Brent Bozell, the President of the Media Research Center, the parent of NewsBusters, appeared alongside Democratic strategist Laura Schwartz on Monday night's Hannity & Colmes on FNC to discuss the decision by NBC News to call the situation in Iraq a “civil war.” (Earlier NewsBusters items by Mark Finkelstein and by Geoffrey Dickens on how on Today Matt Lauer insisted NBC made the decision “after careful consideration,” as well as an evening show update on NewsBusters from Brent Baker on how NBC admitted the “civil war” term would erode support for the war.) Bozell contended: “Of course it's a mess over there. That does not mean it's a civil war and that's what the question was. And when Matt Lauer and NBC make the editorial determination that it's a civil war that's an editorial and that's a biased judgment on their part.” [The segment is 40 minutes into the show which will re-run at 12 midnight EST, 11pm CST, 9pm PST]
At one point Bozell told Alan Colmes to “hush,” leading Sean Hannity to propose: "Brent, you get the award for the Phrase of the Year: 'Alan, hush.'" Bozell earlier recalled how back in August of 2005 Lauer repeatedly pressed soldiers in Iraq to admit they had low morale, prompting one to fire back: “If I got my news from the newspapers also I'd be pretty depressed as well." (Links to that incident, with video, below the break)
Video clip of second half of segment (2:35): Real (4.5 MB) or Windows Media (5.1 MB), plus MP3 audio (925 KB)
Finkelstein's NewsBusters item on Lauer's 2005 exchange with troops in Iraq, with video. Real and Windows video also available in the MRC's “Best Notable Quotables of 2005: The Eighteenth Annual Awards for the Year's Worst Reporting" for the exchange which won the “Good Morning Morons Award.” The MRC's CyberAlert with a full transcript.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I need to watch the rerun
November 27, 2006 - 23:25 ET by terrigSince we're so far behind everyone in the time zone arena I'll have to watch the rerun. I generally don't watch those two because they're annoying as heck but to see Brent tell Alan to hush will be well worth it.
NBC is trying to be the "
November 27, 2006 - 23:26 ET by kubob21NBC is trying to be the "Cronkite" moment. When did the media become a better judge of military events than the military?
Probably about the same t
November 27, 2006 - 23:43 ET by Uncle JohnProbably about the same time they decided that their opinion of what happened was at least as important as reporting what happened.
The media is still heady with
November 28, 2006 - 00:53 ET by Scout FinchThe media is still heady with the excitement of winning the election for the Dems. Of course they believe they are a better judge of military events than the military.
Iraq is Vietnam only for the ones who want to relive the "romance" of the turbulent 60's. I, for one, would like to see us win this war in Iraq. It's clear the media have never been on board.
California, Florida, Iraq...w
November 29, 2006 - 14:51 ET by TruthMongerCalifornia, Florida, Iraq...which is worse? We just don't know...
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson041206.html
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20716640-1702,00.htm
If there ever was an example
November 27, 2006 - 23:51 ET by FairlightIf there ever was an example of someone that loves their country, Brent is it.
hush, hush, sour Alan
November 27, 2006 - 23:58 ET by acumen"Alan, hush."
I'll bet Alan gets a lot of that from the new Mrs too.
Awww snap! B to the O Zell
November 28, 2006 - 11:57 ET by balboaAwww snap! B to the O Zell throws an H-bomb! Better step off C-Dog!
Iraq is not having a Civil Wa
November 28, 2006 - 02:01 ET by Ten7sIraq is not having a "Civil War"; its really not even worth talking about in those terms.
'Believe it or not', and there's no way you'd know if you rely on the MsM, there are hotter (more urgent) conflicts in the Middle East. For instance, there’s the Lebanese/Hizbollah/Syria conflict brewing after the assassination of the popular Lebanese politician Pierre Gemayel. And the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is quite hot. In addition, the Fatah and Hamas factions (both Palestinian) appear to be at each other's throats. Of course Iran has a big hand in anything related to Hizbollah and significant influence with Hamas. I wonder why some media outlet doesn't cover these closely related events; as far as the MsM's coverage is concerned Lebanon might as well be an obscure island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
Oh come off it, they've tri
November 28, 2006 - 03:57 ET by liberal_bug_zapperOh come off it, they've tried so long to make this a civil war.... why not just give it to them.....
Oh, you mean the Iraq Conflict.... yeah, I agree.
So someone educate me. What
November 28, 2006 - 12:09 ET by balboaSo someone educate me. What's the difference between a civil war and sectarian violence?
The difference between unarme
November 28, 2006 - 12:12 ET by Free StinkerThe difference between unarmed people getting killed by individuals/small groups in ambushes, and company sized units (and larger) facing off against each other, in pitched battles, with defined units, goals, and leaders.
OK. But they do have goals
November 28, 2006 - 12:22 ET by balboaOK. But they do have goals and leaders, right? It seems like instead of pitched battles, both sides are basically "throwing rocks" at each other and running away. Then the other group does the same.
Generally, the reports are of
November 28, 2006 - 12:28 ET by Free StinkerGenerally, the reports are of small groups attacking civilians and the Iraqi police.
But these insurgents don't seem to have a cohesive organization, and I notice that the violence is limited to certain small regions. The Kurdish region seems pretty quiet, as one example.
the defenseless on one side
November 28, 2006 - 12:30 ET by tumbler"goals and leaders, right? It seems like instead of pitched battles, both sides are basically "throwing rocks" at each other and running away. Then the other group does the same."
Thank you for showing us an example of what is NOT a civil war. Civil war has its generals, pitched battles, funding and objectives.
What's now happening in Iraq is raging, fanatical terrorism. One side is funded, the other side is propped up by our armed forces and practically defenseless till now. The side which is funded, whether by bin Laden or any other source, operates by stealth and terror, with no pitched battles. They benefit from our own media's consistent arguments against helping a defenseless Iraq.
The violence clearly isn't tw
November 28, 2006 - 17:03 ET by Ten7sThe violence clearly isn't two Iraqi armies fighting each other. To the contrary, most of it isn't even Iraqi, Al Qaeda, Iran, former Saddam henchmen living abroad, etc. are pouring money, bombs, and terrorists into Iraq to keep it destablized for a variety of unrelated reasons. But as General Abazaid said, if it continues and the Iraqis loose hope in the emerging government, then it might develop into a civil war. The bottom line is that the Iraqi Army needs to be trained and equiped as quickly as possible.
Any thoughts or sources on
November 28, 2006 - 17:05 ET by balboaAny thoughts or sources on when that might occur?
If you mean they equiping an
November 28, 2006 - 18:31 ET by Ten7sIf you mean they equiping and training of the Iraqi Army, that's occuring now. If you mean "civil war" in Iraq, it won't occur because the ever-improving Iraqi Army, with our help, will take control of the situation. This is why the situations in Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, etc. are so much more troubling and why the MsM should be covering them.
Super
November 28, 2006 - 04:52 ET by SportPoliticsFinally the notion that a disintegrated government is the start of a civil war has been played on national cable TV.
Wow, that took quite some time. Three cheers for Mr. Bozell !
That was great when Allen shoved his foot in his mouth concerning The Civil War. LOL
Good history lesson ! The libs just don't have a clue, that's all there is to it. Perfect.
I think we can come up with a
November 28, 2006 - 05:52 ET by JohnboI think we can come up with a more politically correct label for the on-going, slow-motion disaster in Iraq. I agree that "civil war" just doesn't quite have the right panache. How about "sovereignty-challenged" or "faith-based melee"?
Oh, doesn't sound quite right Johnbo
November 28, 2006 - 06:34 ET by SportPoliticsOh, doesn't sound quite right Johnbo, the first you suggest is an old lib talking point about handing over the governance, and the second sounds like a lib athiest screaming at the 700 Club on TV.
How about "democratic birthing pains". That way you libs can decide if you're going to perform an abortion.
The only reason you think its
November 28, 2006 - 12:05 ET by UnsaneThe only reason you think its a slow-moving disaster is because it is interfering in what you believe is the REAL war on terror: the war on the successful and the Hyper Evil Rich Leeches. Government, to you, is there to pamper, coddle and babysit you, not to protect you from terrorists.
Of course, I have yet to run across a society that lasted long term by ignoring the Outside World and its opportunities and threats in the name of coddling and babysitting its entire citizenry...
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Brent did an excellent job on
November 28, 2006 - 10:58 ET by GalvanicBrent did an excellent job on H&C last night, making it quite clear that it quite clear that neither understood whqat a civil war is. The high point in the exchange came when Colmes began to suggest that the American Civil War didn't quite fit Brent's definition, only to be reminded by Brent that it, in fact, certainly does.
"Alan hush", lol.
November 28, 2006 - 11:58 ET by Valendil"Alan hush", lol. Glad I TiVo'ed the last half of H&C last night, I'll have to watch it tonight!!
Hate to point this out, guys,
November 29, 2006 - 01:12 ET by ferrarimanf355Hate to point this out, guys, but several experts agree with NBC on this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/world/middleeast/26war.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
(Yes, I'm linking to the NY Times, but please read the article first before you make any snide comments, please)
So, what do you propose calling this, Brent? Faith-based melee? Internal sovereignty challenge?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/28/the-daily-shows-a_n_35038.html
Uzumaki/Ayanami '08. Because a ninja and an Eva pilot can govern the nation better that what we have now...