Charlie Rose Back on PBS, Liberal Bias Unfolded In His Absence

June 14th, 2006 8:53 AM

PBS talk-show host Charlie Rose returned to his set on Monday night after some weeks off for heart surgery. While he was out, PBS used a rotating set of liberal-media stars as hosts, including Barbara Walters, Brian Williams, and CNBC's Maria Bartiromo. Just last week, MRC intern Chadd Clark found some typical liberal thoughts coming from guest hosts.

On June 5, former CNN anchor Judy Woodruff interviewed Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and she echoed Charlie Gibson's lame idea that public opinion on so-called "gay marriage" is a 50-50 polling proposition:

The United States Senate today, spending the day debating an amendment to the US Constitution to ban gay marriage.  President Bush lobbying hard for it.  The polls show the American people almost split down the middle. You've written a letter urging members of the Senate to vote for the ban.  Why?"

Polls show that while people are reluctant to amend the Constitution on marriage, there is still a sizable majority believing that gay marriage should not be legal: 58 to 36 percent in ABC's poll.

On June 6, MTV executive Bill Flanagan guest-hosted, interviewing musician T-Bone Burnett on Christianity:

T-Bone Burnett: "There has been that tension between science and religion for centuries. For me, science and religion and art are all the same thing.  They're all parts of the same thing.  But there is something about fundamental thinkers; there's a sense that they're going to be disproved by science or something like that, when in fact, if you have faith in this thing, and if science is true, then all it's going to do is prove it.  So I think as Christians, we should be encouraging science instead of fighting it."

Flanagan: "Well it's true.  The long and rigorous intellectual history of the Church seems to have been forgotten in the last generation, mutually.  The Church has seemed to want to get rid of it, too. They don't want people to think too much."

Chadd also took down some of a conversation hosted by David Remnick, a former Washington Post foreign correspondent and now editor of The New Yorker. The subject of the discussion was Dick Cheney's unhealthy Cold War obsessions:

David Remnick: "Let's move quickly to U.S.-Russian relations.  Not long ago, Dick Cheney, Vice President Cheney, made a speech, Nina, scolding Russia for all manner of sins, real and imagined.  Remember, we're now at a time where the United States is, and Americans are obsessed with, and rightly so, the Middle East, South Asia, terrorism, and all the obvious issues that are obsessing us every single day, especially in terms of foreign affairs.  Suddenly the Vice President makes this speech.  Why is he making it?  What's his moral ground to make this considering all that's gone wrong in the Middle East for the United States?  What's that speech all about and how possibly could it have been received in Russia?"

Nina Khrushcheva, World Policy Institute: "I’m sure Steven Sestanovich probably can talk about it from Washington because it's Dick Cheney's land, but I thought the speech was monumentally fascinating because Dick Cheney never got over the Cold War.  He, in fact, was together with Rumsfeld was against Detente when Detente was happening.  He's a true Cold Warrior."

David Remnick: "Why bother fighting a Cold War?  What's at stake to have a new Cold War even mildly?"

Nina Khrushcheva: "I don't think they're fighting the Cold War.  I think they're all looking, precisely because the Middle East is not going well, what are we going to turn to? We're going to turn to a very trusted enemy that we had, that we figured out, we dealt with them, we defeated them, and Putin presents all sorts of opportunities to be criticized."

David Remnick: "And Steve Sestanovich, doesn't the United States at this very moment want something very important from Russia which is its support in terms of the Iranian situation?  The United States wants Russia's backing in terms of potential sanctions against Iran if negotiations don't get very far, and possibly even a military action.  So what possible good could this Cheney speech have done?