media's agenda
October 10, 2007 - 17:49 ET by pocomoco(On Tuesday's "Good Morning America," co-host Chris Cuomo and media critic Howard Kurtz ignored the role that liberal bias has played in the decline of ratings for the network evening newscasts.)
That’s right, pay no attention to that elephant in the corner. Low rating? FEH! Doesn’t mean a thing. We are the ones behind the curtain pulling the levers that are helping to turn public opinion against the war.
After all, our agendas are what counts, and to hell with the public.
I hope I live to see the day
October 10, 2007 - 18:58 ET by zhombreI hope I live to see the day when this whole phony edifice of MSM comes crashing down. It's already started with newspaper circulation and ratings declining, but that is one story they do not wish to report Apparently the decline of the established media is not a story fit to print.
Virtual Reality News
October 10, 2007 - 19:07 ET by Chris NormanI'll keep saying this until I break through. This is Virtual Reality News. If you get your news only from the traditional "mainstream" media, you have a skewed and distorted picture of reality - a parallel virtual reality that they create. The media has created a reality for their viewers that doesn't show what's really happening out there, except for what they want them to see. As long as some people accept this created reality as true, it doesn't matter what's really happening in Iraq, how well the economy is doing, or if it's cold outside. Some people will only believe this created virtual reality of: only disaster in Iraq, a nation heading for soup kitchens and shanty towns, and Global Warming.
Debriefing
October 10, 2007 - 19:08 ET by BacchusSounds like they're opining their own obituary to me. Bye-bye.
Spin
October 10, 2007 - 19:43 ET by DevSpeaking of patting themselves on the back, Charlie Gibson can outspin the adminitration every time.
He, one night he talked about the 6,600 casualties of Iraqis over a two month period. He said, in American terms that would be 75,000 Americans killed. So that kind of thing, I think, went up against the administration spin.
This was supposed to be an example of truth over spin...it's the very definition of spin!!!
at no time did they
October 10, 2007 - 20:36 ET by general companyat no time did they discuss liberal bias or salient facts such as that journalists backed John Kerry
Of course they didn't discuses bias, this is their way of suggesting it doesn't exist. They are telling the folks, {we just reported what you wanted us to}
Kurtz:: Somebody ought to have the nerve to put on a newscast for an hour in prime time and try to draw more viewers.
They are dying, and want to be subsidized.
Kurtz:: I believe that these newscasts in 2005 and 2006 played the biggest single role in helping to turn public opinion against the war."
So do I, and no doubt you are very proud of yourself.
Kurtz: despite enormous pressure from the administration that said to the media, 'You folks in the media are being too negative. You're distorting the picture.'
I think you are mistaken pressure for responsibility
Kurtz: I think, went up against the administration spin, even the secret off the record meetings that the anchors had with President Bush at the White House and helped people see the war was not going well."
This is were they suggst they were being "fair" but the folks saw right through it
But Jon Stewart is actually becoming a very big influence even on the newscasts and I don't think it's a bad thing.
You would if he were conservitive
Kurtz is on BOR right now calling him on the media bias
My son was just back from Iraq,
October 10, 2007 - 21:00 ET by pbanks7and the news was on. After listening to about 30 seconds, he said, "Well your glass is half empty!!!" and stormed off.
Nuff said.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
Tell him THANK YOU from us.
October 10, 2007 - 21:18 ET by general companyTell him THANK YOU from us. Thanks
~DITTO~ general company's
October 11, 2007 - 09:03 ET by drillanwr~DITTO~ general company's regards to your brave son ...
Also, your son's impressions and remarks regarding the news media here (neoPRAVDA) is NOT a lone returning voice.
My daughter's Marine buddy (who is married to my daughter's best friend) just returned from his third Iraq tour last month (unlike his second tour, without extensive corrective surgery and rehab ... thank You, G-d!). I will not use the exact words (Marine speak ... eh hemmm ...) he uses when addressing the news coverage here at home about the war ... except that after one of his critiques and detailed corrections he follows it with, "Turn that s**t off ... You want to get brain damage?"
Meanwhile, we got word just this past weekend that one of my daughter's husband's lifelong buddies (an Army Ranger) was KIA. He had just been home to his family last month, and was returning to the theater for a fourth tour. G-d keep him ...
}}---> Nothing to see here
October 11, 2007 - 03:18 ET by Cool Arrow"Nothing particularly interesting here" said Cool Arrow as he revelled in the viewership crisis in which the MSM is mired.
The perceived corporate trust and positive name recognition (goodwill) these institutions once enjoyed can hardly be posted as assets on their balance sheets anymore. The real assets, real estate, cameras, presses, etc, are fairly sound.
Time for corporate garage sales.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Who watches or cares?
October 13, 2007 - 09:03 ET by ThalpyThese are the people who provide us and the rest of the world with photo ops of Paris and Lindsey and others getting out of cars, showing us much more than we ever wanted to see. We also get the added benefit of their insightful analysis of the way the world works. For now, they have the constitutional right to do so, just as we have the right to pay little or no attention to them.