Category Archives: CBS

Despite referring to it as "landmark" and "huge," the network morning shows on Tuesday mostly ignored Monday's Supreme Court ruling, which declared the Second Amendment a fundamental right that cannot be violated by state governments. Good Morning America, The Early Show and Today devoted just two minutes and 34 seconds to discussing the important decision.

ABC's GMA offered 21 seconds with a single Juju Chang news brief during the two hour program. This didn't stop the show's hosts from covering crucial topics, such as spending eight and a half minutes dissecting whether Michael Douglas' ex-wife deserves residuals from his upcoming Wall Street sequel.

CBS's Early Show allowed 25 seconds for Jan Crawford to explain the significance of the decision. Host Chris Wragge rushed, "Now what's the importance, if you can just tell us, quickly, of this 5-4 decision?"

Crawford exclaimed, "Chris, this was a huge ruling that basically extended gun rights nationwide." Apparently, it wasn't as compelling as the five minutes and 15 seconds the same show devoted to cooking flank steak for the Fourth of July.

NBC provided the most coverage, one minute and 48 seconds. This included an anchor brief by news reader Nancy Morales and a full report by Pete Williams. Morales described the decision as "landmark." Williams actually included a brief clip of NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre promising more lawsuits against cities and states that don't follow the court's instructions.

The lack of coverage follows the same pattern from 2008 when the Supreme Court overturned Washington D.C.'s gun ban. On June 27, 2008, all three morning shows gave a total of three minutes and 33 seconds to the story. Early Show, instead, focused four minutes on the extremely relevant subject of how to Feng Shui your house for pets.

A transcript of the coverage can be found below:

GMA

06/29/10

7:14

JUJU CHANG: Chicago's mayor is vowing to rewrite the city's ban on handguns, after a Supreme Court decision made it unenforceable. The high court ruled Americans have a basic right to own a handgun for self-defense, wherever they live. Chicago may instead demand that gun owners buy insurance, register guns with local police and equip them with traceable bullets.

Today

06/29/10

7:17

NATALIE MORALES: Major cities across the U.S. are bracing for new challenges to their gun control laws. On Monday the Supreme Court's ruling on Chicago's handgun ban said an individual right to keep and bear arms is among the fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.

8:02

NATALIE MORALES: Some big cities in the U.S. are bracing for new battles over gun laws, following a landmark ruling Monday by the Supreme Court. NBC's justice correspondent Pete Williams has more. Pete, good morning.

PETE WILLIAMS: Natalie, for the first time in the nation's history, the court said the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, limits what state and local governments can do in restricting gun ownership.

POLICE VIDEO: We have got shots fired over here.

WILLIAMS: The ruling means the end of a 38-year-old Chicago law strictly banning handguns, challenged by city residents who wanted to have a gun at home for self-defense. By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court said the nation's founders considered the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms among the fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty. Chicago officials said they might now try requiring gun registration or training courses. But, advocates of gun rights vow to fight any city that tries to raise barriers to gun ownership.

WAYNE LAPIERRE (NRA): I think the action goes to wherever the politicians make it so hard for average citizens to qualify, make the process so intimidating, so restrictive, citizens never get the guns.

WILLIAMS: The next legal battles are already brewing over carrying guns in public or taking them into bars and restaurants. But advocates of gun control say the court's ruling applies only to the right to keep a gun at home for self-defense.

PAUL HELMKE (Brady Handgun Control): It doesn't mean anybody can have any gun any place, anytime. You are allowed to have reasonable restrictions in the middle on who gets guns.

WILLIAMS: Local governments can still impose some restrictions on owning a gun but this ruling sparks a new round of legal challenges on what's reasonable, Natalie.

Early Show

06/29/10

7:15

CHRIS WRAGGE: And quickly, on a separate note here, I want to talk about this Supreme Court ruling. They ruled that had state and local governments cannot ban guns. Now what's the importance, if you can just tell us, quickly, of this 5-4 decision?

JAN CRAWFORD: Chris, this was a huge ruling that basically extended gun rights nationwide. It said cities and states across the country cannot flatly outright ban handguns, that you have a fundamental right to own a gun in your own home to protect yourself.

While ABC's Good Morning America and NBC's Today spent little time on the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan on Tuesday, the CBS Early Show featured a report from legal correspondent Jan Crawford, who cheered Kagan finally being able respond to Republican "attacks" in a "very agile" way.

Good Morning America devoted only a single news brief early in the 7AM ET hour to the hearings as news reader JuJu Chang noted how Kagan "will be questioned by Republicans who say she is too liberal and too political." Chang added: "Kagan promised to take a modest approach to judging."  

On Today, correspondent Kelly O'Donnell offered only a brief 7:09AM report on the hearings: "Weeks after her nomination, seated in silence for hours, finally Elena Kagan gets to make her case....[she] describes herself as a daughter of the American dream." O'Donnell described the arguments from both sides of the aisle: "No surprise, Democrats praised her intellect and the chance to broaden the Supreme Court....Saying they would be respectful, Republicans did not hesitate to get tough. From abortion rights to immigration, they found various ways to call her liberal." In an 8:04AM news brief, news reader Natalie Morales declared: "Republicans portrayed Kagan as a liberal activist with no judicial experience. Kagan promised an even-handed approach to the law."

In contrast, the Early Show devoted a full 7:10AM segment to Kagan, as fill-in co-host Chris Wragge proclaimed: "Day two of Elena Kagan's Senate confirmation hearings get underway this morning and the gloves are expected to come off." Crawford began the report that followed by observing: "After nearly two months of public silence while Republicans attacked her, Elena Kagan was sworn in and answered back. She vowed to uphold the law fairly."

Crawford previewed Tuesday's hearings: "...today the questions and the fireworks begin. Republicans say the questions won't be easy, as they try to paint her as a liberal activist." Wragge asked about the tone of the hearings: "...every word yesterday from Elena was just so measured and so deliberate. Can we expect more of that today with every response from the questions she'll be fielding?" Crawford replied: "No, it's going to have a very different tone today....they're really going to start pressing her on all these issues....what we'll see today is how agile and how effective she is at answering those and responding to those, engaging these senators without saying anything that can be held against her."

Wragge concluded the segment by asking Crawford to predict Kagan's performance. Crawford responded by gushing: "I think she's going to do, actually, very, very well. I've seen her argue before the Supreme Court. She's very agile, she spars with those conservative justices very well, so I don't think these Republicans are going to have too much of an easy time, you know, pressing her on some of these issues."

Here is a full transcript of Crawford's June 29 report:

7:10AM

CHRIS WRAGGE: Day two of Elena Kagan's Senate confirmation hearings get underway this morning and the gloves are expected to come off. CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford is on Capitol Hill with a look at today's session. Jan, good morning.

JAN CRAWFORD: Good morning, Chris. Well, you know Elena Kagan really stayed out of the public eye for two months and Americans finally got a glimpse of her, but today, she's going to face a lot of questions from the Republicans on this side of the aisle and they're going to see if she can handle the heat. After nearly two months of public silence while Republicans attacked her, Elena Kagan was sworn in and answered back. She vowed to uphold the law fairly.

ELENA KAGAN: I will listen hard to every party before the court and to each of my colleagues.

CRAWFORD: And she told a bit of her life story.

KAGAN: My parents lived the American dream. They grew up in immigrant communities. My mother didn't speak a word of English until she went to school. But she became a legendary teacher and my father a valued lawyer.

CRAWFORD: Kagan sat stoically for hours while senators gave their opening statements, but today the questions and the fireworks begin. Republicans say the questions won't be easy, as they try to paint her as a liberal activist.

JEFF SESSIONS: It's not a coronation, as I've said, but a confirmation process. Serious and substantive questions will be asked.

CRAWFORD: But Democrats will be ready to come to her defense.

CHARLES SCHUMER: She is brilliant, she is thoughtful, and I think she is straight out of central casting for this job.

SESSIONS: But proving that to the senators is what Elena Kagan is going to have to do and it all starts, Chris, in just a couple of hours.

WRAGGE: Jan, the last thing I would ever do is sit here and say this has got to be pretty easy on someone, but every word yesterday from Elena was just so measured and so deliberate. Can we expect more of that today with every response from the questions she'll be fielding?

CRAWFORD: No, it's going to have a very different tone today, Chris. You know, yesterday, her face – I mean, she really showed no expression all day, she just sat there and listened to these senators deliver these long opening statements. So today they're really going to start pressing her on all these issues that they've got ready. So what we'll see today is how agile and how effective she is at answering those and responding to those, engaging these senators without saying anything that can be held against her.

WRAGGE: And quickly, on a separate note here, I want to talk about this Supreme Court ruling. They ruled that had state and local governments cannot ban guns. Now what's the importance, if you can just tell us quickly, of this 5-4 decision?

CRAWFORD: Chris, this was a huge ruling that basically extended gun rights nationwide. It said cities and states across the country cannot flatly outright ban handguns, that you have a fundamental right to own a gun in your own home to protect yourself.

WRAGGE: Can I ask you real quickly, you know Elena Kagan very well. How do you think she'll perform today?

CRAWFORD: I think she's going to do, actually, very, very well. I've seen her argue before the Supreme Court. She's very agile, she spars with those conservative justices very well, so I don't think these Republicans are going to have too much of an easy time, you know, pressing her on some of these issues.

WRAGGE: Alright, Jan Crawford, thank you very much. We look forward to your report later on today.

CRAWFORD: Thanks, Chris.

All three network evening newscasts on Monday downplayed the start of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings, with NBC Nightly News squeezing in just 24 seconds for Kagan at the tail end of a story about the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor the 2nd Amendment. For their part, CBS and ABC offered full stories outlining Kagan’s first day before the Judiciary committee after packages devoted to the gun rights’ ruling.

Only CBS’s Jan Crawford suggested the hearings were more than a ritual leading to Kagan’s inevitable confirmation: “When President Obama nominated her in May, her confirmation was considered a sure bet. But Republicans are emboldened by what they see as a weakened president and sense that support for Kagan in the country has dropped.”

Both Crawford and ABC correspondent Jonathan Karl included Republican criticisms of Kagan’s lack of experience and the hostility to the military she displayed at the Harvard Law School. As for NBC, they mentioned none of those issues, and only included a brief soundbite of Kagan promising to be “impartial.”

Here’s the entirety of NBC’s brief discussion of Monday’s hearing:

PETE WILLIAMS: This was the last day on the bench for John Paul Stevens after 34 1/2 years. He told the court, "If I've overstayed my welcome it's because this is such a unique and wonderful job." In tribute, many in the courtroom wore bowties, his neck wear of choice. And across the street the Senate began confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan, nominated to replace him.

ELENA KAGAN: I will do my best to consider every case impartially, modestly, with commitment to principle and in accordance with law.

PETE WILLIAMS: And the senators begin asking their questions tomorrow. Brian:

BRIAN WILLIAMS: Pete Williams with all the news from the Supreme Court in Washington tonight. Pete, thanks.

Compare and contrast that with ABC’s World News (transcribed by MRC intern Rachel Burnett) and the CBS Evening News (anchored by Harry Smith from the Gulf Coast):

# ABC World News:

DIANE SAWYER, after discussion of Steven’s last day on the bench: And, speaking of Justice Stevens, that other drama playing out nearby was the new nominee for the court, Elena Kagan. Walking into the arena to be questioned about her qualifications to replace him, qualifications of the job, and John Karl is on Capitol Hill tonight. Jon?

JON KARL: Diane, right from the start, it was crystal clear that Kagan faces a Senate deeply divided over her nomination, with Democrats overwhelmingly supporting her and Republicans, for the most part, on the attack. After weeks of the silence imposed on all Supreme Court nominees, Elena Kagan at last had a chance to speak, promising that if confirmed –

ELENA KAGAN: I will work hard, and I will do my best to consider every case impartially.

KARL: Kagan once criticized past nominees for turning hearings into ‘a vapid and hollow charade’ by refusing to say anything specific. But now, as the nominee, she stuck to generalities.

KAGAN: The court must also recognize the limits on itself and respect the choices made by the American people.

KARL: Kagan had to sit through more than three hours of opening statements, trying to keep a poker face. But it didn't work. Just watch her expression as Republicans call her a political partisan, or when Democrats praise her real-world experience.

SENATOR CHARLES SCHUMER: She is the right person at the right time.

KARL: The top Republican on the committee suggested she is unqualified.

SENATOR SESSIONS: Miss Kagan has less real legal experience of any nominee in at least 50 years.

KARL: And condemned her decision as Dean of Harvard Law school to ban the military from the campus career office.

SESSIONS: Her actions punished the military and demeaned our soldiers as they were courageously fighting for our country in two wars overseas.

KARL: But Republican Lindsey Graham said he believes Kagan is qualified and offered her some advice:

SENATOR GRAHAM: Good luck. Be as candid as possible. And it's okay to disagree with us up here.

KARL: There will be some fireworks tomorrow as the Senators get a chance to question Kagan. But Democrats are even more confident she will be confirmed than they were with the Sotomayor nomination last year, and that she may actually get fewer votes, Diane, because all but a handful of Republicans are already poised to oppose her nomination.

# CBS Evening News:

HARRY SMITH: It didn’t take long for today's gun decision to come up at Elena Kagan's confirmation hearing in the Senate. She’s been nominated to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court. Let's go back now to Jan Crawford. Jan?

JAN CRAWFORD: Harry, Elena Kagan has spent the past two months getting ready for these hearings, but it was just a matter of minutes before the ranking Republican brought up today's gun ruling.

SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL): The personal right of every American to own a gun hangs by a single vote.

CRAWFORD: Elena Kagan sat stoically while Sessions and other Republicans began describing her as a liberal activist. But after hours of opening statements, she was sworn in –

ELENA KAGAN: I do.

CRAWFORD: – and finally answered back.

KAGAN: I will do by best to consider every case impartially, modestly, with commitment to principle and in accordance with law.

CRAWFORD: When President Obama nominated her in May, her confirmation was considered a sure bet. But Republicans are emboldened by what they see as a weakened president and sense that support for Kagan in the country has dropped. Today, they outlined their attack. They seized on her lack of judicial and courtroom experience.

SESSIONS: Miss Kagan has less real legal experience of any nominee in at least 50 years.

CRAWFORD: And her decision while Dean at Harvard Law School to limit military recruiting because of the Pentagon's "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" policy.

SENATOR JON KYL (R-AZ): A surprising number of things in her relatively thin body of work do raise substantive concerns.

CRAWFORD: The battle lines drawn, Democrats painted a starkly different picture. They praised Kagan's intellect and took shots at the conservative Roberts' court.

SENATOR SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): Things are looking good for your confirmation.

CRAWFORD: The Republican worry is that Kagan could serve a generation on a court that often divides 5-4 on key social issues. Harry?

SMITH: Jan Crawford, thanks for all your help tonight.

On Monday's CBS Early Show, correspondent Whit Johnson reported breaking news of the death of West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd and proclaimed: "By all accounts, he was one of the hardest working senators in modern history." Johnson touted Byrd's "four volume history of the Senate" and described him as the "unequaled master of the Senate rules."

Part of the "hard work" Johnson cited was the massive number of pork barrel projects Byrd secured funding for over his long career: "Byrd said he owed his success to the long suffering people of West Virginia and he returned the favor by steering billions of dollars in federal government projects to the state, dozens of them, named for him." Johnson noted how "Byrd reveled in his success at bringing home the bacon....His critics called him the king of pork. He called that hog wash."

Another aspect of Byrd's career that Johnson highlighted was the West Virginia Democrat's opposition to the Iraq war: "A harsh critic of the war in Iraq, Byrd said opposing the war in 2003 was his most important vote ever."

It was not until the end of his report that Johnson mentioned Byrd's controversial past on race relations: "His life was not without mistakes. He deeply regretted joining the Ku Klux Klan as a young man and participating in a filibuster against the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964. Later in life, though, he became an advocate of civil rights."

Later, in a news brief in the 8AM ET hour, fill-in news reader Betty Nguyen declared that Byrd was "a master politician, an expert on Senate rules, and unrelenting lobbyist for his home state and a powerful force on Capitol Hill."

Here is a full transcript of Johnson's June 28 report:

7:00AM TEASE

ERICA HILL: Breaking news. The longest serving member of Congress, Senator Robert Byrd, has died. We'll look back at his remarkable career and tell you how this could impact the balance of power in the Senate.

7:01AM SEGMENT

ERICA HILL: First, though, we do want to get to the breaking news, of course, out of Washington this morning. The passing of Senator Robert Byrd early this morning. CBS News correspondent Whit Johnson is on Capitol Hill with the very latest. Whit, good morning.

WHIT JOHNSON: Erica, good morning. Senator Robert Byrd checked into a hospital late last week. Originally, he was thought to be suffering from heat exhaustion, but doctors found further complications. The longest serving senator in U.S. history passed away this morning at the age of 92.

ROBERT BYRD: The United States Senate, the greatest deliberative body in the whole world.

JOHNSON: Robert Byrd won nine elections to the U.S. Senate. He was the longest serving senator in American history. He grew up in poverty in the hardscrabble coal fields of West Virginia, where he learned to play the fiddle. For decades he used it to entertain audiences on the campaign trail and even performed at the Grand Ole Opry. By all accounts, he was one of the hardest working senators in modern history. He went to law school at night, receiving his degree at age 45 from President Kennedy. He wrote a four volume history of the Senate, became the unequaled master of the Senate rules and climbed to the top of the ladder, spending 12 years as Democratic leader. Byrd said he owed his success to the long suffering people of West Virginia and he returned the favor by steering billions of dollars in federal government projects to the state, dozens of them, named for him. Byrd reveled in his success at bringing home the bacon.

BYRD: Man, you're looking at big daddy. Big daddy! Rolled up my sleeves, man.

JOHNSON: His critics called him the king of pork. He called that hog wash.

BYRD: This notion that earmark spending is inherently wasteful spending is flat out wrong. W-r-o-n-g.

JOHNSON: A harsh critic of the war in Iraq, Byrd said opposing the war in 2003 was his most important vote ever.

BYRD: How long must the best of our nation's military men and women be taken from their homes to fight this unnecessary war?

JOHNSON: His life was not without mistakes. He deeply regretted joining the Ku Klux Klan as a young man and participating in a filibuster against the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964. Later in life, though, he became an advocate of civil rights. His great loves included his children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren, a Senate, which he so revered he called 'the temple,' and the Constitution, a copy of which he always carried in his breast pocket. But above everything else, there was Erma, Byrd's high school sweetheart and wife of 68 years. She passed away in 2006. Byrd said she was his greatest love of all. Washington is already reacting this morning to Senator Byrd's death. He's being remembered for his fighter spirit. Erica.

HILL: Whit, thanks. Whit Johnson in Washington this morning.

The Monday morning shows on CBS, ABC, and NBC all worked to portray President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan as a moderate and open-minded legal scholar, downplaying her liberal views. All three network programs also minimized her controversial decision to ban military recruiters on campus while Dean of Harvard Law School.

On CBS's Early Show, legal correspondent Jan Crawford touted Kagan as "an intellectual heavyweight and consensus builder." Crawford noted how Republicans had "several lines of attack" against Kagan and would "try to paint her as a liberal activist." Crawford herself recently described Kagan as having "stood shoulder to shoulder with the liberal left."

On ABC's Good Morning America, correspondent Claire Shipman did a fawning segment on Kagan in the 8AM ET hour, describing the former Dean as "intellectual" and "full of personal charm" during her tenure at Harvard. Shipman claimed that Kagan had "a determination to be open-minded," despite banning military recruiters from the university's campus over the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy. On that issue, Shipman explained that despite Kagan's decision being unpopular "among student military vets....Iraq War veteran Kurt White says they were won over by Kagan's persistent outreach, another example of her political skills." Shipman failed to mention that White would be testifying on Kagan's behalf during the confirmation hearings.

Shipman went so far to portray Kagan as open-minded that she touted how "though her political views are quite different than his, she honored conservative justice Antonin Scalia at the law school a few years ago, calling him a great justice." Shipman even argued: " It's an openness to all voices that worries some liberals, but colleagues argue Kagan's style is just what the Court needs."

NBC's Today did not provide quite as strong a defense of Kagan, but a report by legal correspondent Pete Williams did feature a soundbite from Kagan supporter and SCOTUS blog founder Tom Goldstein declaring: "Elena Kagan isn't a political partisan." Williams, like Shipman, attempted to downplay the military recruiter ban: "Republicans also accuse Kagan of treating the military unfairly when she was dean of Harvard Law....But student military veterans say she made them feel welcome at Harvard and praised them for their service, even though she strongly opposed the policy on gays in the military."  

Here is a full transcript of Shipman's June 28 segment on Good Morning America:

8:15AM

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is preparing to take the stand for Senate confirmation hearings this afternoon, and they're meant to tease out the nominee's judicial philosophy. Well for some clues, Claire Shipman talked to some people who knew Kagan during the most substantial legal job of her career, the first woman dean of Harvard Law School.

CLAIRE SHIPMAN, ABC correspondent: Good morning, George, well that's right. We decided to look for clues at Harvard Law School where she had a very distinctive style. She was only there for six years, made a large number of changes. She was intellectual, yes, but also full of personal charm, say colleagues, and a determination to be open-minded.

It's an institution usually resistant to change, some might say an immovable object, until it was confronted with the irresistible force of Dean Elena Kagan.

ELENA KAGAN: This is a wonderful time, and it's so good to be with you.

LAURENCE TRIBE, Harvard Law professor: I've watched Harvard Law School go through lots of transitions, but there has never been anything like Elena Kagan.

MARTHA MINOW, Harvard Law dean: She was going to turn over every stone at this institution and figure out a way to make it better.

SHIPMAN: She thinks big.

MINOW: She thinks big.

SHIPMAN: But she was savvy enough at times to start small, offering perks like free coffee for students. Then bigger battles, fighting to hire more conservative professors like John Manning.
 
JOHN MANNING, Harvard Law professor: She felt that her job as dean was to foster an atmosphere in which all sorts of ideas would be presented.

SHIPMAN: And selling a total curriculum overhaul, the first in a hundred years.

KAGAN: For the most part, a first year curriculum now looks like what it looks like back in 1880.

SHIPMAN: Some say her meteoric rise is impressive, but also suggests a calculating careerism. Two of her best friends, roommates at law school, say she's just always just reveled in the work.

JOHN BARRETT, friend of Kagan: A visual that I have, a memory, is her sitting at her desk with a cigarette and a pen and a book and a little desk lamp, and she could kind of grind it out for a long time.

UNIDENTIFIED FRIEND OF KAGAN: I think what was clear was that she really loved the law, and reading about it, and thinking about it, and talking about it.

SHIPMAN: Her time as dean wasn't without controversy. She decided to renew a ban keeping military recruiters from using the career services office because of opposition to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Support was high on campus, but not among student military vets.

KURT WHITE, Harvard Law student: It didn't seem like banning military recruiters from the law school campus was going to be something that was likely to lead to a change in this law.

SHIPMAN: Still, Iraq War veteran Kurt White says they were won over by Kagan's persistent outreach, another example of her political skills.

WHITE: It was really her showing her appreciation for the military and being very supportive of us.

SHIPMAN: And though her political views are quite different than his, she honored conservative justice Antonin Scalia at the law school a few years ago, calling him a great justice.

MANNING: She as dean was able to recognize his accomplishments and celebrate them without reservation.

SHIPMAN: It's an openness to all voices that worries some liberals, but colleagues argue Kagan's style is just what the Court needs.

TRIBE: I think that her ability to find common ground, bring people along, see long-term implications, will make a very large impact on the Court.

SHIPMAN: It's certainly a good place to start hearings as a potential liberal justice when you have the support of a conservative justice, like justice Scalia. George, but of course the hearings will still be heated, they'll look at that military recruitment issue, and also try to pin her down specifically on how she might rule on some controversial issues.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's right, and in an election year, likely to get a lot of no votes as well. Okay Claire Shipman, thanks very much.

When President Bush nominated John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court in 2005, the media did not hesitate to describe both men as "very conservative," but when President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor in 2009 and Elena Kagan this year many in the press couldn't seem to identify any liberal ideology. The Media Research Center has produced a video compilation of examples to further demonstrate the obvious double standard. [Audio available here]

During ABC's live special coverage of Roberts's nomination on July 19, 2005, then This Week host and former Democratic operative George Stephanopoulos declared: "This is a very conservative man with a strong paper trail that proves it." NPR's Nina Totenberg could hardly contain her urge to label, using the word "conservative" several times during a July 23 appearance on Inside Washington: "John Roberts is a really conservative guy...he's a conservative Catholic....[President Bush] has given conservatives a hardline conservative."

The same labeling followed Alito's nomination months later. CBS's Bob Schieffer opened the October 31 Evening News by proclaiming: “Conservatives wanted a conservative on the Supreme Court, and said the President ought to risk a fight in the Senate to get one. Their wishes have been fulfilled.” Later that evening, on a special 7PM ET hour edition of CNN's The Situation Room, anchor Wolf Blitzer described: "...there is a new nomination and new controversy. A battle shapes up as the president picks a staunch conservative who could help reshape the U.S. Supreme Court."

Compare those characterizations of Roberts and Alito with how Stephanopoulos introduced Sotomayor to Good Morning America viewers on May 1, 2009: "She's built up a strong centrist record on the court." On the May 27 CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric scratched her head when it came to Sotomayor's political views: "Now pundits usually label judges as either liberal or conservative, but that won't be easy with Judge Sotomayor." Meanwhile, Totenberg actually remained consistent, arguing Obama's nominee was actually on the Right: "...she’s more conservative than some members of the Supreme Court, including Justice Scalia, perhaps.”

With Kagan, on CBS's April 11 Face the Nation, legal analyst Jan Crawford described the broad support the potential nominee would receive: "...she's got some support among conservatives because she hired a lot of those conservative law professors at Harvard." On the May 10 Good Morning America, ABC World News anchor Diane Sawyer explained how Kagan "is expected to play a role as somewhat of a conciliator, the bridge across the conservative and liberal wings of the Court." Like Totenberg with Sotomayor, on the May 11 CBS Early Show co-host Maggie Rodriguez floated the idea that Kagan was conservative: "she may actually shift the Court to the Right, compared with Justice Stevens.”
    
As evidence of Kagan's staunch liberalism comes out in her confirmation hearings, one wonders if the media will finally be willing to accurately describe her left-wing views.

All three morning shows on Thursday ignored allegations of "unwanted sexual contact" by Al Gore against a woman in 2006. This is despite the fact that the claim was reported by the AP, the New York Times and the Washington Post.

CBS's Early Show, NBC's Today and ABC's Good Morning America failed to mention the charges made by an Oregon massage therapist that Gore tried to have sex with her.

Yet, on June 2, after Al and Tipper Gore announced their divorce, ABC reporter Claire Shipman wondered if the separation meant that "storybook endings" aren't possible. Logically, wouldn't the morning show want to follow up with this new development?

When Republican Nikki Haley was accused of having an affair with two different men, GMA had no trouble covering the story. On June 9, host George Stephanopoulos interviewed the South Carolina gubernatorial candidate about the allegations and demanded, "Can you assure South Carolina voters that they're not going to be embarrassed if they elect you?"

On June 7, he marveled, "And down in South Carolina, they can't just seem to get enough of it. In the gubernatorial primary, the leading candidate embroiled in a bit of a sex scandal." The program noted the story again on June 10.

Now, obviously, there are differences. Gore is a private citizen. Haley is running for office. However, there is an actual police report in the Gore case. Additionally, journalists were quite taken with the then-Vice President when he famously kissed his wife at the 2000 Democratic National Convention.

Those same reporters have a responsibility to cover unflattering allegations about Gore. ABC, although unable to mention the charges on GMA, did note them on the network's website. A sympathetic headline proclaimed, "Al Gore Sex Abuse Allegations Lack Sufficient Evidence, Say Portland Police."

Obama's home loan modification program was talked up by the bailout-friendly news media as a potential "ray of light" for struggling homeowners.

But on June 21, Associated Press reported the mortgage assistance program is "falling flat."

The broadcast networks supported the mortgage modification and housing bailout when Obama launched it in 2009, after criticizing Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's plan for not doing "enough" to fix the problem. ABC, CBS and NBC haven't mentioned the new figures since AP reported them.

"More than a third of the 1.24 million borrowers who have enrolled in the $75 billion mortgage modification program have dropped out," AP said. "That exceeds the number of people who have managed to have their loan payments reduced to help them keep their homes."

The "ambitious" Home Affordable Modification Program was supposed to help 3-4 million people. As of last month the number of dropouts (436,000) exceeded the permanent modifications by almost 100,000 (340,000).

This was part of the same housing bailout Rick Santelli condemned on CNBC saying "the government is promoting bad behavior." Santelli's rant against the housing bailout helped inspire thousands of Americans to protest bailouts and runaway government spending at Tea Parties around the country in 2009 and 2010.

But Santelli's opposition to a bailout was an exception among the pro-bailout news media. As recently as Feb. 18, 2010 ABC's Robin Roberts was praising the program as "what may be a ray of light for the millions of homeowners struggling to hold on to their piece of the American dream."

Roberts and Bianna Golodryga downplayed problems saying that there had been "hiccups" in the program, but placed the blame for those problems on banks unwilling to work with homeowners, rather than on the government.

Golodryga's report also included an expert who criticized the program from the left saying it was "nowhere near the size and scope of what we need to, to stem this tide." Golodryga is engaged to White House budget director Peter Orszag, who announced his resignation June 22, 2010.

ABC's Jeffrey Kofman also found left-wing criticism of the program to incorporate in his story. On Feb. 18, 2009, Kofman mentioned concerns "that a $75 billion bailout can't single handedly turn around an $11 trillion housing market. But they say it is a start."

Roughly a month later, CNBC's Diana Olick acknowledged that the $75 billion program had "fallen short" of helping the 3-4 million homeowners on "Nightly News" March 26, 2010. At that time, she reported that only 200,000 permanent modifications had been done. But Olick didn't criticize the Obama administration's decision to expand the plan to more borrowers.

In 2009, when Obama's two-part mortgage bailout was launched, CBS had no criticism or difficult questions in its "Early Show" segment March 5. The night before, Katie Couric described the plan as "relief for struggling homeowners" on "Evening News."

Now it appears the bailout didn't work and may jeopardize the economic recovery, according to CNBC's Larry Kudlow.

Kudlow reacted to the latest mortgage modifications data on June 22, saying that "Housing in particular looks vulnerable to that double-dip [recession]. And all these goofy, temporary tax credits and mortgage modifications and other forms of temporary stimulus nearly steal activity from the future and never work permanently, as Milton Friedman argued [years ago]."

‘Controversial' Program Struggles, Despite Network Support

Like other bailouts, the networks favored the mortgage bailout and loan modification program when it was announced in 2009. Now that the program is a failure don't expect a retraction. So far the networks have ignored the new data Treasury released on June 21.

Since the broadcast networks haven't done much reporting on the problems with the loan modification program, people might wonder why it isn't working.

According to AP, "A major reason so many have fallen out of the program is the Obama administration initially pressured banks to sign up borrowers without insisting first on proof of their income. When banks later moved to collect the information, many troubled homeowners were disqualified or dropped out."

AP also warned that more foreclosures could be ahead as people leave the program.

The Washington Post reported that about half of the program dropouts "received another type of loan modification from their banks." Only 7 percent have gone into foreclosure, according to CNNMoney.com.

The timing of the news was bad for politicians trying to pass another housing bailout - this one $3 billion in loans for homeowners who are out of work.

Politicians should be wary given the outrage already directed against mortgage bailouts, since it was the potential housing bailout that angered many and led to tea parties across the country. Santelli's initial rant condemned the proposed housing bailout and touched a nerve with traders and America at large.

"And in terms of modifications, I'll tell you what, I have an idea. You know the new administration's big on computers and technology," Santelli declared.

"How about this, (Mr.) President and new administration - Why don't you put up a web site to have people vote on the Internet as a referendum to see if we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages, or would we like to, at least, buy cars and buy houses in foreclosure and give them to people who might have a chance to actually prosper down the road, and reward people that could carry the water, instead of drink(ing) the water."

After traders reacted with claps and cheers, CNBC's Joe Kernen replied, "Rick, they're like putty in your hands."

Santelli denied that and continued saying, "This is America! (turns around to address pit traders) How many of you people want to pay for your neighbors' mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills? Raise their hand. (traders boo; Santelli turns around to face CNBC camera) President Obama, are you listening?"

Networks Back Mortgage Rescues, or Complain They're Not Big Enough

Obama's mortgage bailout was praised by the many in network news media, after an earlier mortgage rescue designed by former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was attacked from the left by the broadcast networks because it wouldn't help "enough people."

"It sounds as if it doesn't help anybody who had their mortgage rate increased or got foreclosed in 2007," ABC "World News" anchor Charles Gibson complained on Dec. 5, 2007.

"CBS Evening News" sympathized with a Texas couple who "can't afford" to keep their large ranch home (complete with horses), supposedly because of the rate increases on their mortgage.

CBS also ignored skepticism of a homeowner bailout on April 2, 2008, arguing that since the government had bailed out banks, mortgage holders should get the same assistance.

"Now to the foreclosure crisis that has so many Americans worried about losing their homes," "Evening News" anchor Katie Couric said that night. "After the government helped rescue Bear Stearns, calls grew louder for Washington to help struggling homeowners as well. Today on Capitol Hill, there was at least the promise of some assistance."

In July 2008, ABC's Golodryga called "a sweeping housing bailout bill" "good news for potential homeowners."  

The networks also endorsed the $700 billion "rescue" package in 2008 that was voted down by 228 representatives including 132 "rebellious" conservatives and 94 Democrats.

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., was one of those who voted against it because "The decision to give the federal government the ability to nationalize almost every bad mortgage in America interrupts a basic truth of our free market economy."

The list of reporters and anchors who championed the first bailout that failed and ultimately the bill that passed on Oct. 3, was long and included CBS's Anthony Mason, ABC's Betsy Stark, Bianna Golodryga and Jake Tapper, NBC's Tom Brokaw and CNBC's Jim Cramer all called for the government to be the knight in shining armor with taxpayer dollars. Cramer was interviewed repeatedly on NBC and CNBC and even appeared on rival network ABC during "Nightline."

It wasn't just housing bailouts. ABC, CBS and NBC also promoted the nearly $800 billion stimulus bill. They campaigned for the biggest spending bill in history, picking pro-stimulus speakers more often than opposing speakers and almost completely failed to ask how the enormous bill would be paid for.

 

Like this article? Sign up for "The Balance Sheet," BMI's weekly e-mail newsletter.

When President Obama picked Elena Kagan to replace Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the broadcast networks referred to the upcoming Senate confirmation process as “contentious” a “meat grinder” and a “battle,” warning Kagan was “in for a fight.”

But a Media Research Center analysis of the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts in the six weeks since Kagan was nominated shows the broadcast networks have failed to cover the “fight,” and have ignored most of the controversies that could lead to suspenseful hearings next week.

MRC analysts found that the broadcast network evening newscasts aired just eleven stories about Kagan since her May 10 nomination (six on CBS, three on ABC and two on NBC), plus another three brief items read by the anchor. All but one of those stories appeared during the first week after Kagan’s selection; only the CBS Evening News, in a June 3 report, has bothered to cover any of the thousands of pages of Kagan documents released in recent weeks.

Both CNN and FNC provided substantially more coverage of Kagan during their 6pm ET news programs (10 full stories on CNN’s The Situation Room, 11 on FNC’s Special Report) and offered in-depth coverage of Kagan controversies that the broadcast networks glossed over.

The NBC Nightly News hasn’t mentioned Kagan since she met with senators on May 12; ABC’s World News hasn’t said a word about Kagan since May 16. For its part, the CBS Evening News aired one item on Kagan on June 3 aimed at bolstering the nominee against complaints from the Left that she isn’t liberal enough:

CBS’s JAN CRAWFORD: Elena Kagan has kept her cards so close to the vest that some on the left have worried she’s too moderate....But documents buried in Thurgood Marshall’s papers in the Library of Congress show that, as a young lawyer, Kagan stood shoulder to shoulder with the liberal left, including on the most controversial issue Supreme Court nominees ever confront: abortion.

Crawford did acknowledge Kagan’s overt liberalism might wind up hurting her nomination: “While that may encourage liberals, it’s going to give Republicans a lot more ammunition to fight against her.” But neither CBS nor the other broadcast networks offered a follow-up, even as thousands of documents from Kagan’s stint in the Clinton White House were revealed.

Networks Trumpeted Opposition to Roberts and Alito

The networks’ disinterested approach to this year’s Supreme Court “battle” is at odds with how they covered the run-up to the hearings of the last two Republican nominees, when ABC, CBS and NBC all ran multiple stories in the weeks before each set of hearings began.

On the July 26, 2005 World News Tonight, one week after President Bush picked John Roberts to replace Justice O’Connor, ABC correspondent (and future Obama spokeswoman) Linda Douglass highlighted Democratic demands for additional documents: “Democrats want Roberts’ more recent memos when he was crafting legal opinions for the first Bush administration. Republicans complain the Democrats are simply searching for reasons to oppose him.”

The August 4, 2005 CBS Evening News amplified the Left’s criticisms of Roberts, including a soundbite from “Alliance for Justice” chief Nan Aron, who hysterically claimed material released up to that point “raises red flags about his commitment to civil rights, women’s rights, laws that have been in place for decades.”

On November 14, 2005, nearly two weeks after Sam Alito’s selection, all three networks jumped on the release of a memo on abortion Alito had written twenty years earlier. NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams breathlessly wondered, “Is it a bombshell?” Reporter Williams conveyed liberal activists’ ire: “Women’s rights groups today pounced on the document, calling it proof that Judge Alito would restrict access to abortion”

This time around, these same networks have failed to grant as much as a soundbite to any representative of a conservative group to talk about Kagan over the past six weeks. And the networks have aired no stories conveying GOP complaints about the need for additional Kagan documents from the National Archives or Clinton library.

As for controversies, both CNN and the Fox News Channel have offered detailed reports about topics that the broadcast networks have either ignored or downplayed:

■ Kagan’s Princeton papers: CNN and FNC discussed Kagan’s senior thesis on the demise of the Socialist Party in the early 1900s, which she labeled “sad.” FNC’s Shannon Bream and CNN’s Lisa Sylvester both included soundbites from experts suggesting, in the words of Sylvester, that “it’s hard to conclude she herself is a socialist, more of a historian documenting a political movement.”

But only FNC’s Bream noted Kagan’s op-ed for The Daily Princetonian, where she openly described herself a “liberal” and wailed about the “anonymous but moral majority-backed avengers of innocent life.” Bream added how “Kagan also said she looked forward to a time when a, quote, ‘more leftist left will once again come to the fore.’”

ABC, CBS and NBC coverage of Kagan’s Princeton writings? Zero.

■ Openness to Regulating Political Speech: Both CNN and FNC explored Kagan’s handling of the Citizens United case as Solicitor General. Even though Kagan lost the 5-4 decision, the President had cited that case as an example of her commitment to fighting “special interests seeking to spend unlimited money to influence our elections.”

On Special Report, Fox correspondent Major Garrett included a quote from Citizen United’s David Bossie saying Kagan offered “a fundamentally flawed view of the First Amendment, and I think it disqualifies her from the high court.” But CNN’s Kate Bolduan stuck to a positive recounting of Kagan’s style, saying her oral argument showed “she is light on her feet,” “clearly an intellectual” with “quick wit and personality.”

As for the networks, ABC’s Jake Tapper and CBS’s Jan Crawford on May 10 made passing references to the case, but none of the broadcast networks explored the details of that case or suggested Kagan’s legal arguments showed a hostility to free speech.

■ Kagan’s ban on military recruitment. As Dean of the Harvard Law School, Kagan blocked the U.S. military from using the school’s Office of Career Services because of the ban on open homosexuals serving in the armed forces, a policy Kagan said she “abhorred.” CNN’s Lisa Sylvester offered an in-depth story on May 11, followed by a debate between Lawrence Korb from the liberal Center for American Progress and conservative Frank Gaffney. FNC offered its own story on May 11, quoting two conservative critics of Kagan vs. White House chief of staff David Axelrod and a gay veteran who supported Kagan’s stance.

As for the broadcast networks, ABC and NBC limited themselves to a couple of sentences referencing the controversy on the day Kagan was picked. CBS also mentioned the matter on  May 10, with additional coverage on the May 16 Evening News. Reporter Jan Crawford’s tone was sympathetic: “Kagan, like many law school officials, opposed having military recruiters on campus....”

In the past, when liberal organizations chose to do “battle” with a Republican appointee to the Court, the networks chronicled the effort and showcased the complaints of left-wing groups. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, these same networks seem decidedly uncurious about the confirmation “fight” over Elena Kagan.

"[Carly Fiorina's] position on taxation would deprive women of childcare."

The Hyde Amendment "penalizes poor women terribly."

"You can't be a feminist who says other women can't" have an abortion.

These are just some of the outrageous statements left-wing feminist Gloria Steinem made during an interview with CBS anchor Katie Couric on the latest installment of "@katiecouric," which was posted to the CBSNews.com Web site on June 23.

Couric's responses to the "godmother of the modern women's movement's" absurd claims ranged from silent agreement to reflexive endorsement.
            
Although the former Playboy Bunny railed against the legislation that banned federal funding of abortion, Couric responded approvingly – "right!" – and changed the subject to the hockey mom every liberal feminist loves to hate:

Since we're on the subject of reproductive rights, can you be a conservative feminist? Sarah Palin recently, I think, rankled some traditional feminists by calling herself a feminist, despite the fact she doesn't espouse many traditional feminist, uh, points of view.

Instead of challenging Steinem's feminist litmus test, Couric, turning to liberal activist Jehmu Greene, asked, "Do you agree with that?"

"I would say that Sarah Palin does not represent many of those same sentiments," Greene responded. The most vigorous defense Couric could muster on Palin's behalf was, "In what way? I mean, why?"

On Steinem's bizarre correlation between low taxes and less access to childcare, the "Evening News" anchor uttered not a decibel of skepticism. Eschewing her journalistic duty to hold interviewees accountable for their pronouncements – particularly the outlandish and unsubstantiated ones – Couric once again undermined her credibility as a professional newswoman.

Click here to view Katie Couric's June 23 interview with Steinem and Greene in its entirety.

--Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

"[Carly Fiorina's] position on taxation would deprive women of childcare."

The Hyde Amendment "penalizes poor women terribly."

"You can't be a feminist who says other women can't" have an abortion.

These are just some of the outrageous statements left-wing feminist Gloria Steinem made during an interview with CBS anchor Katie Couric on the latest installment of "@katiecouric," which was posted to the CBSNews.com Web site on June 23.

Couric's responses to the "godmother of the modern women's movement's" absurd claims ranged from silent agreement to reflexive endorsement.
            
Although the former Playboy Bunny railed against the legislation that banned federal funding of abortion, Couric responded approvingly – "right!" – and changed the subject to the hockey mom every liberal feminist loves to hate:

Since we're on the subject of reproductive rights, can you be a conservative feminist? Sarah Palin recently, I think, rankled some traditional feminists by calling herself a feminist, despite the fact she doesn't espouse many traditional feminist, uh, points of view.

Instead of challenging Steinem's feminist litmus test, Couric, turning to liberal activist Jehmu Greene, asked, "Do you agree with that?"

"I would say that Sarah Palin does not represent many of those same sentiments," Greene responded. The most vigorous defense Couric could muster on Palin's behalf was, "In what way? I mean, why?"

On Steinem's bizarre correlation between low taxes and less access to childcare, the "Evening News" anchor uttered not a decibel of skepticism. Eschewing her journalistic duty to hold interviewees accountable for their pronouncements – particularly the outlandish and unsubstantiated ones – Couric once again undermined her credibility as a professional newswoman.

Click here to view Katie Couric's June 23 interview with Steinem and Greene in its entirety.

--Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

Apparently unmarried men don't have to bother ‘putting a ring on it' anymore.

A CBS' "Early Show" panel on June 23 made marriage look like an obsolete tradition by  highlighting several couples who've cohabited for years-with little or no intentions of ever saying "I do."

CBS co-host Erica Hill cited statistics showing a record-high 6.4 million couples currently cohabitate in the United States.

"This is a cautious generation," Seligson explained to Hill. "They want to get it right, and they want to make sure that this is the person with whom they can spend the next 60 or 70 years."

"Early Show" guest panelists Dr. Robi Ludwig of Care.com and Brian Balthazar of Popgoestheweek.com supported this shift in cultural attitude. Balthazar pointed out that to many individuals, particularly those whose families have experienced divorce, marriage has a less-than-sparkly image.

"They say, why do I want to put myself through that?" Balthazar explained. "If I love my partner, why do I feed a piece of paper and spend a lot of money?" He credited the trend to an "instant update society. I don't know what I'm having for dinner tomorrow let alone a week. People stayed at the same job for 20 years. Now that never happens. People are thinking, marriage forever? The vows are honor and obey? Who wants to sign up for that?"

Ludwig said cohabitation provides a way to experiment with marriage without the burden of commitment. "Living together really always gives the person the option to get out," she said. "And also it's like a trial for marriage. So you're trying out to be a husband, you're trying out to be a wife. Most of the time it's a wife trying out, like, ‘Do you want me to be your wife?'

Balthazar called cohabitation "a great test run." He cited comedian Groucho Marx, who is credited with saying, "Marriage is a good institution. But who want to live in an institution?"

Despite the guest panelists' efforts to characterize marriage as antiquated, Hill never mentioned the ways that marriage benefits both the couple and their children.

Hill also never mentioned the numerous studies compiled by groups like The Heritage Foundation and Focus on the Family and  that indicate the damaging results that cohabitation has on marriage (for couples who eventually plan on getting married), or the effect that this non-committal take on relationships can have on children reared in homes lacking the structure of marriage.

This isn't the first time "The Early Show" has promoted cohabitation without mentioning the downsides. On March 9, host Harry Smith neglected to ask author Hannah Seligson about the consequences of cohabitation in a discussion of her book, "A Little Bit Married."

 

Apparently unmarried men don't have to bother ‘putting a ring on it' anymore.

A CBS' "Early Show" panel on June 23 made marriage look like an obsolete tradition by  highlighting several couples who've cohabited for years-with little or no intentions of ever saying "I do."

CBS co-host Erica Hill cited statistics showing a record-high 6.4 million couples currently cohabitate in the United States.

"This is a cautious generation," Seligson explained to Hill. "They want to get it right, and they want to make sure that this is the person with whom they can spend the next 60 or 70 years."

"Early Show" guest panelists Dr. Robi Ludwig of Care.com and Brian Balthazar of Popgoestheweek.com supported this shift in cultural attitude. Balthazar pointed out that to many individuals, particularly those whose families have experienced divorce, marriage has a less-than-sparkly image.

"They say, why do I want to put myself through that?" Balthazar explained. "If I love my partner, why do I feed a piece of paper and spend a lot of money?" He credited the trend to an "instant update society. I don't know what I'm having for dinner tomorrow let alone a week. People stayed at the same job for 20 years. Now that never happens. People are thinking, marriage forever? The vows are honor and obey? Who wants to sign up for that?"

Ludwig said cohabitation provides a way to experiment with marriage without the burden of commitment. "Living together really always gives the person the option to get out," she said. "And also it's like a trial for marriage. So you're trying out to be a husband, you're trying out to be a wife. Most of the time it's a wife trying out, like, ‘Do you want me to be your wife?'

Balthazar called cohabitation "a great test run." He cited comedian Groucho Marx, who is credited with saying, "Marriage is a good institution. But who want to live in an institution?"

Despite the guest panelists' efforts to characterize marriage as antiquated, Hill never mentioned the ways that marriage benefits both the couple and their children.

Hill also never mentioned the numerous studies compiled by groups like The Heritage Foundation and Focus on the Family and  that indicate the damaging results that cohabitation has on marriage (for couples who eventually plan on getting married), or the effect that this non-committal take on relationships can have on children reared in homes lacking the structure of marriage.

This isn't the first time "The Early Show" has promoted cohabitation without mentioning the downsides. On March 9, host Harry Smith neglected to ask author Hannah Seligson about the consequences of cohabitation in a discussion of her book, "A Little Bit Married."

 

President Obama's decision to relieve General Stanley McChrystal of command in Afghanistan and replace him with General David Petraeus was met with a chorus of praise in the media, as anchors and pundits on CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC all sang in unison that it was a "brilliant" move. [Audio available here] 

During live special coverage leading up to the announcement in the 1PM ET hour on CBS, White House correspondent Chip Reid proclaimed: "it sounds like a pretty brilliant decision really." At the same time on NBC, correspondent Jim Miklaszewski described it as a "stunning development" and added "at a quick glance, almost brilliant." Minutes later, White House correspondent Chuck Todd declared: "politically, in this town, it's going to be seen as a brilliant choice by the President."

Over on CNN, moments after Obama finished speaking, anchor Wolf Blitzer remarked that it was a "major moment for this president" and later observed: "a very brilliant move to tap General Petraeus." Finally, in the 2PM ET hour on MSNBC, Meet the Press host David Gregory concluded: "I think he took swift and decisive action. I think that's how it's going to be read."

In addition to cheering Obama's brilliance, another common theme in the media reaction was to assert the President's decision would be immune from criticism. Reid explained: "So the President avoids both the criticisms here, number one, putting somebody new in charge and, number two, since he fired McChrystal, he's not going to be accused of being weak."  Miklaszewski noted: "this may quiet some of the critics up on Capitol Hill." Todd later added: "...you will not hear a single word from Capitol Hill, no Republican will dare say a negative thing about this decision."

Liberals may like to boast of fighting the establishment and taking on the status quo, but it's conservative laws that are 30 times more likely to be deemed "controversial" - at least by the mainstream media.

In the past five years, when ABC, CBS, or NBC news reporters claimed a law was "controversial," they were most likely referring to legislation backed by the right.

This analysis looked at 110 news transcripts dating back to 2005 where the term "controversial" fell within three words of the term "law." Of these transcripts, 62 referred to policies that were clearly liberal or conservative. Of the 62 ideologically identifiable "controversial" laws, 60 were conservative and only two were liberal.

Whether it was NBC's "Today" on Jan. 2, 2008, referring to the "controversial new law in Arizona [where] businesses can be shut down if they intentionally hire illegal immigrants," or ABC's "Good Morning America" on Dec. 23, 2005, discussing the "extension of the Patriot Act just days before the controversial law was set to expire," conservative policies seemed to be more hot-button issues for the media than liberal policies.

Arizona's illegal immigration reform act was by far the law most frequently described as "controversial" by the news networks. Though the Arizona law was passed just two months ago, it was described by networks as "controversial" in 56 percent of the liberal or conservative transcripts studied.

But the "controversy" over the law is largely media-driven, according to Bob Dane of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Dane said the media have often mischaracterized the Arizona law.

"I would say that the media has focused on all the wrong aspects of [the immigration law]. The criticism of the bill has been far more extreme than anything that is in the bill," he said.

Despite media claims that the law is "controversial," polls show that Americans are solidly in favor of theArizona policy.

After referring to "Arizona's controversial new immigration law," Brian Williams of NBC "Nightly News" on May 26 went on to report that "In our new NBC News/MSNBC/Telemundo national poll on this issue, we found 61 percent of people support the Arizona law, 36 percent oppose it."

By comparison, the networks branded few liberal laws as controversial. The recent health care reform law, which 55 percent of likely voters would like to see repealed, wasn't labeled "controversial" once. Neither was the auto bailout package, which 53 percent of Americansbelieve was a bad idea. The only two liberal laws described as controversial in the transcripts were Oregon's assisted suicide policy, which ABC's "World News Tonight," called controversial on Oct. 5, 2005, and a California law requiring serial numbers on bullets, which ABC's "World News Sunday" called controversial on Oct. 14, 2007.

Other conservative laws deemed controversial by the media included No Child Left Behind, a law banning partial-birth abortion and a law allowing oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Methodology:

This study reviewed the transcripts of all 110 ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news transcripts, as well as NBC's "Meet the Press" between June 1, 2005, and June 21, 2010, in which the term "controversial" was used within three words of "law."

Duplicate transcripts and those not referring to U.S. laws were excluded. Other transcripts were discarded for the following reasons:

• The term "controversial" did not modify the law or parts of the law referred to, or
• The transcript did not mention the name or a description of the law, or
• The law was called controversial by a guest or interviewee as opposed to a reporter, anchor, or host.
• The transcript referred to a law that was considered politically neutral (such as a driving regulation inConnecticutand laws banning certain dog breeds in various states).

Of the 62 transcripts included in the final results of the study, all referred to policies that were clearly liberal or conservative. Sixty of the times reporters labeled a law controversial, it was a conservative policy and just two of the times it was a liberal policy.

 Like this article? Sign up for "Culture Links," CMI's weekly e-mail newsletter, by clicking here.

CNN correspondent Jeanne Moos has a penchant for quirky, off-beat reporting, but what happens when the eccentric newswoman gives a more accurate picture of important events than the serious journalists?

While media outlets relentlessly denounced BP CEO Tony Hayward for taking Saturday off to participate in a yacht race, they mostly glossed over or completely ignored President Barack Obama's Saturday golf outing with Vice President Joe Biden.

It was left to CNN's resident humorist to connect the dots.

"It's the yachting versus golf smack down, round one," declared Moos. "BP's CEO gets pummeled for taking a day off to watch his yacht race...CBS White House correspondent Mark Knoller says already President Obama has played 39 rounds of golf, compared to the 24 George Bush played his entire presidency."

Moos's evenhanded coverage of Obama's and Hayward's weekend misadventures contrasted markedly with reports filed by network news correspondents. ABC's Sharyn Alfonsi covered the outrage surrounding Hayward's yachting, but ignored criticism of Obama's golfing. CBS anchor Charles Osgood parroted White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's derision of Hayward, but failed to present an Obama critic.

The grown-up journalists might have selfishly ignored Obama's 39th round of golf since taking office, but as Moos reported, at least the children shared both sides of the story.

"My mom doesn't take breaks like every two months," proclaimed one child. "You don't really need to take a break every two months to go see a yacht race."

"President Obama? I'm not sure he should actually be golfing right now," argued another.

The transcript of the segment can be found below:

CNN
American Morning
6/22/10

6:54 a.m.

KIRAN CHETRY, co-host: 54 Minutes past the hour. Time now for the most news in the morning with Jeanne. BP's CEO did manage to find cleaner waters over the weekend and many said it was a major PR fail for the company.

JOHN ROBERTS, co-host: But many critics are saying that the president can't say anything about it until he puts down the golf clubs. Here's Jeanne.

JEANNE MOOS, CNN correspondent: It's the yachting versus golf smack down, round one. BP's CEO gets pummeled for taking a day off to watch his yacht race.

JOY BEHAR, co-host of "The View": How dare he just take off.

Sen. RICHARD SHELBY (R-Ala): The height of stupidity.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: How do you spell fool?

MOOS: But before you could spell it – BP's CEO – President Obama's golfing came under attack.

DANA PERINO, former George W. Bush press secretary: Almost five hours on the golf course with Biden.

ELIZABETH HASSELBECK, co-host of "The View": And it shouldn't have been eight times between the spill and now.

MOOS: Actually, seven times. CBS White House correspondent Mark Knoller says already President Obama has played 39 rounds of golf, compared to the 24 George Bush played his entire presidency, including some that got into a Michael Moore film.

Former President GEORGE W. BUSH: Stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now watch this drive.

MOOS: And while some equate president Obama's golf to Tony Hayward's yachting – two different men, two different jobs, one management style – the president's defenders note a big difference.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: That's the thing, he didn't create that mess that is there. What do they want the man to do? Put a wetsuit on and go down and fix that pipe?

MOOS: Meanwhile, Politico pondered the really important question, why is Tony Hayward's yacht names "Bob"? Wondering if it has anything to do with the Bill Murray movie, "What About Bob?" Sailor so scared he has to be lashed to the mast. Now Tony Hayward is being lashed.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: I really think it was a disgrace.

MOOS: On the other hand, surprisingly it was the first day off he's had in two months.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I really don't care.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Too bad. Look what he did.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Every day of his life is a day off.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I think he's probably due for a little down time.

MOOS: But downtime on the water can be a downer. Remember when presidential candidate John Kerry went wind surfing and it ended up in an attack ad.

ANNOUNCER: Whichever way the wind blows.

MOOS: BP's CEO is being mocked in an animation by a Taiwanese tabloid website. He sits on the beach sending out a drink to a guy drowning in oil, from the mouths of babes.

UNIDENTIFIED CHILD: My mom doesn't take breaks like every two months. You don't really need to take a break every two months to go see a yacht race.

UNIDENTIFIED CHILD: In the two hours it takes to golf or to go yachting, another 1,000 to 10,000 tons of oil could leak out.

UNIDENTIFIED CHILD: President Obama? I'm not sure he should actually be golfing right now.

MOOS: Just plug the darn hole, Mr. president. Jeanne Moos, CNN, New York.

--Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

On the June 20th edition of Sunday Morning, CBS reporter Richard Schlesinger conducted a glowing interview with pay czar Kenneth Feinberg, lauding him as someone who speaks with "moral authority" and who has "become an expert assessor of the value of life itself."

Feinberg, who will now be in charge of distributing the $20 billion BP has pledged for the oil spill, previously worked with President Obama to control salaries and bonuses of Wall Street CEOs. Schlesinger could barely contain his disgust for the executives.

He scolded, "How do you avoid looking at these guys on the other side of the table and say, You're just a bunch of greedy so-and-sos?"

After Feinberg explained that this would be a bad negotiating tactic, Schlesinger marveled, "After all you've seen, you don't [call them greedy]?" The reporter also highlighted the government official's work over the last decade, including working on compensation for the families of 9/11.

According to Schlesinger, "More than a learned attorney, he's become an expert assessor of the value of life itself. He wields the kind of power with which no politician would ever be trusted."

The journalist later rhapsodized, "That after all Ken Feinberg has seen-the greed, the grief and the grace- he doesn't just speak with legal authority, he speaks with no small amount of moral authority, earned during the toughest crises this nation has faced."

In contrast, when Feinberg was working with the Bush government to compensate 9/11 family members, the same Schlesinger didn't receive coverage quite as fawning. Consider this CBS Evening News exchange between the reporter and Monica Gabrielle, a wife of a 9/11 victim on September 11, 2002:

RICHARD SCHLESINGER: The money is awarded tax-free but only after some strings are attached, including a requirement that recipients give up the right to sue anyone except the terrorists themselves.

MONICA GABRIELLE: For me, it's a shut-up fund.

SCHLESINGER: It's a what?

GABRIELLE: Shut-up fund.

SCHLESINGER: Shut-up fund. What does that mean?

GABRIELLE: You take the money. You don't--don't have any recourse in--in the courts to get answers. And hopefully you just go away.

To be sure, Schlesinger on Sunday did mention some of the problems with 9/11 compensation, but he was nowhere near as effusive back in 2002.

A transcript of the June 20 segment, which aired at 9:14am EDT, follows:

CHARLES OSGOOD: Assignment: BP. That's the task now on the shoulders of Kenneth Feinberg. Settling the claims of oil spill victims is an unenviable job and as Richard Schlesinger of 48 HOURS now tells us in our Sunday cover story, the number of people able to take it on is very small, indeed.

KENNETH FEINBERG: The President of the United States has made it abundantly clear and BP has acquiesced that if the $20 billion escrow account is insufficient that BP is confident that it can meet its additional financial obligations.

RICHARD SCHLESINGER: He may be the one person considered experienced enough to spend twenty billion of BP's dollars fairly.

FEINBERG: I think that my independence is, I would hope, unquestioned.

SCHLESINGER: Kenneth Feinberg has waded into some of this nation's biggest man made disasters. He's gotten earfuls from people suffering through the worst kind of loss-

WOMAN #1: I think if you could feel our pain for one hour, your tone and your mannerisms would be so drastically different than what they are.

SCHLESINGER: -and handed out fistfuls of money to try to make things better. How much of that is an honor and how much of that is a burden?

FEINBERG: Not a burden at all. It's all an honor. It's not a burden to be called-on to try your hand at another intractable problem. If you're not down here- And I'll be next week in Alabama and Florida. If you're not down here, hearing from the front line on what has to be done here, there's no way this program can work?

SCHLESINGER: Just like that. Matter of fact, it's his style. And it's served him well over the past twenty-five-plus years, as he's carved out his role as the go-to guy for the very toughest jobs.

FEINBERG: Good afternoon, ladies and gentleman. My name is Kenneth Feinberg, the special master.

SCHLESINGER: More than a learned attorney, he's become an expert assessor of the value of life itself. He wields the kind of power with which no politician would ever be trusted.

FEINBERG: We must apply it as a precedent across the board to everybody similarly situated.

SCHLESINGER: He became a star as a mediator in 1984. Vietnam Veterans had sued the manufacturers of the defoliant Agent Orange. They said it made them sick, the companies denied it all. After an eight-year legal fight yielded nothing, Ken Feinberg negotiated a settlement in just six weeks.

FEINBERG: The first day that I mediated that case, I said to them together, chemical companies, what are you willing to put up? They said together all eight of us will put up twenty-five thousand dollars. Then I asked the Vietnam veterans, and they said we want 1.2 billion dollars.

SCHLESINGER: If it were me, I would think-

FEINBERG: No, you know, you have to be a little bit of better chess player, Richard. There's plenty of room to move. They're here to participate.

SCHLESINGER: But that case was nothing like what came next. After the 9/11 attacks, he volunteered to decide how much money each family of victims would get from a compensation fund Congress set up.

MAN #1: --deserve. There's no- no money involved on a life. We all know that.

SCHLESINGER: Feinberg was used to dealing with lawyers representing victims. Here he came face to face with unfiltered emotion and anger.

MAN #2: You have an arrogance about you that is so painful you can't possibly believe.

FEINBERG: Oh, I-- I misjudged it for the first year I was at odds with these families. I had a lawyer's disposition in trying to deal with families in grief.

SCHLESINGER: Congress ordered Feinberg to use each victim's earnings to help established the value of every life lost. The lives of a banker and a busboy were valued differently, even though they both ended the same way.

FEINBERG: Money equals economic value. It does not equal moral worth. I tried to explain to these families quite unsuccessfully that I was not attempting at all to value the moral integrity or the intrinsic worth of any individual. I was simply applying that cold calculus.

MICHAEL FEINBERG: I think he was caught off guard emotionally and personally by the- the- the how affected he was by 9/11.

SCHLESINGER: Michael is the oldest of Feinberg's three children.

MICHAEL FEINBERG: And it changed him. And any free time he had was spent listening to music.

KENNETH FEINBERG: Because from- from seven in the morning to seven at night, you are dealing with the fallout from the most barbaric, the most callous tragedy in American history. You've got to escape somehow from that or you'll go mad.

WOMAN #2: It was not his job to leave my three children and myself alone for the rest of our lives.

RICHARD SCHLESINGER: He worked for almost three years, never took a penny in pay and by the time he was done he had given out about seven billion dollars. All but a handful of families eventually decided Ken Feinberg represented their best option.

WOMAN #3: And although it is difficult, Mister Feinberg, the fund has treated my family very reasonably and very fairly.

SCHLESINGER: But he is still haunted by one woman who couldn't handle any of it.

KENNETH FEINBERG: She lost about two million dollars tax free by being so paralyzed by grief she couldn't even sign the application that I brought to her doorstep. How do you forget stories like that?

SCHLESINGER: But that one seems to have been the one you, that you- - that really sticks with you.

KENNETH FEINBERG: It sticks with me because I- I failed, you see.

SCHLESINGER: But he got high enough marks for handling the 9/11 fund that about three years later when a student gunman killed thirty-two people and himself at Virginia Tech, authorities turned to Ken Feinberg once more to decide who deserved how much.

FEINBERG: Virginia Tech involved the serendipitous, haphazard nature of death. Here's a school, rural Virginia. You- you say to yourself, nowhere are you assured of being safe.

SCHLESINGER: And then the man who dealt with people who lost so much had to deal with people who wanted so much. After the financial meltdown, when Congress bailed out the banks, it ordered the Treasury Secretary to control the salaries and bonuses of the top executives. And Secretary Geithner went to the go-to guy, Ken Feinberg, who came to be known as the Pay Czar. How do you avoid looking at these guys on the other side of the table and say, you're just a bunch of greedy so-and-sos?

FEINBERG: No. You don't-- you don't say that.

RICHARD SCHLESINGER: After all you've seen, you don't?

FEINBERG: No. You-- you say- you don't say there are greedy so-and- sos. You- you- you- you say that you're vastly overpaid.

SCHLESINGER: However, he said it, few bankers wanted to hear it and BP executives will soon learn what the bank executives learned. That after all Ken Feinberg has seen-the greed, the grief and the grace- he doesn't just speak with legal authority, he speaks with no small amount of moral authority, earned during the toughest crises this nation has faced.

FEINBERG: All of these problems, these challenges are different. Everyone is different. But this is a tragedy here in the Gulf. No question about it. Its emotional, it's real.

SCHLESINGER: Feinberg has his hands full. He's still tangling with Wall Street executives and the week before last he stepped back into a previous role. He'll review old claims from 9/11 first responders, but he's promised to begin payouts in the Gulf quickly, starting in thirty days. He has more money to spend on the oil spill than he has ever had before. And he's ready and able to see how much wrong $20 billion can make right.

All three morning shows on Monday railed against BP CEO Tony Hayward for attending a yachting race in England on Saturday, but they found no such anger for Barack Obama's golf outing on the same day, ignoring the story. The pattern was nearly identical on Sunday, with only Good Morning America briefly mentioning the President's recreational activities.

On Monday's Early Show, Katie Couric appeared and derided, "But that image of Tony Hayward participating in that yacht race over the weekend probably hurt his image even more, as if that's possible." Good Morning America's Sharyn Alfonsi indignantly reported, "...Tony Hayward goes sailing, but residents weren't the only ones wondering what was he thinking?"

The morning shows even repeated the White House's assaults on Hayward's yachting trip, hypocritically ignoring Obama's golfing. On the June 20 Sunday Morning (CBS's weekend equivalent of the Early Show), host Charles Osgood parroted, "White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel labeled Hayward's outing another PR gaffe."

On Monday's GMA, ABC reporter Alfonsi featured a clip of Emanuel mocking, "Tony Hayward is not going to have a second career in PR consulting." The PR problems for the President went unmentioned by Alfonsi.

Today on Monday featured Matt Lauer asserting that Hayward is "under renewed fire, this time for attending a glamorous yacht race." On Sunday's GMA, Alfonsi chided the event as a "ritzy yacht race."

In total, Monday's Today, Good Morning America and Early Show all ran full reports on Hayward's activities. On Sunday, Today and GMA did the same thing. Sunday Morning ran an anchor brief on the race.

The only mention of Obama's golfing came during an exchange between Sunday GMA co-host Bill Weir and guest Jake Tapper, anchor of This Week:

BILL WEIR: I understand after your interview with Emanuel there, the White House announced that the President was spending his day golfing with vice president Biden. So, some might criticize that since the President has made clear he is ultimately the man in charge. The White House responded to those criticisms?

JAKE TAPPER: Well, I don't think they would see it exactly the same thing, yachting in a pristine environment by the man who runs the company responsible for this great environmental disaster is not the same thing as the President taking in some holes at a military base golf course, they say. Although Republicans say people on golf courses shouldn't throw stones.

If it's poor form to yacht while the Gulf Coast suffers one of the worst environmental and economic disasters in history, one would think the same would be true for the President. Viewers who watched the network morning shows wouldn't know that, however.

For more on this double standard, see a NewsBusters post by Noel Sheppard.

(Thanks to Matt Balan and MRC interns Alex Fitzsimmons and Matt Hadro for transcript assistance.)

A transcript of Monday's GMA segment on Hayward, which aired at 7:04, follows:

ROBIN ROBERTS: Meanwhile, though, BP's CEO Tony Hayward is under mounting pressure to resign. So, what did he do this time? Sharyn Alfonsi is in Louisiana with more than on that. Good morning, Sharyn.

SHARYN ALFONSI: Good morning, Robin, Well, just when you think people here couldn't be positive more outraged, Tony Hayward goes sailing but residents weren't the only ones wondering what was he thinking? Today, this image of Tony Hayward racing ace 50-foot yacht off the coast. [Talking to a resident.] What does that say to you?

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: That he really doesn't give a flying flip about any of us That's amazing.

ALABAMA GOVERNOR BOB RILEY (R): I don't know how many yachts are over there. But put a skimmer on the back of them, bring them back over here because we certainly need them.

ALFONSI: A spokesman for BP says Hayward's day off was a rare moment of private time. And said that "no matter where he is, he's always in touch with what's happening within BP." But, critics say he's clearly out of touch with everyone else.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: He wants his life back. Maybe he's trying to go on with his normal life, you know? It's unfortunate we can't do that.

RAHM EMANUEL (White House chief of staff): Tony Hayward is not going to have a second career in PR consulting.

ALFONSI: Exactly what Hayward's job is these days is unclear. BP's chairman told Britain's Sky News that Hayward was being relieved from the day-to-day operations dealing with the leak.

CARL HENRIC SVANBERG (Chairman, BP): He's now handing over the operations, the daily operations, to Bob Dudley. And he will be more home then be here.

ALFONSI: But, a day later, a BP spokesman said until the leak is capped, Tony Hayward is very much in charge. [A picture of him on his yacht appears onscreen.] Hayward at the helm, now navigating hot water. And Tony Hayward did issue a statement of sorts this weekend by twitter. He said, "The oil spill is still my top priority." That message came after that race. That is a real hard sell down here in the gulf right now. George?

As NewsBusters previously reported, America's media on Saturday had a collective hissy fit over BP CEO Tony Hayward having the nerve to participate in a yacht race on his day off.

At the same time, no such outrage was expressed concerning President Obama and Vice President Biden going golfing.

This double standard continued Sunday as the three broadcast network political talk shows all began with Hayward's yacht outing while ignoring the President's R&R on the links.

What follows are videos and transcripts of the opening segments of ABC's "This Week," CBS's "Face the Nation," and NBC's "Meet the Press": 

JAKE TAPPER, HOST: Hello, and happy Father's Day. Joining me this morning, the president's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. Mr. Emanuel, happy Father's Day.

RAHM EMANUEL, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Thanks, Jake.

TAPPER: Before we start the questions, I'm interested in your reactions to photographs from Saturday's BP CEO Tony Hayward at a yacht race off the Isle of Wight in the clean waters off southern England. What goes through your mind when you see those pictures?

BOB SCHIEFFER: Today on FACE THE NATION, the wind is pushing the oil to the Panhandle of Florida now. How much worse can it get? And while the oil keeps on gushing, Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP, took a break and went yachting in cleaner waters off the coast of England. Is it time for him to go? Is the twenty billion dollars BP has put in escrow enough to meet the damage claims? Just two of many questions for Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, who toured the region yesterday; Florida Senator Bill Nelson; Congressman Joseph Cao of Louisiana and Senator Barbara Boxer, chair of the Senate Environment Committee. I'll have a final word today on the high price of gas. But first, Day 62 of the Disaster in the Gulf.

ANNOUNCER: FACE THE NATION with CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob

Schieffer. And now from CBS News in Washington, Bob Schieffer.

BOB SCHIEFFER: And, good morning, again. Senator Shelby is joining us today from Mobile. Senator Boxer is in San Francisco. Congressman Cao in New Orleans and Senator Nelson is with us here in the studio. Welcome to you all. Well, Senator Shelby, you were all over the Gulf Coast region yesterday. Did you run into any yacht racing down there? 

MR. DAVID GREGORY: This Sunday, disaster in the Gulf with no end in sight and a looming summer of oil. Was this the defining week in the Gulf Coast crisis? The issues: containment of the oil and cleanup, holding BP accountable, the impact on the Obama presidency, the future of offshore drilling, and will Washington think big about finding other sources of energy? This morning, our special discussion. With us, Kenneth Feinberg, the independent administrator of the BP oil spill victim compensation fund; Mississippi's governor, Republican Haley Barbour; Louisiana senator, Democrat Mary Landrieu; the chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Democrat Ed Markey of Massachusetts; the former president of the Shell Oil Company, John Hofmeister; and "BBC World News America"'s Katty Kay.

Announcer: From NBC News in Washington, MEET THE PRESS, with David Gregory.

MR. GREGORY: Good morning. After BP's Tony Hayward turned in a poor performance on Capitol Hill this week, he appears to have made matters worse by attending a yacht race over the weekend, drawing yet more criticism from many on the Gulf Coast and beyond who feel that the oil company's chief executive has been sorely out of touch since this disaster began 62 days ago.

That's what hockey fans call a hat trick!

Nice going, folks.

Of course, no one is defending Hayward's poor public relations move here.

Instead, if media are going to spend so much time on his yacht outing making the case that it shows how detached he is from his company's crisis, the same MUST be said of a President that is golfing as millions of gallons of oil slam into HIS nation's coast.

Without similar scorn, our press are just once again demonstrating their infamous double standard -- not that we're at all surprised.

*****Update: Hot Air's Ed Morrissey calls this the Obamateurism of the Day!

Normally, I'd say that Presidents deserve their occasional down time, especially considering the enormous pressures that come with the office. However, Obama himself put the Gulf spill on the level of 9/11 in terms of its impact on the US. If he wants to make that argument, then the President needs to act like he believes it. Golfing more days than Gulfing looks just as bad as yachting while others attempt to stop the damage. 

An Instapundit reader sent Glenn Reynolds the following:

 

On Thursday's Good Morning America on ABC, co-host George Stephanopoulos laid blame on BP and Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen for mishandling the Gulf oil spill response but depicted the Obama administration as having done everything it could. In contrast, on the CBS Early Show, guests from both sides of the aisle gave the President a 'C' grade for his response.  

At the top of Good Morning America, Stephanopoulos described how BP CEO Tony Hayward would be facing a "public execution" in Thursday's congressional hearings and how Michigan Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak promised to "slice and dice" Hayward. In a report that followed, correspondent Jonathan Karl furthered the theme of courageous Democrats standing up to the big oil villain: "Tony Hayward may be the most hated man in America. And he's heading right into a buzz saw of congressional outrage. In his prepared testimony, Hayward declares, 'I am deeply sorry.' But the chairman of the committee says that's not enough." A clip of Democratic committee chairman Henry Waxman was played.

Minutes later, Stephanopoulos interviewed Louisiana Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser and wondered: "...with everything the President and BP announced this week, do you think this is on the right track now?" After Nungesser expressed doubt about local fisherman being reimbursed for financial losses and a lack of organization in the response, Stephanopoulos deflected any criticism away from President Obama and suggested another target: "The White House has approved the building of berms, they've sent the boom down there, Admiral Allen is on the scene every day. Are you saying he is not giving you the help you need? And do you think he should keep his job?"

Nungesser replied: "I don't know if it's Admiral Allen. I don't know if the chain of command. Something's not working." Stephanopoulos pressed further: "So how does it get done? Is Admiral Allen the right man for the job right now?" The headline on-screen during the segment read: "Desperation On the Gulf; Residents Want More Action."

Meanwhile, on the Early Show, co-host Harry Smith invited Republican strategist Dan Bartlett and Democratic strategist Rob Zimmerman to grade President Obama's handling of the disaster. Bartlett replied: "Well I think, Harry, anything above maybe a C-minus would be difficult to score." Smith joked: " 'Gentleman's C,' we've heard that before." Zimmerman actually graded on the same curve: "Harry, I'd have to agree with Dan. I'd give him a C on this, a C at this point." Unlike the more generic ABC headline, the on-screen headline on CBS read: "Disaster in the Gulf: Day 59; What's Next Step for Obama Administration?"

Barlett later questioned the wisdom of the White House using the crisis to push controversial cap-and-trade energy legislation. Smith agreed with that concern, asking Zimmerman: "...you have to confess....At the end of the speech he says, 'Well now it's time for us to think about energy policy and this is a perfect, perfect jumping-off point,' was that, as you watched, were you thinking, 'Boy that's a good idea,' or were you thinking, 'Not now, not now!'"  

Zimmerman argued: "But unless we, in fact, put in place an aggressive energy policy, we run the risk of this tragedy happening all over again." Smith agreed: "That goes without saying." However, he reiterated: "But from a political standpoint, it's not as if he's saying, 'Okay, I've solved all the problems, I have got the bully pulpit, I've got the momentum. Now's the time to jump on this.'"

On Tuesday, while the Early Show and NBC's Today challenged White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on the administration's response, former Democratic strategist Stephanopoulos lobbed softballs to the Obama staff member. 

The news media have recently been struck with World Cup fever, with two broadcast networks sending reporters to South Africa to cover the games. At the same time, a bailout request that could cost taxpayers another $50 billion was ignored by most broadcast news programs.

ABC, CBS and NBC spent a combined 25 minutes 54 seconds talking about World Cup soccer between June 13 and 15. That was more than 38 times what they spend talking about Obama's latest call for further government spending - which was guaranteed to upset taxpayers.

While the World Cup is a worthwhile story, U.S. taxpayers might have ranked a request for $50 billion more of their dollars higher than the networks did.

Obama sent a letter to Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle June 12, urging them to pass a "derailed" $50 billion state bailout bill. But the three broadcast networks' newcasts have all but ignored it. "Good Morning America" was the only network newscast to mention the president's push for more stimulus. Its story was 40 seconds long.

By ignoring the request for more funds, the networks shielded Obama from the taxpayer anger and criticism that has been simmering all over the country, bubbling up at hundreds of tea party protests around the country and at town halls in 2009.

He says he wants the $50 billion to avert "massive layoffs" of public-sector employees like policemen, firefighters and teachers.

"But don't call it stimulus," warned CNN's Kiran Chetry. Stimulus is a dirty word these days, a point CNN acknowledged when it reported the president's call to Congress.

Unlike the networks, many print news outlets including The New York Times, The Washington Post, Reuters, and The Christian Science Monitor, along with cable networks CNN, CNBC and MSNBC reported Obama's appeal for funds which he claimed was necessary to prevent a setback in the "economic recovery."

"In the letter Saturday, Obama made an unequivocal case for spending more now - particularly on measures to support small business and state governments - to ensure that the recovery doesn't ‘slide backwards.' The Post wrote on June 15. "And administration officials defended their lobbying campaign, noting that White House Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Christina Romer met with two key groups of House Democrats in recent weeks to make the case for delaying major deficit-reduction until growth is firmly reestablished."

No reporting means no criticism

By devoting a mere 40 seconds to the stimulus request on just one show, the broadcast networks didn't leave much room for critics of the plan. Those critics argue that the initial stimulus bill has failed since the unemployment rate has risen to 9.7 percent, and throwing more money at the problem won't be the solution.

One such critic is Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who offered her perspective of more stimulus in a column for Townhall.com.

Bachmann pointed out, "Back in 2009 when President Obama was touting his $787 billion economic ‘stimulus' plan, he claimed that we passed the bill so that ‘local districts didn't have to lay off teachers, firefighters, police officers and others, and the stimulus succeeded in that.' (Fox News - 7/5/2009)"

According to Bachmann, the "throw money at it" approach "doesn't work" and "we don't have the money to spend in the first place." She reminded readers of the $13 trillion federal debt that is projected to hit $19.6 trillion by 2015. The unemployment rate is also at a very high 9.7 percent (it went as high as 10 percent under Obama).

CATO Institute Budget Analyst Tad DeHaven criticized Obama's latest request as a union bailout and said, "the only thing the money would sustain is the excessive wages and benefits government employees enjoy at the expense of the private sector."

DeHaven pointed out that state and local government employees earn 45 percent more (total compensation) by the hour than average private-sector employees.

History of Support for Government Stimulus

The networks' near silence about the latest in a long parade of bailouts shouldn't really be surprising. ABC, CBS and NBC helped sell the initial stimulus package and other bailouts for the White House.

Obama not only had strong majorities in the House and Senate to promote his massive stimulus bill, he had ABC, NBC and CBS cheering his "bold" push for economic stimulus. A Business & Media Institute Special Report found that ABC and NBC particularly favored the legislation, including pro-stimulus voices by a more-than 2-to-1 ratio (139-56).

After all, as NBC's Scott Cohn told viewers, "Economic stimulus isn't just a political debate around here. It could be a matter of survival."

But as federal spending grew in unpopularity, the networks have barely reported such bailout requests.

After all, the public uproar over a $787 billion stimulus, auto bailouts, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's growing burden on taxpayers (possibly up to $1 trillion) has revealed itself in cities across the country as thousands have protested against out of control government spending.

The networks have refused to hold Obama accountable for the failure of his stimulus package even after a year with the most jobs lost since 1940 (as of January 2010). Since then the national unemployment rate has dropped a smidgen to 9.7 percent. But millions are still out of work.

Obama's administration sold the stimulus package on claims that, if passed, the unemployment rate wouldn't go above 8 percent. During the campaign he also promised to "save or create" 3-4 million jobs. Now, Obama says the economy is in recovery, but $50 billion more is needed to help desperate state and local governments.

In October 2009, the networks also helped the president by staying quiet about a "stealth" push for "second stimulus," knowing that the public outcry would be fierce. The networks covered the first stimulus package 6 times as much as the possibility of a second stimulus.

Even a full year after the stimulus bill passed, nearly half of network reports failed to include any criticism.

Like this article? Sign up for "The Balance Sheet," BMI's weekly e-mail newsletter.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs made the rounds on the network morning shows on Tuesday, ahead of President Obama's prime time Oval Office address on the Gulf oil spill. While he had confrontational interviews on CBS's Early Show and NBC's Today, on ABC's Good Morning America, co-host George Stephanopoulos made sure Gibbs's appearance was low-stress.

Stephanopoulos kept the questions bland, giving Gibbs plenty of room to maneuver, and made little effort to press the White House spokesman on the administration's response: "...the President struck a pretty hopeful note yesterday, but experts say this spill will change the ecosystem for a generation....Are they right?...So does the President believe that basically all the oil will stop spilling into the Gulf by the end of June?...Is it fair to conclude from that, that this is the most significant crisis the President has faced?"

By contrast, on CBS's Early Show, co-host Harry Smith began by quoting Florida Senator Bill Nelson saying there was "no command and control" during the crisis and asking Gibbs: "How has this President's most recent trip to the Gulf, how is that going to change any of this?" Smith later wondered why local authorities weren't being allowed to take charge of cleanup efforts, to which Gibbs replied: "I think that's what's happening in almost every instance." Smith quickly interrupted: "...it may sound like it from where you are, but from where we have heard on the other end, it sure doesn't feel like it."

On NBC's Today, co-host Matt Lauer also pressed Gibbs, asking if the President's prime time address was simply "a little bit of theater" and questioning Obama's refusal to meet with BP's CEO for several weeks: "...why wait 57 days to meet with the executives of this company after this disaster started?"

Perhaps the reason for Stephanopoulos's soft approach was due to his hope that the President had "contained the political damage" of the spill, as he expressed to Democratic strategist James Carville on Monday.

Here are some of Stephanopoulos's June 15 questions to Gibbs on Good Morning America:

7:07AM EST

-You know, the President struck a pretty hopeful note yesterday, but experts say this spill will change the ecosystem for a generation. And a lot of the public seems to agree. Half in a USA Today poll say that some beaches will never recover. And more say some species of fish and birds will never return to normal levels. Are they right?

-You know, the–BP wrote yesterday that it hopes to be able to capture 50,000 barrels of oil by the end of June. So does the President believe that basically all the oil will stop spilling into the Gulf by the end of June?

-The President also wants BP to set up an escrow fund. And Congress is calling for a $20 billion escrow fund. What if BP doesn't do it?

-We also saw yesterday the House Energy and Commerce Committee release a series of e-mails which paint a pretty damning portrait of BP....Previous investigations have shown the company was responsible for more than 90 percent of the safety violations on rigs. Given these concerns, why should BP be allowed to keep on drilling in the Gulf?

-Final question. The address tonight is the President's first Oval Office address. Is it fair to conclude from that, that this is the most significant crisis the President has faced?

Here are some of Smith's questions on the Early Show:

7:03AM EST

-Senator Bill Nelson from Florida sums up the situation down there with this quote, and it reflects the sentiments of a lot of folks there. He says 'the decisions are not timely, the resources are not produced, and as a result, you have a big mess with no command and control.' How has this President's most recent trip to the Gulf, how is that going to change any of this?

-I want to go back to the claims thing a second because we have talked to so many people down there who have been impacted. They try to make claims. They call BP. They get busy signal after busy signal. Sometimes they finally talk to somebody. That person never calls them back. It's not until, usually, the news media intervenes that somehow we can help push that person through the system. How can the President prevail upon BP to streamline the system and cut some of the red tape and well, you know, bologna?

-Along those lines, the locals down there say, you know, we know how to clean up our beaches. We've got better ideas about how to place booms and everything else. They've got to come up with ideas, they bring them to BP, they either get back to them or not get back to them. Why not cede control of these beaches and wetlands to the locals and just say, 'you know what, do whatever you need to do, keep that place clean, we'll deal with the mess in the ocean and we promise you that BP will pay for it in the end'?

-From my experience down there....it may sound like it from where you are, but from where we have heard on the other end, it sure doesn't feel like it.

Here are some of Lauer's questions on Today:

7:02AM EST

-When I sat down with the President last week and talked to him about some of the criticism being leveled at his administration for a cool, aloof, even slow response to this crisis, he said, "This is not theater." And he went on to say, "I don't always have time to perform for the benefit of the cable shows. What I do have is dedication and commitment to make sure the people who are actually being affected by this are going to get the best possible service from me." Yet Robert, in the days following that interview he's made not one but two trips to the Gulf. This last one a two-day visit, and tonight he's addressing the nation from the Oval Office. So is this now a little bit of theater, or is he admitting that perhaps it's important to have a little aspect of theater in this response?

-In, in the last few days, though, there's no denying that at least his public posture on this has changed. Would you agree to that?

-Let me ask you to comment on something else that I spoke to the President about last week. I asked him if he had spoken directly to Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP and, and let me play you what he said to me....Tomorrow he'll meet with Tony Hayward. What changed?...why wait 57 days to meet with the executives of this company after this disaster started?

-You keep saying he's gonna meet with the chairman of the board of BP. Will Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP, be at that meeting tomorrow?

The network morning and evening news shows have all but ignored President Obama's Saturday letter to congressional leaders asking for $50 billion in additional spending to prevent the "massive layoffs of teachers, police, and firefighters." Only Sunday's Good Morning America on ABC has covered the President's request so far.

The chief executive's June 12 letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and House Minority Leader John Boehner urged "swift action" on the multi-billion dollar proposal to prevent the public sector layoffs and "give our nation's businesses added impetus to hire and grow."

ABC anchor Bill Weir brought up the President's letter with White House correspondent Jake Tapper 13 minutes into the 8 am Eastern hour of Sunday's Good Morning America:

WEIR: And then, I guess, slightly more difficult than stopping the leak is keeping open the flow of federal stimulus money- I understand the President [is] asking for another $50 billion?

JAKE TAPPER: Another $50 billion, and this has been a tough sell for Democrats on Capitol Hill, not to mention, of course, Republicans. President Obama made the request in a letter yesterday. I will be sitting down today with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and House Minority Leader John Boehner to see if they have any willingness to pass an additional $50 billion. The President says this is needed as emergency aid to state and local governments, to make sure there aren't massive layoffs of teachers and policemen and firemen. But, so far, Congress has shown no inclination to pass any more spending bills.

Neither Sunday's Today show on NBC nor CBS's Sunday Morning program mentioned the spending request. This omission continued on all three networks Sunday evening news programs.

The networks' morning shows on Monday also failed to mention the push for further spending by the President. By contrast, CNN's Christine Romans devoted an entire segment to it on American Morning:

JOHN ROBERTS: Twenty minutes now after the [7 am Eastern] hour- Christine Romans here 'Minding Your Business' this morning. And we heard mantras of 'drill baby drill'- now, I guess this one is 'spend baby spend,' right?

CHRISTINE ROMANS: Right, the President-

KIRAN CHETRY: But don't call it 'stimulus.'

ROMANS: Don't call it- whatever you do, do not call new spending in the economy 'stimulus' because we have mid-term elections coming up and Republicans and- you know, frankly, a lot of Democrats are not real keen on spending a lot more money. But the President this weekend sending a letter to congressional leadership, saying this is not the time to pull back on some important emergency spending measures because the economy is really at a critical juncture, he says, in the path to recovery.

The President, in this three-page letter to Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, saying basically, we cannot afford to slide backward, that we must take emergency measures. All told, maybe up to $50 billion in new spending for things like keeping teachers on the job, for helping people pay their premiums for health care insurance, for making sure that first responders have money so that they are out there actually being able to answer 911 calls and the like.

Here's the issue that the President points out in his letter. We have an economy that is in a recovery, but that recovery seems to be pretty fragile. You look at the number of people unemployed- it's still 9.7 percent. You look at the most recent retail sales number- retail sales fell 1.2 percent in the most recent month. That was a surprise to people. And you have you a 30-year fixed rate mortgage of an unbelievable 4.81 percent. Folks, that is so low for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage. But you still have a lot of concerns with the housing market. It's just not going to recover until you see the job situation recover. So the President is asking for some- you know, solidarity behind some new spending. The letter went over like a lead balloon with Republicans-

ROBERTS: I'm sure.

ROMANS: And even some Democrats are concerned. Look, they can't support anything in the next few months that's going to turn up in a campaign ad against them as some kind of a new stimulus or spending money we don't have. So it's a tough fight the President has here.

CHETRY: All right. Christine Romans, thanks so much.

ROMANS: Sure.

CHETRY: Oh, what's your numeral? Sorry about that.

ROMANS: Oh, the numeral is 300,000. And this is one of the reasons why the President really makes it personal about this spending- 300,000.

CHETRY: This is how many people sign up for unemployment benefits each month?

ROMANS: This is- according to David Axelrod, if you don't spend more money, you're going to have 300,000 teachers out of work- 300,000. That means if you don't find the money to spend-

ROBERTS: That's true, yeah.

ROMANS: You're going to notice this in your school, in your classroom. This is something-

ROBERTS: State and local budgets.

ROMANS: It affects you, and the President noted that in his letter, that state and local people are really in big trouble here.

ROBERTS: Okay. And now it's time to say goodbye to all our company.

ROMANS: Or walk.

CHETRY: All right, Christine.

California's Democrat gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown on Tuesday called his Republican rival Meg Whitman a Nazi.

You probably didn't hear about this because America's media largely ignored it. 

By contrast, the press had a field day when Republican senatorial candidate Carly Fiorina made a comment about Barbara Boxer's (D-Calif.) hair that was picked up by an open microphone Tuesday evening.

Why the double standard?

Consider your answer as you read what Brown told KCBS radio's Doug Sovern (h/t NBer Gary Hall):

Brown boasted about his legendary frugality. "I've only spent $200,000 so far. I have 20 million in the bank. I'm saving up for her." It's true - his stay-on-the-sidelines, bare-bones primary run cost him almost nothing, at least in California political terms. But he also fretted about the impact of all those eBay dollars in Whitman's very deep pockets. "You know, by the time she's done with me, two months from now, I'll be a child-molesting..." He let the line trail off. "She'll have people believing whatever she wants about me." Then he went off on a riff I didn't expect.

"It's like Goebbels," referring to Hitler's notorious Minister of Propaganda. "Goebbels invented this kind of propaganda. He took control of the whole world. She wants to be president. That's her ambition, the first woman president. That's what this is all about."

Sovern followed this up Thursday:

The campaign of Meg Whitman has issued the following statement in response to the comments made by Jerry Brown, quoted in my blog posting "Run Jerry Run."

"Just last week, Governor Brown promised he wasn't going to engage in mudslinging, but now he is comparing Meg Whitman to Hitler's Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels. Jerry Brown's statements comparing our campaign to a propagator of the Holocaust is deeply offensive and entirely unacceptable."

--Meg Whitman 2010 Campaign Manager Jillian Hasner

Jerry Brown's campaign spokesman, Sterling Clifford, confirms to the Associated Press that the conversation took place, describing it as "a discussion after a chance meeting while they were exercising. I wouldn't vouch for the accuracy of it, but I also don't want to dispute the accuracy of it. It was jogging talk taken out of context." He says Brown was not comparing the Whitman campaign to Nazis.

UPDATE: Friday afternoon, Jerry Brown issued the following statement: "I regret making the comments. They were taken out of context."

Pretty serious stuff happening in America's most-populated state, wouldn't you agree?

Yet our media weren't very interested.

Although Politico reported this matter late Thursday evening, as did the Associated Press shortly after, the rest of our supposedly impartial press almost completed ignored Brown's disgusting remarks.

According to Google news and LexisNexis searches, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, and NBC didn't file one report on this subject through Friday evening.

NOT ONE!

I can also find no newspaper reports outside of California.

Zero, nada, zilch! 

Bucking the trend was Fox News during Friday's "Special Report" and CNN's Jack Cafferty giving it a mention on the same day's "Situation Room."

By contrast, when Fiorina was caught on an open microphone saying that Boxer's hair was "so yesterday," the media had a field day.

CNN has already done eleven reports on this vital matter impacting our nation. MSNBC's done three.

On the broadcast networks, NBC did three reports, ABC did two, and CBS did one. Those actually included a segment on ABC's "World News with Diane Sawyer"   

As for newspapers, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the New York Daily News, and the Houston chronicle all found Fiorina saying Boxer's hair was "so yesterday" newsworthy. 

I guess our media must think a Republican commenting about a rival's hair is FAR MORE IMPORTANT than a Democrat calling a political opponent a Nazi.

Boggles the mind, doesn't it? 

Appearing as a guest on Friday’s Late Show with David Letterman on CBS, left-wing comedian Robert Klein suggested that it was bad that Rush Limbaugh turned out to be in good health after his hospital visit in Hawaii, inspiring laughter from Letterman. Klein: "You lose some, you win some." After Letterman brought up the birther conspiracy theory that President Obama was not born in America, Klein, who is known for attacking conservatives in his comedy act over sex scandals while being softer on liberals, changed the subject to Limbaugh’s fourth marriage to suggest that Limbaugh is hypocritical for opposing same-sex marriage, and then joked about the possibility of the conservative talker having health problems. Klein:

What's his name, Rush Limbaugh, who believes so much in the sanctity of marriage he's done it four times now, you know, but, you know, not if he, doesn't approve of marriage if both the husband and wife are circumcised, you know, that's out of the questions. I think a lot of that came from him, and, you know, he was in the hospital couple of months ago in Hawaii. Turned out to be nothing. See? You lose some, you win some. But anyway.

Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Friday, June 11, Late Show with David Letterman:

DAVID LETTERMAN: I’m ignorant in the world of politics, and I don’t know what the people that believe, and the ones who do believe, who really believe that he wasn’t born in this country, that they claim that he hasn’t produced a birth certificate. Do you have any understanding of why we’ve selected this to worry about? I mean, I believe he was born in the United States.

ROBERT KLEIN: I’m not worried about it. It’s just, you know, dirty pool, and, you know, what’s his name, Rush Limbaugh, who believes so much in the sanctity of marriage he’s done it four times now, you know, but, you know, not if he, doesn’t approve of marriage if both the husband and wife are circumcised, you know, that’s out of the questions. I think a lot of that came from him and, you know, he was in the hospital couple of months ago in Hawaii. Turned out to be nothing. See? You lose some, you win some. But anyway.

(LETTERMAN LAUGHS)

(AUDIENCE LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE)

LETTERMAN: Turned out to be nothing.

Toys, food, packaging. Chemicals are in them all. The media make a living by sensationalizing the potential dangers of just about everything in our modern world. Bisphenol-A (BPA), a chemical found in many plastic items, was no exception.

The news media have been scaremongering about BPA for years, even going so far as to compare it to tobacco at one point, but a cautious tone from the government and left-wing junk science prompted recent hyperbole from reporters.

Reuters warned of a "potential carcinogen in my soup," June 9. News website Newser.com took the fear-mongering a step further calling BPA "a known carcinogen" in a May 19 story about the "dangerously high" levels of BPA in canned food and drink.

But according to the American Chemistry Council, a trade group representing the chemical industry, BPA is not a known carcinogen. Its website says "based on sound, robust scientific evidence, some government bodies around the world have concluded that BPA is not carcinogenic in humans."

The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) latest report on BPA, a chemical used to harden plastic and a primary ingredient in the plastic resin that protects the flavor of food in metal cans, said that studies "have thus far supported the safety of current low levels of human exposure to BPA." New results from the National Toxicology Program caused FDA to request more research about the effects of BPA and recommended "reasonable steps" to "reduce" exposure, particularly in infants and children. FDA made it clear that BPA has not yet been proven harmful to humans at current levels.

Scientific evidence hasn't prevented the news networks from trying to scare the public away from BPA. In an interview on the Feb. 25 CBS "Early Show," food critic Katie Lee told co-anchor Harry Smith to avoid plastic containers for leftover food because they usually contain BPA.

"And that's been shown to cause liver disease, heart failure, all sorts of things," Lee claimed. Smith chimed in saying, "I think it's already been banned in Canada."

Smith was wrong about Canada - they didn't ban the chemical outright, rather they banned the chemical from use in baby bottles. Neither Lee nor Smith consulted any scientists, or mentioned anything about the many studies that have confirmed the safety of BPA.

Health News Digest pointed out that more than 5,400 scientific journal articles have been published on the safety of BPA. The FDA has deemed BPA safe for years, only choosing to caution people about "some concern" relating to children and infants in 2010. The FDA made it clear that more research was needed before the agency would decide to regulate the chemical.

But that hasn't stopped the network news media from warning viewers not to use BPA products because they "cause" health problems.

Jeff Stier of American Council on Science and Health reacted to the May 2010 canned good study saying, "Of course BPA is ‘linked' to obesity and cancer, because these people linked it. There's no causal relationship, but you can say there is a link between anything you want, just based on animal studies."

A Junk Science Study Stirs Up Media against BPA

In May 2010, the left-wing, pro-regulatory group U.S. PIRG sent out a press release about the National Workgroup for Safe Markets' study of canned foods and drinks in which they claimed "alarming levels" of BPA were present in common canned foods.

"BPA is a synthetic sex hormone and exposure to low doses has been linked to abnormal behavior, diabetes, heart disease, infertility, developmental and reproductive harm, and obesity, which raises the risk of early puberty, a known risk factor for breast cancer," the PIRG released claimed.

That press release also touted liberal Sen. Dianne Feinstein's, D- Calif., support for legislation to ban BPA in cans and other food and beverage containers. Feinstein is trying to add an amendment to ban BPA to S. 510, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.

The media quickly repeated the scary study's findings that BPA was found in 92 percent of canned goods tested. Reuters hyperbolically headlined its story: "Waiter, there's a potential carcinogen in my soup."

CBS "Morning News" warned that "A new study finds food and drink from metal cans may be contaminated with a chemical linked to a number of disorders. And some lawmakers want the chemical banned."

While CBS's Sandra Hughes mentioned that the study was tiny - only 50 cans were tested - she expressed no skepticism about the results on May 19. Her story was also stacked against BPA with two interviewees in favor of avoiding canned foods or banning the chemical, and only a statement from the Chemical Industry Council.

On May 18, CNN took the study seriously enough that Elizabeth Cohen impractically advocated that people should "start your own garden" just before saying that the people who wrote the study "think that a lot of BPA can make you infertile."

Robert L. Brent, MD, PhD, D.Sc., and adviser to the American Council on Science and Health condemned the study as a lot of hype designed to frighten the public.

Brent said, "The National Workgroup for Safe Markets publication wasn't intended to educate the public about risks, but to frighten unsophisticated scientists and the public. We should respond to such garbage with good science."

He explained that human exposure to BPA has "been exhaustively studied." After mentioning different studies that have bee done, Brent said "the important point is that human serum concentrations of BPA are very, very low, far below any expected toxic effects."

"The overwhelming scientific evidence points to the conclusion that at current human exposure levels, BPA is not toxic - and specifically is not linked to the myriad diseases outlined in the National Workgroup for Safe Markets report released earlier this week," Brent concluded.

Coca-Cola also hit back against the study telling Reuters, "A person weighing 135 pounds (61 kg) would need to ingest more than 14,800 12-ounce cans of a beverage in one day to approach the FDA's acceptable daily limit for BPA consumption."

But Reuters buried Coca-Cola's statement and other information about the large amounts of BPA that would have to be ingested to be compared to rodent tests, waiting until the 38^th paragraph of its 55 paragraph story to bring it up.

BPA Scare: 2008-2010

Journalists have hyped the dangers of BPA for years, despite evidence to the contrary.

Back in April 2008, NBC's "Today" warned about the reproductive dangers of ingesting BPA from reusable plastic water bottles. NBC had already campaigned against ordinary plastic water bottles, arguing that they were bad for the environment.

But the miniscule levels of BPA found in reusable water bottles is thousands of times less than what levels linked to rodent health problems, according to Dr. Gilbert Ross of ACSH.

But that didn't stop "Today" from warning against many types of water bottles, including the popular Nalgene brand. "[I]n the meantime, you can always check that number on the bottom [the indicator of what type of plastic used is]," reporter Michelle Kosinski said, "or just go back to old-fashioned glass."

Some reporters have advocated a return to glassware without stating the obvious inconvenience (try biking with a heavy glass water bottle) and danger (glass shatters).

In 2009, the crusade against BPA continued. MSNBC's Dr. Nancy Snyderman, raised concerns about BPA saying "It's a synthetic estrogen that some scientists believe can be linked to everything from breast cancer to obesity. We associate it with plastic water bottles, but now Consumer Reports says that BPA is even in canned foods." But even Snyderman had to admit the study was inconclusive and based on "soft science."

Her guest New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof continued to hype the danger by comparing BPA to tobacco: "To me, it feels a little bit like tobacco in the 1970s when, you know, there is growing evidence and scientists understand the causal pathways and we don't entirely understand at what dosage and at what stage of life those adverse consequences really build up." 

Like this article? Sign up for "The Balance Sheet," BMI's weekly e-mail newsletter.

On Wednesday's CBS Early Show, Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer provided analysis of Tuesday's primary elections across the country, describing the South Carolina gubernatorial race "where they continue to draw their political plot lines from, you know, 'Desperate Housewives' or something" and how Nevada Democrats were "very happy" with the victory of tea party candidate Sharron Angle.  

Speaking to Early Show co-host Maggie Rodriguez, Schieffer ran down the most watched races in Arkansas, California, South Carolina, and Nevada. When he got to South Carolina, he described gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley as "very conservative." After making the 'Desperate Housewives' comparison, he remarked how the GOP primary in the state was "providing some entertainment, as it were, for the rest of the country. I mean, you had Governor Sanford down there and his adventures. And now these allegations against Nikki Haley." He quickly added that the allegations of adultery against Haley were "without foundation" and that "Nobody has proven anything."

Rodriguez then asked if "Harry Reid is happy or fretting the fact" that tea party-backed Sharron Angle won the GOP senate primary in Nevada. Schieffer declared: "I suspect that Democrats in Nevada are very happy about this....I think the Reid people think that he would have a much better chance beating her than some of the other Republicans in the primaries."

Here is a full transcript of Rodriguez's June 9 discussion with Schieffer:

7:04AM EST

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Let's bring in CBS News chief Washington correspondent and host of Face the Nation Bob Schieffer. Good morning, Bob.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Hey, Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: So there's been this anti-establishment sentiment for awhile in this country. But now – I'm sure it's not helping that no one seems to be able to solve this BP oil spill. Do you think that played into last night's results at all?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Primary Politics; What Message Did Voters Send?]

SCHIEFFER: It probably did. I mean, you know, there's just this general feeling that the government is sort of impotent to do much of anything about anything. And I think there's no question that has something to do with the voter frustration that's being felt out across the country. But it really is hard to draw much deep analysis or deeper meaning from these races last night, because they were all so different.

I mean, Blanche Lincoln barely eked out a primary win over her opponent, who was challenging her from the Left. He was well-financed by labor unions. It's not all that easy for a labor-backed candidate to win in the South, and this time we saw that once again, a labor-backed candidate did not win. But she is still the underdog going into November. She's going to have a very difficult time there.

Out in California, it was just all a question of money. And that's all there was to it. I mean, Meg Whitman, who won out there, won by spending nearly $80 million. Money still talks in politics. And we saw a real example of that.

Down in South Carolina, where they continue to draw their political plot lines from, you know, 'Desperate Housewives' or something, you saw again a very conservative candidate win. I mean, these campaigns down in South Carolina are really providing some entertainment, as it were, for the rest of the country. I mean, you had Governor Sanford down there and his adventures. And now these allegations against Nikki Haley. We should underline and point out, totally, totally-

RODRIGUEZ: Allegations.

SCHIEFFER: -without – without foundation.    

RODRIGUEZ: Right.

SCHIEFFER: Nobody has proven anything. But it just shows, I mean, kind of the nature of politics down there this year. It's really, really kind of extraordinary.

RODRIGUEZ: We've been talking a lot about the tea party. And in Nevada, we had the tea party favorite Sharron Angle win last night. Do you think that majority leader Harry Reid is happy or fretting the fact that she won?

SCHIEFFER: I suspect that Democrats in Nevada are very happy about this. She was the tea party-backed candidate. The other part is, she is one of the few people in the state of Nevada who has endorsed, I understand, storing nuclear waste in Nevada. Nevada politics has always been about putting the nuclear waste someplace else. Now she has endorsed that. That's going to be very difficult for her. I think the Reid people think that he would have a much better chance beating her than some of the other Republicans in the primaries. Still going to be very, very close. He has a lot of work to do out there.

RODRIGUEZ: Alright. Bob Schieffer, as always, thank you so much, Bob.

SCHIEFFER: Thank you. Thank you, Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: You're welcome.

The three evening news shows on Monday treated the announcement of Helen Thomas' retirement as an occasion to gush over the "bona fide icon" and "trailblazer." At the same time, CBS's Evening News, NBC's Nightly News and ABC's World News didn't find much time for outrage over Thomas' attacks on Jews and Israel.

Instead, NBC's Andrea Mitchell played a clip of Thomas ranting to President Bush in a White House Press briefing: "Are you going to get out of Afghanistan? Why are we continuing to kill and die there?" According to Mitchell, this was Thomas simply being "outspoken."

On CBS, correspondent Sharyl Attkisson labeled these sort of comments "confrontational." It was Thomas' suggestion, caught on video, that Jews should "go home" to Poland and "get the hell out of Palestine" that "many" thought "crossed the line from feisty to offensive." She then played a clip of the remarks.

ABC's Dan Harris was the most effusive, lauding, " She is a bona fide icon and she is also nearly 90-years-old."

Harris also provided spin for Thomas, citing her age and celebrity: "Some have argued that Thomas deserves a break, given her status as a journalistic giant and a trailblazer for women, and given her age." He added, "After all, many of us have elderly relatives who have lost their verbal filter."

World News host Diane Sawyer contributed to this tone, teasing the segment by cryptically asserting, "Helen Thomas, dean of White House correspondents resigns, amid a debate about age and outrage." Maybe ABC saw the debate as one over "age and outrage," but many Americans felt it concerned anti-Semitic comments.

Mitchell used similar language for her report: "Now an occasional columnist, Thomas was often criticized but still venerated as a trailblazer, the first woman to lead the White House press corps." Speaking of the White House Correspondents Association, She hopefully concluded, "Her colleagues added that they are saddened by Thomas' recent comments, but wish her the best."

Evening News anchor Katie Couric hyped that Thomas had "blazed the trail for women in journalism."

All three programs played the video that brought the longtime journalist's career to the end. But, none featured clips from outraged groups. Where were the interviews with the Anti-Defamation League or other Jewish groups?

Finally, none of the shows highlighted the extreme left-wing bias of Thomas, something that the reporter herself admitted in 2006: "I’m a liberal, I was born a liberal, and I will be a liberal ‘til the day I die." For a compilation of Thomas' most outragous comments, go here.

A transcript of the June 7 Nightly News segment and a partial transcript of the World News piece follow:

7:09

BRIAN WILLIAMS: In Washington today, a sudden end to one of the longest careers in the history of the White House press corps and in the modern era of journalism. Helen Thomas, who will turn 90 this summer, started covering JFK 50 years ago. But something she said 11 days ago about Jews and Israel sparked a storm that led to her departure. The story tonight from NBC's Andrea Mitchell.

ANDREA MITCHELL: Helen Thomas has been giving presidents a hard time for half a century.

BARACK OBAMA: All right. Helen, this is my inaugural moment here. I'm really excited.

MITCHELL: Originally entitled to a front row seat as a legendary wire service reporter-

RICHARD NIXON: Miss Thomas has the first question tonight.

MITCHELL: -President Obama is only the last of 10 presidents to get the full Thomas treatment.

THOMAS: Are you going to get out of Afghanistan? Why are we continuing to kill and die there? What is the real excuse? And don't give us this Bushism.

MITCHELL: Always outspoken about the Middle East.

THOMAS: Your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis.

MITCHELL: This time she went too far when a blogger at a Jewish heritage event asked her about Israel.

[clip]

THOMAS: Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine.

OFF CAMERA VOICE: : Ooh. Any better comments than that?

THOMAS: Remember, these people are occupied. And it's their land, not German, it's not Poland.

OFF CAMERA VOICE: So where should they go? What should they do?

THOMAS: They go home.

OFF CAMERA VOICE: Where's their home?

THOMAS: Poland, Germany.

OFF CAMERA VOICE: So the Jews should--say Jews go back to Poland and Germany?

THOMAS: And America and everywhere else.

MITCHELL: A firestorm erupted after the blogger, Rabbilive.com, posted this video on YouTube. Today the White House condemned her comments.

ROBERT GIBBS: Those remarks were offensive and reprehensible.

MITCHELL: Now an occasional columnist, Thomas was often criticized but still venerated as a trailblazer, the first woman to lead the White House press corps. President Obama feted her on her 89th birthday last August. Now Thomas has apologized on her Web site, saying she deeply regrets the comments. In a statement tonight, the White House Correspondents Association said Helen Thomas has had a long and distinguished career that is unrivaled, along the way shattering many glass ceilings. Her colleagues added that they are saddened by Thomas' recent comments, but wish her the best. Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington.

World News

6/7/10

6:30 tease

SAWYER: Retiring. Helen Thomas, dean of White House correspondents resigns, amid a debate about age and outrage.

6:45

DIANE SAWYER: And today, the long career of White House reporter Helen Thomas, a familiar face, came to an abrupt end amid criticism and controversy. What happened to the 89-year-old fixture in the front row of the briefings? Here’s Dan Harris.

DAN HARRIS, ABC correspondent: Helen Thomas has covered every president since Kennedy, and was the only reporter ever to have an assigned seat in the White House briefing room. She is a bona fide icon and she is also nearly 90-years-old. Today her seat sat empty after a controversy over these recent comments she made about Israel.

HELEN THOMAS, former "Hearst" columnist: Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So where should they go?

THOMAS: They should go home.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where`s the home?

THOMAS: Poland. Germany.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You told the Jews -- do you think...

HARRIS: Thomas, whose parents were Lebanese immigrants, was harshly criticized. She apologized but the criticism did not relent, and so today her employer, "Hearst," announced her resignation. Some have argued that Thomas deserves a break, given her status as a journalistic giant and a trailblazer for women, and given her age. After all, many of us have elderly relatives who have lost their verbal filter.

The three evening news shows on Monday treated the announcement of Helen Thomas' retirement as an occasion to gush over the "bona fide icon" and "trailblazer." At the same time, CBS's Evening News, NBC's Nightly News and ABC's World News didn't find much time for outrage over Thomas' attacks on Jews and Israel.

Instead, NBC's Andrea Mitchell played a clip of Thomas ranting to President Bush in a White House Press briefing: "Are you going to get out of Afghanistan? Why are we continuing to kill and die there?" According to Mitchell, this was Thomas simply being "outspoken."

On CBS, correspondent Sharyl Attkisson labeled these sort of comments "confrontational." It was Thomas' suggestion, caught on video, that Jews should "go home" to Poland and "get the hell out of Palestine" that "many" thought "crossed the line from feisty to offensive." She then played a clip of the remarks.

ABC's Dan Harris was the most effusive, lauding, " She is a bona fide icon and she is also nearly 90-years-old."

Harris also provided spin for Thomas, citing her age and celebrity: "Some have argued that Thomas deserves a break, given her status as a journalistic giant and a trailblazer for women, and given her age." He added, "After all, many of us have elderly relatives who have lost their verbal filter."

World News host Diane Sawyer contributed to this tone, teasing the segment by cryptically asserting, "Helen Thomas, dean of White House correspondents resigns, amid a debate about age and outrage." Maybe ABC saw the debate as one over "age and outrage," but many Americans felt it concerned anti-Semitic comments.

Mitchell used similar language for her report: "Now an occasional columnist, Thomas was often criticized but still venerated as a trailblazer, the first woman to lead the White House press corps." Speaking of the White House Correspondents Association, She hopefully concluded, "Her colleagues added that they are saddened by Thomas' recent comments, but wish her the best."

Evening News anchor Katie Couric hyped that Thomas had "blazed the trail for women in journalism."

All three programs played the video that brought the longtime journalist's career to the end. But, none featured clips from outraged groups. Where were the interviews with the Anti-Defamation League or other Jewish groups?

Finally, none of the shows highlighted the extreme left-wing bias of Thomas, something that the reporter herself admitted in 2006: "I’m a liberal, I was born a liberal, and I will be a liberal ‘til the day I die." For a compilation of Thomas' most outragous comments, go here.

A transcript of the June 7 Nightly News segment and a partial transcript of the World News piece follow:

7:09

BRIAN WILLIAMS: In Washington today, a sudden end to one of the longest careers in the history of the White House press corps and in the modern era of journalism. Helen Thomas, who will turn 90 this summer, started covering JFK 50 years ago. But something she said 11 days ago about Jews and Israel sparked a storm that led to her departure. The story tonight from NBC's Andrea Mitchell.

ANDREA MITCHELL: Helen Thomas has been giving presidents a hard time for half a century.

BARACK OBAMA: All right. Helen, this is my inaugural moment here. I'm really excited.

MITCHELL: Originally entitled to a front row seat as a legendary wire service reporter-

RICHARD NIXON: Miss Thomas has the first question tonight.

MITCHELL: -President Obama is only the last of 10 presidents to get the full Thomas treatment.

THOMAS: Are you going to get out of Afghanistan? Why are we continuing to kill and die there? What is the real excuse? And don't give us this Bushism.

MITCHELL: Always outspoken about the Middle East.

THOMAS: Your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis.

MITCHELL: This time she went too far when a blogger at a Jewish heritage event asked her about Israel.

[clip]

THOMAS: Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine.

OFF CAMERA VOICE: : Ooh. Any better comments than that?

THOMAS: Remember, these people are occupied. And it's their land, not German, it's not Poland.

OFF CAMERA VOICE: So where should they go? What should they do?

THOMAS: They go home.

OFF CAMERA VOICE: Where's their home?

THOMAS: Poland, Germany.

OFF CAMERA VOICE: So the Jews should--say Jews go back to Poland and Germany?

THOMAS: And America and everywhere else.

MITCHELL: A firestorm erupted after the blogger, Rabbilive.com, posted this video on YouTube. Today the White House condemned her comments.

ROBERT GIBBS: Those remarks were offensive and reprehensible.

MITCHELL: Now an occasional columnist, Thomas was often criticized but still venerated as a trailblazer, the first woman to lead the White House press corps. President Obama feted her on her 89th birthday last August. Now Thomas has apologized on her Web site, saying she deeply regrets the comments. In a statement tonight, the White House Correspondents Association said Helen Thomas has had a long and distinguished career that is unrivaled, along the way shattering many glass ceilings. Her colleagues added that they are saddened by Thomas' recent comments, but wish her the best. Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington.

World News

6/7/10

6:30 tease

SAWYER: Retiring. Helen Thomas, dean of White House correspondents resigns, amid a debate about age and outrage.

6:45

DIANE SAWYER: And today, the long career of White House reporter Helen Thomas, a familiar face, came to an abrupt end amid criticism and controversy. What happened to the 89-year-old fixture in the front row of the briefings? Here’s Dan Harris.

DAN HARRIS, ABC correspondent: Helen Thomas has covered every president since Kennedy, and was the only reporter ever to have an assigned seat in the White House briefing room. She is a bona fide icon and she is also nearly 90-years-old. Today her seat sat empty after a controversy over these recent comments she made about Israel.

HELEN THOMAS, former "Hearst" columnist: Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So where should they go?

THOMAS: They should go home.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where`s the home?

THOMAS: Poland. Germany.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You told the Jews -- do you think...

HARRIS: Thomas, whose parents were Lebanese immigrants, was harshly criticized. She apologized but the criticism did not relent, and so today her employer, "Hearst," announced her resignation. Some have argued that Thomas deserves a break, given her status as a journalistic giant and a trailblazer for women, and given her age. After all, many of us have elderly relatives who have lost their verbal filter.

The three evening news shows on Monday treated the announcement of Helen Thomas' retirement as an occasion to gush over the "bona fide icon" and "trailblazer." At the same time, CBS's Evening News, NBC's Nightly News and ABC's World News didn't find much time for outrage over Thomas' attacks on Jews and Israel.

Instead, NBC's Andrea Mitchell played a clip of Thomas ranting to President Bush in a White House Press briefing: "Are you going to get out of Afghanistan? Why are we continuing to kill and die there?" According to Mitchell, this was Thomas simply being "outspoken."

On CBS, correspondent Sharyl Attkisson labeled these sort of comments "confrontational." It was Thomas' suggestion, caught on video, that Jews should "go home" to Poland and "get the hell out of Palestine" that "many" thought "crossed the line from feisty to offensive." She then played a clip of the remarks.

ABC's Dan Harris was the most effusive, lauding, " She is a bona fide icon and she is also nearly 90-years-old."

Harris also provided spin for Thomas, citing her age and celebrity: "Some have argued that Thomas deserves a break, given her status as a journalistic giant and a trailblazer for women, and given her age." He added, "After all, many of us have elderly relatives who have lost their verbal filter."

World News host Diane Sawyer contributed to this tone, teasing the segment by cryptically asserting, "Helen Thomas, dean of White House correspondents resigns, amid a debate about age and outrage." Maybe ABC saw the debate as one over "age and outrage," but many Americans felt it concerned anti-Semitic comments.

Mitchell used similar language for her report: "Now an occasional columnist, Thomas was often criticized but still venerated as a trailblazer, the first woman to lead the White House press corps." Speaking of the White House Correspondents Association, She hopefully concluded, "Her colleagues added that they are saddened by Thomas' recent comments, but wish her the best."

Evening News anchor Katie Couric hyped that Thomas had "blazed the trail for women in journalism."

All three programs played the video that brought the longtime journalist's career to the end. But, none featured clips from outraged groups. Where were the interviews with the Anti-Defamation League or other Jewish groups?

Finally, none of the shows highlighted the extreme left-wing bias of Thomas, something that the reporter herself admitted in 2006: "I’m a liberal, I was born a liberal, and I will be a liberal ‘til the day I die." For a compilation of Thomas' most outragous comments, go here.

A transcript of the June 7 Nightly News segment and a partial transcript of the World News piece follow:

7:09

BRIAN WILLIAMS: In Washington today, a sudden end to one of the longest careers in the history of the White House press corps and in the modern era of journalism. Helen Thomas, who will turn 90 this summer, started covering JFK 50 years ago. But something she said 11 days ago about Jews and Israel sparked a storm that led to her departure. The story tonight from NBC's Andrea Mitchell.

ANDREA MITCHELL: Helen Thomas has been giving presidents a hard time for half a century.

BARACK OBAMA: All right. Helen, this is my inaugural moment here. I'm really excited.

MITCHELL: Originally entitled to a front row seat as a legendary wire service reporter-

RICHARD NIXON: Miss Thomas has the first question tonight.

MITCHELL: -President Obama is only the last of 10 presidents to get the full Thomas treatment.

THOMAS: Are you going to get out of Afghanistan? Why are we continuing to kill and die there? What is the real excuse? And don't give us this Bushism.

MITCHELL: Always outspoken about the Middle East.

THOMAS: Your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis.

MITCHELL: This time she went too far when a blogger at a Jewish heritage event asked her about Israel.

[clip]

THOMAS: Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine.

OFF CAMERA VOICE: : Ooh. Any better comments than that?

THOMAS: Remember, these people are occupied. And it's their land, not German, it's not Poland.

OFF CAMERA VOICE: So where should they go? What should they do?

THOMAS: They go home.

OFF CAMERA VOICE: Where's their home?

THOMAS: Poland, Germany.

OFF CAMERA VOICE: So the Jews should--say Jews go back to Poland and Germany?

THOMAS: And America and everywhere else.

MITCHELL: A firestorm erupted after the blogger, Rabbilive.com, posted this video on YouTube. Today the White House condemned her comments.

ROBERT GIBBS: Those remarks were offensive and reprehensible.

MITCHELL: Now an occasional columnist, Thomas was often criticized but still venerated as a trailblazer, the first woman to lead the White House press corps. President Obama feted her on her 89th birthday last August. Now Thomas has apologized on her Web site, saying she deeply regrets the comments. In a statement tonight, the White House Correspondents Association said Helen Thomas has had a long and distinguished career that is unrivaled, along the way shattering many glass ceilings. Her colleagues added that they are saddened by Thomas' recent comments, but wish her the best. Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington.

World News

6/7/10

6:30 tease

SAWYER: Retiring. Helen Thomas, dean of White House correspondents resigns, amid a debate about age and outrage.

6:45

DIANE SAWYER: And today, the long career of White House reporter Helen Thomas, a familiar face, came to an abrupt end amid criticism and controversy. What happened to the 89-year-old fixture in the front row of the briefings? Here’s Dan Harris.

DAN HARRIS, ABC correspondent: Helen Thomas has covered every president since Kennedy, and was the only reporter ever to have an assigned seat in the White House briefing room. She is a bona fide icon and she is also nearly 90-years-old. Today her seat sat empty after a controversy over these recent comments she made about Israel.

HELEN THOMAS, former "Hearst" columnist: Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So where should they go?

THOMAS: They should go home.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where`s the home?

THOMAS: Poland. Germany.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You told the Jews -- do you think...

HARRIS: Thomas, whose parents were Lebanese immigrants, was harshly criticized. She apologized but the criticism did not relent, and so today her employer, "Hearst," announced her resignation. Some have argued that Thomas deserves a break, given her status as a journalistic giant and a trailblazer for women, and given her age. After all, many of us have elderly relatives who have lost their verbal filter.

The three evening news shows on Monday treated the announcement of Helen Thomas' retirement as an occasion to gush over the "bona fide icon" and "trailblazer." At the same time, CBS's Evening News, NBC's Nightly News and ABC's World News didn't find much time for outrage over Thomas' attacks on Jews and Israel.

Instead, NBC's Andrea Mitchell played a clip of Thomas ranting to President Bush in a White House Press briefing: "Are you going to get out of Afghanistan? Why are we continuing to kill and die there?" According to Mitchell, this was Thomas simply being "outspoken."

On CBS, correspondent Sharyl Attkisson labeled these sort of comments "confrontational." It was Thomas' suggestion, caught on video, that Jews should "go home" to Poland and "get the hell out of Palestine" that "many" thought "crossed the line from feisty to offensive." She then played a clip of the remarks.

ABC's Dan Harris was the most effusive, lauding, " She is a bona fide icon and she is also nearly 90-years-old." [Audio available here.]

Harris also provided spin for Thomas, citing her age and celebrity: "Some have argued that Thomas deserves a break, given her status as a journalistic giant and a trailblazer for women, and given her age." He added, "After all, many of us have elderly relatives who have lost their verbal filter."

World News host Diane Sawyer contributed to this tone, teasing the segment by cryptically asserting, "Helen Thomas, dean of White House correspondents resigns, amid a debate about age and outrage." Maybe ABC saw the debate as one over "age and outrage," but many Americans felt it concerned anti-Semitic comments.

Mitchell used similar language for her report: "Now an occasional columnist, Thomas was often criticized but still venerated as a trailblazer, the first woman to lead the White House press corps." Speaking of the White House Correspondents Association, She hopefully concluded, "Her colleagues added that they are saddened by Thomas' recent comments, but wish her the best."

Evening News anchor Katie Couric hyped that Thomas had "blazed the trail for women in journalism."

All three programs played the video that brought the longtime journalist's career to the end. But, none featured clips from outraged groups. Where were the interviews with the Anti-Defamation League or other Jewish groups?

Finally, none of the shows highlighted the extreme left-wing bias of Thomas, something that the reporter herself admitted in 2006: "I’m a liberal, I was born a liberal, and I will be a liberal ‘til the day I die." For a compilation of Thomas' most outragous comments, go here.

A transcript of the June 7 Nightly News segment and a partial transcript of the World News piece follow:

7:09

BRIAN WILLIAMS: In Washington today, a sudden end to one of the longest careers in the history of the White House press corps and in the modern era of journalism. Helen Thomas, who will turn 90 this summer, started covering JFK 50 years ago. But something she said 11 days ago about Jews and Israel sparked a storm that led to her departure. The story tonight from NBC's Andrea Mitchell.

ANDREA MITCHELL: Helen Thomas has been giving presidents a hard time for half a century.

BARACK OBAMA: All right. Helen, this is my inaugural moment here. I'm really excited.

MITCHELL: Originally entitled to a front row seat as a legendary wire service reporter-

RICHARD NIXON: Miss Thomas has the first question tonight.

MITCHELL: -President Obama is only the last of 10 presidents to get the full Thomas treatment.

THOMAS: Are you going to get out of Afghanistan? Why are we continuing to kill and die there? What is the real excuse? And don't give us this Bushism.

MITCHELL: Always outspoken about the Middle East.

THOMAS: Your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis.

MITCHELL: This time she went too far when a blogger at a Jewish heritage event asked her about Israel.

[clip]

THOMAS: Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine.

OFF CAMERA VOICE: : Ooh. Any better comments than that?

THOMAS: Remember, these people are occupied. And it's their land, not German, it's not Poland.

OFF CAMERA VOICE: So where should they go? What should they do?

THOMAS: They go home.

OFF CAMERA VOICE: Where's their home?

THOMAS: Poland, Germany.

OFF CAMERA VOICE: So the Jews should--say Jews go back to Poland and Germany?

THOMAS: And America and everywhere else.

MITCHELL: A firestorm erupted after the blogger, Rabbilive.com, posted this video on YouTube. Today the White House condemned her comments.

ROBERT GIBBS: Those remarks were offensive and reprehensible.

MITCHELL: Now an occasional columnist, Thomas was often criticized but still venerated as a trailblazer, the first woman to lead the White House press corps. President Obama feted her on her 89th birthday last August. Now Thomas has apologized on her Web site, saying she deeply regrets the comments. In a statement tonight, the White House Correspondents Association said Helen Thomas has had a long and distinguished career that is unrivaled, along the way shattering many glass ceilings. Her colleagues added that they are saddened by Thomas' recent comments, but wish her the best. Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington.

World News

6/7/10

6:30 tease

SAWYER: Retiring. Helen Thomas, dean of White House correspondents resigns, amid a debate about age and outrage.

6:45

DIANE SAWYER: And today, the long career of White House reporter Helen Thomas, a familiar face, came to an abrupt end amid criticism and controversy. What happened to the 89-year-old fixture in the front row of the briefings? Here’s Dan Harris.

DAN HARRIS, ABC correspondent: Helen Thomas has covered every president since Kennedy, and was the only reporter ever to have an assigned seat in the White House briefing room. She is a bona fide icon and she is also nearly 90-years-old. Today her seat sat empty after a controversy over these recent comments she made about Israel.

HELEN THOMAS, former "Hearst" columnist: Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So where should they go?

THOMAS: They should go home.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where`s the home?

THOMAS: Poland. Germany.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You told the Jews -- do you think...

HARRIS: Thomas, whose parents were Lebanese immigrants, was harshly criticized. She apologized but the criticism did not relent, and so today her employer, "Hearst," announced her resignation. Some have argued that Thomas deserves a break, given her status as a journalistic giant and a trailblazer for women, and given her age. After all, many of us have elderly relatives who have lost their verbal filter.

The three evening news shows on Monday treated the announcement of Helen Thomas' retirement as an occasion to gush over the "bona fide icon" and "trailblazer." At the same time, CBS's Evening News, NBC's Nightly News and ABC's World News didn't find much time for outrage over Thomas' attacks on Jews and Israel.

Instead, NBC's Andrea Mitchell played a clip of Thomas ranting to President Bush in a White House Press briefing: "Are you going to get out of Afghanistan? Why are we continuing to kill and die there?" According to Mitchell, this was Thomas simply being "outspoken."

On CBS, correspondent Sharyl Attkisson labeled these sort of comments "confrontational." It was Thomas' suggestion, caught on video, that Jews should "go home" to Poland and "get the hell out of Palestine" that "many" thought "crossed the line from feisty to offensive." She then played a clip of the remarks.

ABC's Dan Harris was the most effusive, lauding, " She is a bona fide icon and she is also nearly 90-years-old."

Harris also provided spin for Thomas, citing her age and celebrity: "Some have argued that Thomas deserves a break, given her status as a journalistic giant and a trailblazer for women, and given her age." He added, "After all, many of us have elderly relatives who have lost their verbal filter."

World News host Diane Sawyer contributed to this tone, teasing the segment by cryptically asserting, "Helen Thomas, dean of White House correspondents resigns, amid a debate about age and outrage." Maybe ABC saw the debate as one over "age and outrage," but many Americans felt it concerned anti-Semitic comments.

Mitchell used similar language for her report: "Now an occasional columnist, Thomas was often criticized but still venerated as a trailblazer, the first woman to lead the White House press corps." Speaking of the White House Correspondents Association, She hopefully concluded, "Her colleagues added that they are saddened by Thomas' recent comments, but wish her the best."

Evening News anchor Katie Couric hyped that Thomas had "blazed the trail for women in journalism."

All three programs played the video that brought the longtime journalist's career to the end. But, none featured clips from outraged groups. Where were the interviews with the Anti-Defamation League or other Jewish groups?

Finally, none of the shows highlighted the extreme left-wing bias of Thomas, something that the reporter herself admitted in 2006: "I’m a liberal, I was born a liberal, and I will be a liberal ‘til the day I die." For a compilation of Thomas' most outragous comments, go here.

A transcript of the June 7 Nightly News segment and a partial transcript of the World News piece follow:

7:09

BRIAN WILLIAMS: In Washington today, a sudden end to one of the longest careers in the history of the White House press corps and in the modern era of journalism. Helen Thomas, who will turn 90 this summer, started covering JFK 50 years ago. But something she said 11 days ago about Jews and Israel sparked a storm that led to her departure. The story tonight from NBC's Andrea Mitchell.

ANDREA MITCHELL: Helen Thomas has been giving presidents a hard time for half a century.

BARACK OBAMA: All right. Helen, this is my inaugural moment here. I'm really excited.

MITCHELL: Originally entitled to a front row seat as a legendary wire service reporter-

RICHARD NIXON: Miss Thomas has the first question tonight.

MITCHELL: -President Obama is only the last of 10 presidents to get the full Thomas treatment.

THOMAS: Are you going to get out of Afghanistan? Why are we continuing to kill and die there? What is the real excuse? And don't give us this Bushism.

MITCHELL: Always outspoken about the Middle East.

THOMAS: Your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis.

MITCHELL: This time she went too far when a blogger at a Jewish heritage event asked her about Israel.

[clip]

THOMAS: Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine.

OFF CAMERA VOICE: : Ooh. Any better comments than that?

THOMAS: Remember, these people are occupied. And it's their land, not German, it's not Poland.

OFF CAMERA VOICE: So where should they go? What should they do?

THOMAS: They go home.

OFF CAMERA VOICE: Where's their home?

THOMAS: Poland, Germany.

OFF CAMERA VOICE: So the Jews should--say Jews go back to Poland and Germany?

THOMAS: And America and everywhere else.

MITCHELL: A firestorm erupted after the blogger, Rabbilive.com, posted this video on YouTube. Today the White House condemned her comments.

ROBERT GIBBS: Those remarks were offensive and reprehensible.

MITCHELL: Now an occasional columnist, Thomas was often criticized but still venerated as a trailblazer, the first woman to lead the White House press corps. President Obama feted her on her 89th birthday last August. Now Thomas has apologized on her Web site, saying she deeply regrets the comments. In a statement tonight, the White House Correspondents Association said Helen Thomas has had a long and distinguished career that is unrivaled, along the way shattering many glass ceilings. Her colleagues added that they are saddened by Thomas' recent comments, but wish her the best. Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington.

World News

6/7/10

6:30 tease

SAWYER: Retiring. Helen Thomas, dean of White House correspondents resigns, amid a debate about age and outrage.

6:45

DIANE SAWYER: And today, the long career of White House reporter Helen Thomas, a familiar face, came to an abrupt end amid criticism and controversy. What happened to the 89-year-old fixture in the front row of the briefings? Here’s Dan Harris.

DAN HARRIS, ABC correspondent: Helen Thomas has covered every president since Kennedy, and was the only reporter ever to have an assigned seat in the White House briefing room. She is a bona fide icon and she is also nearly 90-years-old. Today her seat sat empty after a controversy over these recent comments she made about Israel.

HELEN THOMAS, former "Hearst" columnist: Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So where should they go?

THOMAS: They should go home.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where`s the home?

THOMAS: Poland. Germany.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You told the Jews -- do you think...

HARRIS: Thomas, whose parents were Lebanese immigrants, was harshly criticized. She apologized but the criticism did not relent, and so today her employer, "Hearst," announced her resignation. Some have argued that Thomas deserves a break, given her status as a journalistic giant and a trailblazer for women, and given her age. After all, many of us have elderly relatives who have lost their verbal filter.

On Sunday’s Face the Nation, CBS legal correspondent Jan Crawford revealed how the Obama White House is “strongly” pushing back against her unsurprising report last week that Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan “stood shoulder to shoulder with the liberal left” when she clerked for liberal Justice Thurgood Marshall.

Crawford says the White House reaction to her report “has been astonishing....Their reaction has been to push back so strongly on allegations, as they would put it, that she’s a liberal. Like there’s something wrong with that, like it’s a smear to say their nominee is a liberal.”

To Crawford, Team Obama’s strategy reeks of phoniness: “They’re putting enormous pressure on Elena Kagan who, as you said, is qualified. She’s an intellectual superstar. They’re putting pressure on her to portray herself in these hearings as something other than what she is. They’re thinking short-term politically and not long-term for the Court and the law and liberal judicial philosophy.”

Last week, MRC’s Brad Wilmouth detailed Crawford’s June 3 CBS Evening News report on the documents from Kagan’s Supreme Court clerkship in the late 1980s: “Documents buried in Thurgood Marshall's papers in the Library of Congress show that, as a young lawyer, Kagan stood shoulder to shoulder with the liberal left, including on the most controversial issue Supreme Court nominees ever confront: abortion.”

It’s hardly surprising that President Obama would choose a liberal to replace Justice John Paul Stevens. But it’s bizarre that the White House would strenuously object when a correspondent for CBS News — not exactly the epicenter of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy — would say as much, citing Kagan’s own words as evidence. Crawford told Schieffer she, too, was baffled by the White House response: “The suggestion that it’s somehow a smear to call her a liberal is just baffling to me.”

Here’s the relevant exchange as it took place on the June 6 edition of Face the Nation:

HOST BOB SCHIEFFER: Jan, you unearthed some documents this week that certainly gave the White House something else to think about because — while she’s eminently qualified and nobody questions that — there’s no question that one reason Elena Kagan was nominated as their nominee to the Supreme Court was because if there’s anything the President doesn’t need right now, it’s a fight, a knock-down drag out over that. And now — so they thought she would be easily confirmed, I think. But you unearthed these documents that show that maybe she is not exactly how the White House had pictured her, that in fact she might be a lot more liberal than people realized.

CRAWFORD: Right, and these documents have her squarely within mainstream liberal thought. She’s worried about the conservative Supreme Court undoing rulings that would give a woman a right to an abortion. She’s worried about gun rights, saying she’s not sympathetic to an individual’s right to own a handgun. She’s concerned about some conservative rulings scaling back rights of criminals. That’s basic mainstream liberal thought. But the White House’s reaction to this, to these revelations, I think, has been astonishing. And, it goes I think to kind of the week that they’ve had. Their reaction has been to push back so strongly on allegations, as they would put it, that she’s a liberal. Like there’s something wrong with that, like it’s a smear to say their nominee is a liberal.

And I think that suggests one of two things. Number one, they’re either so weakened right now politically, the President’s numbers are in the tank, that they just do not want to fight. So, they’re trying to portray her as something other than what she is. Or number two, they think Americans don’t want a liberal justice and maybe are more sympathetic to conservative outlook on the law. Regardless —  I mean whatever one it is, and there’s one of the two — they’re doing Elena Kagan an enormous disservice.

And it’s also insulting to Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, who’ve written eloquently and passionately about why a liberal interpretation of the Constitution is the right way to go. It is a dangerous game this White House is playing. They’re putting enormous pressure on Elena Kagan who, as you said, is qualified. She’s an intellectual superstar. They’re putting pressure on her to portray herself in these hearings as something other than what she is. They’re thinking short-term politically and not long-term for the Court and the law and liberal judicial philosophy.

SCHIEFFER: We should point out that these memos that you unearthed are memos that she wrote when she was a young clerk for Thurgood Marshall, who, of course was a liberal lion. And all of this is now coming out. Now, during her confirmation for Solicitor General, she talked about her views in those days as saying, “Look, I was a pipsqueak. I was just a kid, basically, and I was working for this, you know, liberal icon.” I suppose that is the defense that the White House is going to take. But this is, at the least, is going to give Republicans something to ask a lot of questions about.

CRAWFORD: Oh, absolutely. I mean, these hearings have now gotten much more interesting than a lot of people thought they were going to be going into the summer when it was going to be a yawn. Republicans have a lot — she’s taken on every social issue in these documents. And, there’s more to come. We’re going to get another hundred thousand or so documents from the Clinton Library when she worked there as a young lawyer. But the suggestion that it’s somehow a smear to call her a liberal is just baffling to me.

Promoting his latest HBO special on Monday's CBS Early Show, comedian Robert Klein turned his attention to the Gulf oil spill and who's to blame: "...we're all to blame. We're pigs. It's a parable for us. American pre-imminence is not guaranteed and unless we learn that this stuff has dangers – where are all those 'drill, baby, drills' now?" [Audio available here]

Those comments were prompted by co-host Harry Smith remarking: "BP would be such a spectacular target for your lampooning." Klein went on to add: "...all that oil that's fouling everything, it probably wouldn't run the automobiles in Texas for one day." Smith chimed in: "An hour." Klein proclaimed: "...it's minuscule, that's how much we use of that stuff. So let's get off it. I mean, and it's coming back to us in bullets, everybody knows this. But Americans have a memory of about 12 seconds."

On CBS's Sunday Morning program, a 'Fast Draw' segment by cartoonists Mitch Butler and Josh Landis similarly scolded Americans for wasting energy. Landis warned: "Our hunger for energy is driving oil companies to drill deeper and more dangerous wells..." Butler remarked: "Thankfully, these days everyone's talking about going green and saving energy. We know to ride bicycles to work instead of driving a car, don't use that air conditioner on a hot summer day. Air travel uses way too much energy. So don't take that vacation." However, Landis lamented: "...most Americans don't make enough of these kinds of sacrifices to save a meaningful amount of energy."

Butler noted: "America is only 5% of the global population but we use about 25% of the world's energy." Landis concluded: "And all that oil that's been pouring into the Gulf, the estimated 40 million gallons that's spilled so far, well, that's about the same amount America consumes in a little over one hour." Maybe Klein and Smith were watching Sunday Morning for their energy facts.

On the Early Show, in addition to bashing Americans for their energy usage, Klein described one of his favorite comedic targets: "...one of my main targets are these hypocritical infidelities, politicians who, you know, pray in the morning in their little residence and shtup everybody else's wife at night, you know." He cited former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer as an example of the fact that "people believe their own PR" during such scandals. Smith remarked: "Be careful of sanctimony."

Klein then seemed to regret using the New York Democrat as an example of hypocrisy: "Well he wasn't – he was just a little depraved for a moment there, I guess." He identified the real hypocritical adulterous politicians, all Republicans: "But, you know, these guys like Craig and Vitter and Governor Sanford..."

Smith concluded the interview by reminding viewers to watch Klein's HBO special: "...we will look forward to seeing your show on HBO, Unfair and Unbalanced, Saturday, June 12th on HBO at 10:00PM Eastern/11 Pacific Time. Really great to see you."

Here is a portion of Smith's June 7 interview with Klein:

8:40AM EST

HARRY SMITH: As you set about doing a new show like this, do you just let the currents of current events take you where it will or do you usually have an idea ahead of time, this is where this show will go?

ROBERT KLEIN: Well, it's always organic. I mean, I'm getting older now. I started, I'm now a geezer. I mean I've geezer-ized over the years, so my interests change a little. But when I do any kind of politics on my shows, I do it in a kind of historical perspective, not something that'll be forgotten next week.

SMITH: Right.

KLEIN: But, you know, one of my main targets are these hypocritical infidelities, politicians who, you know, pray in the morning in their little residence and shtup everybody else's wife at night, you know.

SMITH: There is that, it kind of never goes away.

KLEIN: You know, people believe their own – Spitzer, I mean people believe their own PR or-

SMITH: Be careful of sanctimony, is always the-

KLEIN: Well he wasn't – he was just a little depraved for a moment there, I guess. But, you know, these guys like Craig and Vitter and Governor Sanford, you know, Argentina, 'tell them on I'm on the Appalachian trail, I'll be back in four days. Senor, my baggage.'

SMITH: You know what, it's only – I almost said unfortunate – but BP would be such a spectacular target for your lampooning.

KLEIN: May I say that, you know, all this who's to blame and all the blame, we're all to blame. We're pigs. It's a parable for us. American pre-imminence is not guaranteed and unless we learn that this stuff has dangers – where are all those drill, baby, drills now? What, was there a dental convention? I mean, I want to see them pay for what – you can't just do it. If you don't have the technology to cap it at that it depth, it shouldn't be done. You know, all that oil that's fouling everything, it probably wouldn't run the automobiles in Texas for one day.

SMITH: An hour.
    
KLEIN: I mean – an hour. I mean, it's minuscule, that's how much we use of that stuff. So let's get off it. I mean, and it's coming back to us in bullets, everybody knows this. But Americans have a memory of about 12 seconds. You know, you couldn't get a Toyota prius, then gas went down. Forget it. Too many Prius's. And you can't stop a Prius. That's another thing.

SMITH: Robert Klein, we will look forward to seeing your show on HBO, Unfair and Unbalanced, Saturday, June 12th on HBO at 10:00PM Eastern/11 Pacific Time. Really great to see you.

KLEIN: A great pleasure, Harry. Thank you.            

SMITH: You bet.

This is probably what a lot of people suspected, but couldn't tie it all of it together until documents and memos from President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan were made available to the public - that she is beyond a shadow of a doubt liberal.

Still, the White House has insisted Kagan's judicial philosophy doesn't line up ideologically - that she is neither liberal nor conservative. But according to documents unearthed by CBS Chief Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford, Kagan holds some very liberal views.

"These documents have her squarely within mainstream liberal thought," Crawford said on the June 6 broadcast of CBS's "Face the Nation." "She's worried about the conservative Supreme Court undoing rulings that would give a woman a right to an abortion. She's worried about gun rights saying she's not sympathetic to an individual's right to own a handgun. She's concerned about conservative rulings scaling back rights of criminals. That's basic mainstream liberal thought."

However, Crawford noted the White House wasn't quick to embrace Kagan's liberalism and she gleaned one of two conclusions from that.

"The White House's reaction to this - to these revelations I think has been astonishing," Crawford continued. "It goes to the week they've had. Their reaction has been to push back so strongly on allegations, as they would put it, that she's a liberal. Like there's something wrong with that, like it's a smear to say their nominee is a liberal. And I think that suggests one of two things. Number one they're either so weakened right now politically the president's numbers are in the tank, that they just do not want to fight. So they're trying to portray her as something other than what she is. Or number two they think Americans don't want a liberal justice and maybe are more sympathetic to a conservative outlook on the law."

And this strategy by the White House - to conceal liberal thought is disappointing to Crawford, which she said was an insult to Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg

"Regardless, whatever one it is and it's one of the two - they're doing Elena Kagan an enormous disservice," Crawford said. "And it's also insulting to Justices Breyer and Ginsburg who have written eloquently and passionately about why a liberal interpretation of the Constitution is the right way to go. It is a dangerous game the White House is playing. They're putting enormous pressure on Elena Kagan, who as you said is qualified. She's an intellectual super star. They're putting pressure on her to portray herself in these hearings as something other than what she is. They're thinking short term politically and not long term for the Court and the law and the liberal judicial philosophy."

Instead, Crawford argued the White House should tout Kagan's liberalism in this politically tough time for the Obama administration.

"But the suggestion that somehow a smear to call her a liberal is just baffling to me," Crawford said.

On Friday's CBS Early Show, Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer argued that if the Gulf oil spill could be stopped, the scandal of the Obama administration offering jobs to Democratic senate candidates would suddenly disappear: "...all of this business about offering jobs to candidates if it they won't run, all of that, all of that stuff is going to go away if you can get this thing capped..."

Schieffer didn't elaborate on his theory, but later complained about the sloppiness of the corrupt backroom deals: "I mean the first rule here is if you're going to do this sort of thing, you better figure out a better way to do it than the Obama administration has figured out. It turns out it's kind of, you know, amateur hour here with this kind of stuff." Though he defended the practice itself: "...this sort of thing's been going on for a long, long time. I mean, it's a real question as to whether this is even illegal. But it's the odor that comes from it....That's what's hurting the President."

When asking Schieffer about the controversy, Early Show co-host Harry Smith remarked how it "not so particularly unusual" and simply might "smack up against a promise of no more business as usual" by President Obama. Schieffer concluded his thoughts on the matter by once again lamenting that the administration did not do a "better" job of hiding its corruption: "...if you're going to do it, you better be better at it than they've shown us they are."

Smith and Schieffer began the segment by discussing the Gulf oil spill and Obama's response. Smith wondered: "Do you feel like this President and this White House is still playing catchup with this oil?" Schieffer replied: "I don't know what else could happen right now unless the air conditioning went out at the White House or something. I mean, everything that could go wrong seems to have gone wrong."

Schieffer commented that the Obama administration and BP should stop worrying about PR and just "focus on getting this well capped and getting this thing done. In the end, that's going to be the best public relations for all concerned..." He later added: "...find a way to get this thing capped and save the Gulf coast because this is – we're at a national emergency stage here." Smith concluded the topic by declaring: "I think the problem is that that wasn't recognized on day one as opposed to day 50."  

Here is a full transcript of the June 4 segment:

7:11AM EST

HARRY SMITH: According to the latest CBS News poll, 44% of Americans disapprove of President Obama's handling of the spill [38% approve]. 68% disapprove of BP's actions [21% approve]. And the President is also taking heat over jobs apparently offered by his administration to certain political candidates if they did not run against other Democrats. And joining us now to talk about all of these issues, CBS News chief Washington correspondent and host of Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer. Bob, how are you doing this morning?

BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, I'm just fine. Thank you, Harry.

SMITH: Good to have you with us. The President is heading back to the Gulf again today. It's almost 50 days and we hear the word 'furious' come from the President's mouth last night on Larry King. Do you feel like this President and this White House is still playing catchup with this oil?            

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Gulf Oil Disaster; "Furious" President Returns to Region Today]

SCHIEFFER: Well, I mean, I don't know what else could happen right now unless the air conditioning went out at the White House or something. I mean, everything that could go wrong seems to have gone wrong. And that's the way things happen sometimes.

But, you know, this – all this focus, at both the White house and at BP, on the public relations of this thing, is the President appearing furious enough? I mean, is BP appearing, you know, caring enough? And all of that. I think the best policy is always to get this thing fixed. I mean, I think both the company and the administration need to focus on getting this well capped and getting this thing done. In the end, that's going to be the best public relations for all concerned and it's the only thing that's going to work. I mean, all of this business about offering jobs to candidates if it they won't run, all of that, all of that stuff is going to go away if you can get this thing capped, figure out some way to do it.

And as yet, they have at least gotten this dome on top of the thing now. Maybe we can all hope that that's going to be the thing that works. But until they get that done, they're going to have all kinds of problems and they should have all kinds of problems. Because, you know, it's not an original thought with me, Harry, but the other day, I think it was Bob Herbert in the New York Times said if a well is too deep to cap, then it's too deep to drill.

SMITH: That's a good line.

SCHIEFFER: That's what's wrong here. And we know what the problem is here. But what has to be done is find a way to get this thing capped and save the Gulf coast because this is – we're at a national emergency stage here.

SMITH: Without question. And I think the problem is that that wasn't recognized on day one as opposed to day 50. I want to move on to this dangling job possibilities in front of would-be candidates who were trying to run against incumbents. That's not so particularly unusual, but does this not at least smack up against a promise of no more business as usual?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: The Real Deal; The President & Back Door Political Dealmaking?]

SCHIEFFER: Well, I think it does, Harry. And I mean the first rule here is if you're going to do this sort of thing, you better figure out a better way to do it than the Obama administration has figured out. It turns out it's kind of, you know, amateur hour here with this kind of stuff. I mean, in the first place, this sort of thing's been going on for a long, long time. I mean, it's a real question as to whether this is even illegal. But it's the odor that comes from it. It's the idea that you come to office and say we're going to change things and this sort of thing starts leaking out. That's what's hurting the President. But if you're going to do it, you better be better at it than they've shown us they are.

SMITH: Bob Schieffer, great to see you. We will look forward to seeing on you Face the Nation on Sunday.

SCHIEFFER: Thank you, Harry.

The American lawyers who flock to Guantanamo Bay to represent captured terrorists are simply fulfilling their duty to provide representation, it is often argued by those who seem to enjoy mucking up efforts to curtail future terrorism. But once representing the American beverage giant Coca Cola makes Attorney General Eric Holder a “corporatist” who’s going to “do the Devil’s work” and only “pretend” to go tough on BP after the oil spill, lefty talk radio host Mike Malloy (a onetime CNN news writer) argued Wednesday night. (Audio here.)

I guess you know this by now, the, uh, Justice Department under Eric Holder who defended, uh, was it Coca-Cola, against murder charges in, uh, South America? Good old Eric Holder, another corporatist, who, uh, is going to do the Devil’s work now and pretend that he is conducting a criminal investigation into the events that led to the oil gush?

For their part, the big three network evening newscasts reported Holder’s announcement of a “criminal investigation” against BP during their Tuesday night broadcasts, but only CBS’s Chip Reid struck what could be called a skeptical note about the Obama administration’s motives in publicly touting the investigation after a week of criticism about the federal government’s less-than-effective handling of the matter.

“The barrage of attacks on BP may be motivated in part by politics,” Reid assessed on the June 1 Evening News, an attempt to make the company “a villain to distract from a growing chorus of criticism of the President who has visited the Gulf only twice in 43 days.”

On ABC, anchor Diane Sawyer was much milder, asking whether “declaring BP a potential enemy” might “make it harder” for the administration to work with them on a solution. (Ever the Obama sycophant, George Stephanopoulos assured her that threatening BP would actually make things better.) And on NBC, correspondent Anne Thompson offered no second-guessing of the administration, just a couple of sentences matter-of-factly noting Holder’s announcement.

Here’s more of how the network evening newscasts covered Holder on Tuesday, arranged from the least skeptical (NBC) to most skeptical (CBS):

ANNE THOMPSON: This environmental disaster is now the focus of the Justice Department, confirming today both criminal and civil investigations into the oil rig explosion and the crude that now taints Louisiana’s coast.

Mr. ERIC HOLDER: We will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law anyone who has violated the law.

#ABC's World News

DIANE SAWYER: If the administration is now declaring BP a potential enemy here, what does this do to the cleanup? Does it make it harder?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Well that’s the question I asked the Attorney General. And he said quite the contrary. Not only does BP have an interest to clean this up for their own reasons, but also that that would be taken to account in any civil or criminal proceeding, but there’s a lot of politics at play here as well, Diane. The White House, the administration believes that BP hasn’t been fully straight in all their press conferences and they don’t want to get saddled with BP’s problems.

# CBS Evening News

CHIP REID: The barrage of attacks on BP may be motivated in part by politics.

JOHN DICKERSON, POLITICAL ANALYST: This administration is doing what every administration under fire does, which is to defend themselves, and then also deflect the blame to someone else. Here they’ve got a ready villain, and that’s BP.

REID: A villain to distract from a growing chorus of criticism of the President who has visited the Gulf only twice in 43 days. Even some supporters of the President including General Colin Powell have criticized his slow response....The relationship between the White House and BP has clearly moved into a new and hostile phase, leaving many people wondering how they`re going to work together to respond to this disaster.

The American lawyers who flock to Guantanamo Bay to represent captured terrorists are simply fulfilling their duty to provide representation, it is often argued by those who seem to enjoy mucking up efforts to curtail future terrorism. But once representing the American beverage giant Coca Cola makes Attorney General Eric Holder a “corporatist” who’s going to “do the Devil’s work” and only “pretend” to go tough on BP after the oil spill, lefty talk radio host Mike Malloy (a onetime CNN news writer) argued Wednesday night. (Audio here.)

I guess you know this by now, the, uh, Justice Department under Eric Holder who defended, uh, was it Coca-Cola, against murder charges in, uh, South America? Good old Eric Holder, another corporatist, who, uh, is going to do the Devil’s work now and pretend that he is conducting a criminal investigation into the events that led to the oil gush?

For their part, the big three network evening newscasts reported Holder’s announcement of a “criminal investigation” against BP during their Tuesday night broadcasts, but only CBS’s Chip Reid struck what could be called a skeptical note about the Obama administration’s motives in publicly touting the investigation after a week of criticism about the federal government’s less-than-effective handling of the matter.

“The barrage of attacks on BP may be motivated in part by politics,” Reid assessed on the June 1 Evening News, an attempt to make the company “a villain to distract from a growing chorus of criticism of the President who has visited the Gulf only twice in 43 days.”

On ABC, anchor Diane Sawyer was much milder, asking whether “declaring BP a potential enemy” might “make it harder” for the administration to work with them on a solution. (Ever the Obama sycophant, George Stephanopoulos assured her that threatening BP would actually make things better.) And on NBC, correspondent Anne Thompson offered no second-guessing of the administration, just a couple of sentences matter-of-factly noting Holder’s announcement.

Here’s more of how the network evening newscasts covered Holder on Tuesday, arranged from the least skeptical (NBC) to most skeptical (CBS):

ANNE THOMPSON: This environmental disaster is now the focus of the Justice Department, confirming today both criminal and civil investigations into the oil rig explosion and the crude that now taints Louisiana’s coast.

Mr. ERIC HOLDER: We will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law anyone who has violated the law.

#ABC's World News

DIANE SAWYER: If the administration is now declaring BP a potential enemy here, what does this do to the cleanup? Does it make it harder?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Well that’s the question I asked the Attorney General. And he said quite the contrary. Not only does BP have an interest to clean this up for their own reasons, but also that that would be taken to account in any civil or criminal proceeding, but there’s a lot of politics at play here as well, Diane. The White House, the administration believes that BP hasn’t been fully straight in all their press conferences and they don’t want to get saddled with BP’s problems.

# CBS Evening News

CHIP REID: The barrage of attacks on BP may be motivated in part by politics.

JOHN DICKERSON, POLITICAL ANALYST: This administration is doing what every administration under fire does, which is to defend themselves, and then also deflect the blame to someone else. Here they’ve got a ready villain, and that’s BP.

REID: A villain to distract from a growing chorus of criticism of the President who has visited the Gulf only twice in 43 days. Even some supporters of the President including General Colin Powell have criticized his slow response....The relationship between the White House and BP has clearly moved into a new and hostile phase, leaving many people wondering how they`re going to work together to respond to this disaster.

After initially lagging behind the other networks in even mentioning the Gaza-bound flotilla's connections to terrorist groups, on Wednesday CBS finally noted the existence of such ties, and on the same day NBC caught up with CBS in highlighting calls for Israel to end its blockade. Without directly relaying to viewers that the Israelis already allow tons of aid into Gaza on a regular basis, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell began her report: "Tonight there is worldwide pressure on Israel to end its three-year blockade of Gaza, except for the United States. The White House is simply telling Israel it must guarantee better deliveries of aid."

After showing a clip of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arguing that there is plenty of food and medicine in Gaza, Mitchell continued: "That is not what NBC News witnessed in Gaza today. Muhammed Abidrabu and his family of 12 live in two tents. Their home was destroyed when Israel invaded a year and a half ago. In the cooking area, only some cooking oil and a small bag of vegetables. A million and a half people live here, strangled by poverty, unemployment and hopelessness."

On CBS, in a report which began by airing complaints and accusations made by flotilla passengers about the conduct of Israeli troops, after a soundbite of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu characterizing passengers as "violent supporters of terrorism," correspondent Richard Roth noted the flotilla’s likely ties to terrorist groups: "And Israel says security camera video shows how they prepared with gas masks and slingshots before the Navy arrived. Israel claims the Turkish charity that funded them has terrorist backers whose real aim in opening Gaza is to arm it."

Below are complete transcripts of the relevant stories from the Wednesday, June 2, CBS Evening News and the same day’s NBC Nightly News:

#From the CBS Evening News :

KATIE COURIC: Now to the international dispute over Israel’s deadly raid on ships carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza. Nine pro-Palestinian activists on board were killed on Monday. Nearly 700 others were detained, and today Israel deported them. But now a new confrontation could be just days away. Another aid ship docked in Greece is expected to head toward Gaza to challenge the blockade. Richard Roth has the latest.

RICHARD ROTH: Abandoning plans to prosecute its prisoners, Israel set them free and sent them home. But this was no gesture of compassion. Keeping them, warned an official, would have simply done Israel more damage, even if the stories they`re now telling do Israel no good. Some claim the Navy fired tear gas onto the ship, Mavi Marmara, provoking the chaos commandos met when they boarded. On another ship where commandos said they’d found weapons, it was pure fiction according to a Swedish novelist who was one of the passengers.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What he showed us was this: a razor. You think now I am crazy? Or that I am lying? But I`m not. He showed me, actually, it was my razor.

ROTH: Now in a PR battle, Israel released more video to make its point, that every effort to turn back the Turkish ship was resisted. That it wasn`t a love boat, as prime minister Netanyahu put it, it was a hate boat.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: These weren`t pacifists, they weren`t peace activists. These were violent supporters of terrorism.

ROTH: And Israel says security camera video shows how they prepared with gas masks and slingshots before the Navy arrived. Israel claims the Turkish charity that funded them has terrorist backers whose real aim in opening Gaza is to arm it.

NETANYAHU: Once again, Israel is told that it has a right to defend itself but is condemned every time it exercises that right.

ROTH: Israel`s not lifting its Gaza blockade, and there`s another challenge on the horizon: the Rachel Corrie, named for an American killed in the Palestinian enclave seven years ago. Israel’s promising she won`t sail in. Richard Roth, CBS News, London.

#From the NBC Nightly News :

BRIAN WILLIAMS: Israel tonight is continuing to face furious criticism from around the world over that raid on activists trying to breach the blockade of Gaza. But the United States is not one of the louder voices against Israel. Instead, the White House finds itself stuck between two U.S. allies. NBC's chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell is in Tel Aviv tonight. Andrea, good evening.

ANDREA MITCHELL: Good evening, Brian. Tonight there is worldwide pressure on Israel to end its three-year blockade of Gaza, except for the United States. The White House is simply telling Israel it must guarantee better deliveries of aid. Tonight crowds gathered in Istanbul to give a hero's welcome to Turkish pro-Palestinian activists as two who had been wounded in the attack on the aid flotilla arrived home on stretchers. Facing condemnation from around the world, Israel released hundreds of the activists today, but fired another round in the video war. Both sides armed with cameras trying to prove who was at fault in the clash. Israel claims today's edited clip shows the activists had used nonlethal stun grenades against the commandos. Israel is reeling from the crisis. A shouting match erupted tonight in parliament. When an Arab-Israeli member who had sailed on the flotilla tried to speak, some members denounced her as a traitor. Anger, too, from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He was defiant about the commando raid, saying Israel has to defend itself from weapons smuggled into Gaza. But he offered no proof that there were weapons on board, and he claimed there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: There's no shortage of food. There's no shortage of medicine. There's no shortage of other goods.

MITCHELL: That is not what NBC News witnessed in Gaza today. Muhammed Abidrabu and his family of 12 live in two tents. Their home was destroyed when Israel invaded a year and a half ago. In the cooking area, only some cooking oil and a small bag of vegetables. A million and a half people live here, strangled by poverty, unemployment and hopelessness. Many say Israel and Hamas, which rules Gaza, must broker a deal.

MARTIN INDYK, FORMER AMBASSADOR TO ISRAEL: But a commitment from Hamas that could be observed by Israel not to launch attacks on Israel, to prevent attacks from other groups being launched from Gaza, to close down the tunnels and prevent smuggling, and in return, the Israelis would open the passages.

MITCHELL: But now yet another ship is sailing toward Gaza to test Israel's response. The White House has warned Israel not to attack anymore ships, but the larger concern is the diplomatic fallout with Turkey, a key ally, that can now work against international sanctions against Iran at the U.N.

After blaming the 2000 election for the breakup of the Gore marriage on Tuesday’s CBS Evening News, Sally Quinn of The Washington Post returned to CBS Wednesday morning for an interview with The Early Show, where she repeated the blame-Bush line, in a milder way: "You know one of the hard things is when you lose, this was their home. You can’t live here anymore." But mostly, Quinn suggested that if the Gores couldn’t make it, then maybe no one could:

And the interesting thing is that usually when something like this happens you get a sense of glee, people sort of saying, "I told you so, or I knew it," or whatever. I have only encountered sadness, and as you can imagine I’ve been on the phone with friends ever since I heard it yesterday and everyone feels as though somehow their own marriages have split up. You know watching the Gores is sort of looking at the possibilities of what a good marriage could be and when it doesn’t work for them you sort of think "oh my God, maybe it’s not possible."

People at CBS aren’t willing to consider that maybe someone’s selfishness is ruining the marriage. Quinn laid it on thick about how wonderful the Gores were in raising their children, and how talented they were:

I never heard one rumor ever in all the years that I’ve known Al and Tipper about an extramarital affair. And what I think is that they grew apart. I think what people are saying is actually true. You know one of the hard things is when you lose, this was their home. You can’t live here anymore. So they had, they were sort of nomads in a way. They went back to Tennessee but they didn’t really live there, and Al traveled a lot. They sort of migrated to the West Coast where Tipper has an apartment, and Al’s got a lot of business, but he was traveling all the time, and I think their interest just diverged.

And I also think Tipper has always played the good wife and she’s never been really able to set out on her own and be her own person, and it may be that she’s just tired of being the wife and wants to be someone who can accomplish something on her own. She’s a fantastic photographer, she’s also–and both of them by the way were great parents. And she spends a lot of time with her children, I think he’s on the road constantly. And I just have a feeling that this may be, as sad as it is, it might be a real opportunity for both of them–they’re only sixty, which is very young–to have a new and different life apart from each other.

Both were born in 1948. Quinn concluded with supportive happy talk: "You know, I think you have to listen to what they said, which is that this is mutually supportive, and think that, you know as sad as it might be, this might be the best thing for both of them." [Transcript by MRC intern Alex Fitzsimmons.]

Glee is not a proper response, but the intense personal admiration for their fellow liberals from the media is the opposite of their usual hard-boiled cynicism. They seem to want to avoid what's really been going on, and perish the thought that maybe some of the liberal media-boosted public romance had a plastic quality.

Washington Post writer Ellen McCarthy took Quinn’s panic and took it a step further, pleading with the Gores to stay together on Wednesday:

Please Al and Tipper, don't do this. For our sakes -- don't.

We can't handle it.

These kinds of things stopped bothering us long ago. Name almost any famous couple, and we're happy to place under/over bets on the date they'll divorce.

But the Gores were different. We believed in them. Even if we didn't agree with their politics, we admired their marriage -- the way, after all these years, they still genuinely seemed into each other.

They're like the couple down the block with the lush garden and the annual Labor Day cookout. The pair who are always power walking together and drinking wine on the front porch, who make you nudge your husband and say, "See? I want that."

Sure they had their ups and downs -- her depression, their son's life-threatening accident -- but after four kids and 40 years they were still in it. And still, we thought, held on to some enduring kernel of love.

So this doesn't just make us sad. It makes us scared.

It means that maybe marriage isn't something we can conquer. That you can have all the necessary ingredients -- romance, good morals, mutual respect and a healthy family -- and still see this precious thing, built over decades, crumble in the end.

It makes us frightened for our parents, our friends, ourselves. After all, couples together for more than 40 years almost never get divorced.

McCarthy broke the media mold as she even wrote she hoped there was adultery involved, which would melt her personal panic:

As news of the Gore's separation emerged, we jumped to speculate that that "something else" was really someone else, already waiting in the wings.

The truth is, we don't just think there's an affair involved. We hope there's one. That makes it easier and understandable -- unequivocally someone's fault. Then it can be detestable, not just sad.

"It's more threatening to us if we see a couple who we thought were happy just drift apart," [Johns Hopkins professor Andrew] Cherlin says. "If even well-behaved people get divorced after 40 years, then some of us will worry about what our own marriages will be like later in life."

McCarthy lamented that even the Gores foresaw this could happen:

The Gores knew as much. In their 2003 book, "Joined at the Heart," -- see how seriously they took this endeavor? They wrote a book about it! -- the Gores explored the way a prolonged life expectancy could affect American unions. "If couples are in unhappy marriages they are more likely to eventually divorce as they face so much of their lifetimes together after their child-rearing years are over," they wrote. [Italics hers.]

It seems that the vast majority of journalists who bemoan unaccountable, unabashedly opinionated digital reporting are the same ones who have, without challenge, pushed a liberal perspective through their own reporting.

The latest such journalist, Newsweek's Howard Fineman, is concerned that "nobody is cross-examining" the "position papers" that supposedly comprise a critical mass of new media journalism. Of course without new media, Fineman's position papers would be virtually immune from meaningful cross examination.

His position is common among the media's old guard: accountability for thee, but not for me. This view stems both from a sort of meta-double standard: Fineman and his ilk extrapolate a few bad apples among the new media crowd into a larger trend of malfeasance, while treating instances of journalistic malpractice among old media reporters as isolated incidents that have no real bearing on Old Media's accountability (or lack thereof).

The double standard has existed for some time. Matt Lewis recalls a comical (given what we now know) quote from CBS News exec Jonathan Klein in the aftermath of the 2004 "MemoGate" scandal:

"You couldn't have a starker contrast between the multiple layers of check and balances [at '60 Minutes'] and a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing."

In that instance, the mainstream media finally did take their cues from bloggers, and in so doing finally got the story right. The blogosphere was hardly intimidated.

Helen Thomas has bemoaned the ability of new media journalists to "ruin lives [and] reputations." But what of George W. Bush's reputation? Had new media reporters not kept Rather accountable, the fabricated story may have cost Bush the presidency.

There are of course a plethora of other examples of such malfeasance. What of John McCain's reputation, sullied by a contrived New York Times hit job during the 2008 campaign that alleged he had had an affair with a lobbyist? Who was keeping the Gray Lady accountable?

Lewis goes on to concisely but thoroughly dispel the myth that online media are inherently less accountable than old:

Ultimately, bloggers must establish their own credibility if they are to be trusted. As such, they have an incentive to strive for accuracy. But should the accurate and honorable ones face constant criticism that should rightly be aimed at the irresponsible ones?...

For better or worse (and trust me, I could do without some of the comments people leave on my blogs), online writers and bloggers are much more accountable to readers than was the case in the supposedly halcyon days of traditional journalism. It is a mistake to yearn for a time when the only hope a reader had of responding to a "serious" journalist was submitting a letter to the editor and hoping it got published.

New media provide a level of accountability sorely lacking until very recently by giving voice to those who don't share the media elite's political outlook. Far be it from me to presume that Fineman and Thomas are consciously trying to undermine those forces. But at the very least, they seem ignorant of the need for that accountability--they assume that the legacy media are by their nature accountable.

But Lewis believes that it is the watchdog role of digital journalism that has provoked these criticisms. After all, Fineman, Thomas, and the rest have been without a counterbalancing force for so long. They are a collective thorn in the side of a journalistic establishment that is used to injecting its own worldview into its reporting without meaningful challenge.

As campaign strategist and former manager of Townhall.com Chuck DeFeo puts in to Lewis:

"As bloggers have expanded their audience and their influence, their ability to impact public opinion has become as strong as some in the mainstream media. With that influence comes the likelihood that some in power not only won't like what you have to say but, more importantly, they now need to respond."

While the broadcast networks ABC, CBS and NBC have all failed to remind viewers that Israel allows regular aid shipments into Gaza over land from its side of the border, on Tuesday’s CBS Evening News correspondent Richard Roth highlighted complaints about the effect of the blockade on Gaza residents, used a soundbite of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to argue that "even [Israel’s] friends question the effect," and even noted that Egypt was opening its border with Gaza for humanitarian aid – all while still not informing viewers that the Israelis regularly screen aid shipments and allow them into Gaza.

RICHARD ROTH: The U.N. says 70 percent of its million and a half people live on less than a dollar a day. Smuggling through tunnels to Egypt provides much of what Gazans need but at prices not many can afford. Israel says the aim of the blockade is to control terrorism, but even its friends question the effect.

HILLARY CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE: The situation in Gaza is unsustainable and unacceptable.

ROTH: Wary of sharing blame, Egypt's now opened its own border with Gaza – for humanitarian reasons, said Cairo – but probably not for long.

On the same day’s The Early Show, CBS anchor Betty Nguyen also noted Egypt’s actions: "This morning, Egypt has temporarily opened its border with Gaza to let in aid shipments after Israel's raid that killed nine people on a humanitarian flotilla."

Similarly, during the war in Gaza from late December 2008 to January 2009, CBS was the network most likely to air complaints about the blockade’s effect on the people of Gaza, and the least likely to report that humanitarian aid was being transported into the Gaza Strip.

ABC’s Simon McGregor-Wood and NBC’s Tom Aspell have at least noted in recent days that aid stored on the ships that were raided would be transported into Gaza by the Israelis, but they have not informed viewers that aid shipments into Gaza are already a common activity.

By contrast, on Monday’s Special Report with Bret Baier, FNC contributor Charles Krauthammer related: "There's no one starving in Gaza. The Gazans have been supplied with food and social services, education, by the U.N., by UNRWA, for 60 years, in part with American tax money. Second, when there are humanitarian needs, the Israelis allow every day food and medicine overland into Gaza."

And on Tuesday’s Fox and Friends, FNC’s Peter Johnson, Jr., informed viewers: "We know that 15,000 tons of humanitarian aid goes to Gaza every week that's sanctioned by Israel. They do check it for explosive materials, they check it for concrete that's being used to build tunnels."

Below are complete transcripts of the reports from the Tuesday, June 1, The Early Show and the same day’s Evening News on CBS:

#From the Tuesday, June 1, The Early Show on CBS:

BETTY NGUYEN: This morning, Egypt has temporarily opened its border with Gaza to let in aid shipments after Israel’s raid that killed nine people on a humanitarian flotilla. There were demonstrations against the Israeli action in New York, California and other cities yesterday. Israel says its forces acted in self-defense, and released video showing commandos being beaten as they boarded the ship.

#From the Tuesday, June 1, CBS Evening News:

KATIE COURIC: Turning now to the Middle East, tensions there are high after U.N. inspectors reported Iran has stockpiled enough material to make two nuclear bombs. Then there's the uproar over Israel's deadly raid on ships delivering aid to Palestinians in Gaza. The White House said today the President supports an international investigation into what happened, and tonight there's word that activists are sending another boat to challenge Israel's blockade of Gaza. Richard Roth has more.

RICHARD ROTH: Leading them off as prisoners, Israel began deporting nearly 700 passengers from the flotilla who came from 37 countries. And around the world from every one of them, it seemed, there was more anger or questions about Israel's raid on the convoy and its continued blockade of Gaza. Visiting one of his wounded commandos, Prime Minister Netanyahu defended the assault in which nine pro-Palestinian activists were killed. Israel's claim – backed by its military video – is that troops only fired in self-defense when they were attacked and beaten by activists begging for a fight.

ALON BEN-DAVID, ISRAELI MILITARY ANALYST: It's like the road to hell. It's covered with good intentions. They were so eager to avoid a bloody confrontation, to avoid massive friction with the demonstration, that they sent troops that were poorly equipped, hardly armed.

ROTH: But some passengers insisted Israelis were the aggressors, needlessly attacking a convoy on a peaceful mission to deliver humanitarian aid. Aboard a sister ship, a retired U.S. diplomat didn't witness the violence, only the disappointment.

EDWARD PECK, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR: This could have worked out well, it could have been a contribution to what everybody wants, and instead it's going to be, it's going to get worse for a while.

ROTH: In Gaza, that's hard to imagine. The U.N. says 70 percent of its million and a half people live on less than a dollar a day. Smuggling through tunnels to Egypt provides much of what Gazans need but at prices not many can afford. Israel says the aim of the blockade is to control terrorism, but even its friends question the effect.

HILLARY CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE: The situation in Gaza is unsustainable and unacceptable.

ROTH: Wary of sharing blame, Egypt's now opened its own border with Gaza – for humanitarian reasons, said Cairo – but probably not for long. Richard Roth, CBS News, London.

On CBS Sunday Morning, correspondent Jim Axelrod filed a report touting the movement in America to make it the law of the land that some employers must provide paid vacation to its employees, even giving controversial Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson - known for making vicious attacks on conservatives – a chance to plug his proposal to make paid vacation, which the Florida Democrat called a "right," legally mandated. Touted as the show’s "cover story" by host Charles Osgood, the segment was teased:

JIM AXELROD: Of the 33 richest countries, the United States is the only one that does not require paid vacation time for workers. One in four American workers, no paid vacation?

JOHN SCHMIDT, ECONOMIST AND AUTHOR OF NO VACATION NATION: That's right. And we don't have any law that would require any employer to do that.

After beginning the report by allowing Schmidt to make his case that America needs to have mandatory vacation days, Axelrod turned to Grayson’s view that vacation is a "right" that would improve productivity if required by law: "Alan Grayson is adamant that vacation is a right. In fact, he wants to make it a law. ... Grayson wants to guarantee at least one week of paid vacation for every worker at a company with 100 or more employees. He says it will lead to greater productivity from well rested and healthier workers."

A soundbite of the Democratic Congressman warned: "What we're seeing more and more is that all work and no play makes Jack a dead boy."

After hearing from government officials from Germany, Denmark and Switzerland who argued in favor of legally mandated vacation time, Axelrod seemed to acknowledge that "weaker unions" and "less regulation" in America have led to higher growth rates and salaries compared to Europe, but he concluded that the European system is worth it: "The U.S. economy with weaker unions than Europe and less regulation has higher growth rates and pays higher salaries. But European workers consistently rate themselves more satisfied with the balance in their lives."

Below is a complete transcript of the report from the May 30 CBS Sunday Morning:

CHARLES OSGOOD: Good morning. I'm Charles Osgood and this is Sunday Morning. It's Memorial Day weekend, time to honor all who have sacrificed in the service of our country. And we will be paying our respects throughout the morning. Memorial Day also marks the unofficial start of summer and the joys of summer vacation – joys restricted, of course, to those who actually get a vacation. For millions of other Americans, summer is just another season of all-work and no play as Jim Axelrod will be reporting in our cover story.

JIM AXELROD: It's Memorial Day weekend and time to make vacation plans. Well, if you're lucky. Because, of the 33 richest countries, the United States is the only one that does not require paid vacation time for workers. One in four American workers, no paid vacation?

JOHN SCHMIDT, ECONOMIST AND AUTHOR OF NO VACATION NATION: That's right. And we don't have any law that would require any employer to do that.

AXELROD: No vacation nation. Coming up.

...

OSGOOD: There’s no time for lazing in a hammock for those who live in an all-work, no-play, world. Just who lives in such a nonstop busy land? Many of us, it turns out. Our cover story is reported now by Jim Axelrod.

AXELROD: This Memorial Day weekend, our unofficial start to summer. Many Americans will look ahead to the next couple of months and their vacation plans. But not as many as you might think. One in four American workers, no paid vacation?

SCHMIDT: That's right. One in four American workers don't have paid vacation provided by their employer, and we don't have any law that would require any employer to do that.

AXELROD: John Schmidt, an economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, is the author of "no vacation nation," a study detailing one unique feature of our economic system that's not the envy of the rest of the world. Out of the 33 richest countries, the U.S. is the only one with no legally required paid vacation for its workers.

SCHMIDT: If you look at all of the other rich countries that have about the same standard of living that we have, it's pretty standard to have 20 or 25 days of paid vacation per year.

AXELROD: England?

SCHMIDT: Twenty.

AXELROD: France?

SCHMIDT: Thirty.

AXELROD: Germany?

SCHMIDT: Twenty-two.

AXELROD: Italy?

SCHMIDT: I think it's 22 or 23.

AXELROD: And I could keep going?

SCHMIDT: Yes, exactly.

AXELROD: And the United States is the only country to have 0?

SCHMIDT: Yes, that's right.

AXELROD: The average American has just nine days of vacation a year. One 2009 survey shows just 10 percent of us will take a full two weeks off. And as for part-time workers, only a third get any paid time off from their employers. John Schmidt says we have a tortured relationship with vacation in the best of times, and the recession has only made it worse. Even when times are good, people don't take their vacation. They don't want to be seen as that guy who’s always taking his time off, who values his time off more than being at work. Being in a recession simply makes it worse.

SCHMIDT: Yeah, it completely intensifies the pressure on workers to buckle down and work as hard as they possibly can so that if the boss has to make a decision about letting 10 percent of people go that you're not on that list.

AXELROD: You could blame the Puritan work ethic, although in Great Britain where the Puritan work ethic got started, workers are guaranteed 20 days off.

PROF. STEVEN KYLE, CORNELL UNIVERSITY: There's no question we're different, but it's because we choose to be, not because we can't afford to be. We are as rich as the Europeans are. We would be a little less rich in material terms if we took more time off as a nation. But we would be, some of us at least, happier to do that.

AXELROD: Cornell University Economics Professor Steven Kyle says it all comes down to a society's position on vacation. Is vacation a perk? Or is it something that is an essential like good health care, a good job, enough vacation to be healthy and regenerate?

KYLE: Well, I don't think it's a perk personally. I have to ask myself, and I have a very good job that I love. But what are we doing this for – our jobs – if not to have a life, and have a good life?

REP. ALAN GRAYSON (D-FL): You need time off to recharge the batteries and to make yourself happy.

AXELROD: Alan Grayson is adamant that vacation is a right. In fact, he wants to make it a law.

GRAYSON: Sixty-nine percent of all middle class Americans say that their number one desire in life is more free time. And I think it's doable. I think we can-

AXELROD: Which he's in a better position to do than most since he's a Congressman, a freshman Democrat – from Orlando, of course, often called the vacation capital of the world.

GRAYSON: We lead the world in science. We lead the world in innovation. I don't think we need to lead the world in people who can't take a vacation.

AXELROD: Grayson wants to guarantee at least one week of paid vacation for every worker at a company with 100 or more employees. He says it will lead to greater productivity from well rested and healthier workers.

GRAYSON: We're talking initially about only one week off which is only a quarter of what every European worker gets. I mean, the old saying is all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. What we're seeing more and more is that all work and no play makes Jack a dead boy.

AXELROD: Of course, this might not be the best week to point to the ways Europeans run their economies as an example. With Greece near insolvency, Spain also teetering, and the rest of Europe shaken, everything is now on the table as far as easing economic pressures there. Well, everything but vacation.

HORST FREITAG, GERMAN CONSUL GENERAL: Why is that so? It is because the employers feel that they benefit from that law, primarily because they also feel that it has positive effects on the productivity.

AXELROD; Horst Freitag is Germany's consul general here in New York.

FREITAG: Now we had a lot of reforms just recently regarding our working force, etc., fringe benefits, unemployment protection and what have you. Nobody, neither the legislative nor the unions, the employers, nobody touched the vacation.

AXELROD: We sat down with Freitag, Sabine Ulman, the deputy consul from Switzerland and Torbin Getterman, Denmark's consul general. All three countries have had national vacation laws on the books for decades. Five weeks I think in Denmark, right?

TORBIN GETTERMAN, DANISH CONSUL GENERAL: Correct, correct. Mandatory.

AXELROD: Mandatory.

GETTERMAN: Yes.

AXELROD: We're talking about everybody from factory worker to high-priced lawyers.

GETTERMAN: Yes, and it's mandatory.

AXELROD: Denmark's unemployment rate, by the way, is three points lower than ours at the moment. And as for vacation policy in Switzerland:

SABINE ULMAN, SWISS DEPUTY CONSUL: I think the first paid vacation came in 1937, and it was in the watch maker industry to give people possibility not to be overexhausted, not overworked, and to give the opportunity of feeling more relaxed and more comfortable.

AXELROD: Wait a minute. You're not worried when you take your vacation that the guy at the next desk is going to get ahead of you while you're gone?

FREITAG: That's the point of it. If I’d be worried about that, you probably wouldn't take a vacation, but that's why it's legally, it’s in the law, it's in the book.

AXELROD: The U.S. economy with weaker unions than Europe and less regulation has higher growth rates and pays higher salaries. But European workers consistently rate themselves more satisfied with the balance in their lives. I have a feeling if I were to run that idea by some members of the business community in the United States, they might say, "You know what? That sounds like a European idea, the balance." You laugh.

GETTERMAN: Yeah, I mean, we think it's a good idea. It's a good foundation for creating a society where you have respect for, let's say, both family life and the working life.

AXELROD: Some food for thought to throw on the grill this Memorial Day weekend when you might already be feeling like you won't get nearly enough time off this summer. The rest of the world has a very different recipe when it comes to vacation.

FREITAG: You can't always attach a price tag to something. There are some things in life that you can't pin down in dollars and cents.

SCHMIDT: The bottom line is, you know, in Europe people have smaller cars but much bigger vacations. And in the United States, we have bigger cars but much smaller vacations.

CBS announced its new fall lineup to advertisers and the entertainment press on May 18. After all the jawing and legal wrangling back and forth over televised profanity, and whether it's somehow not profane if it's blurted out accidentally, CBS has ended the debate over accidents. The artists formerly known as the classy “Tiffany Network” have very deliberately introduced a new show called “$#*! My Dad Says.”

That's right – the fecal curse word starting with an S in the title. They pronounce it “Bleep My Dad Says.” They could simply have called it “Stuff My Dad Says” and not lost a scintilla of descriptive power. All they would lose is the childish wish to offend.

Michael Schneider of the trade publication Variety joked that it's too bad they didn't use an exclamation point and then a plus sign in the title after the dollar and pound signs, so the keyboard strokes would look more like the actual curse word. He actually gave CBS credit that they did not “wimp out” and sensibly clean up the show title. In the old black-and-white days a sitcom like this would simply be named after its star, “The William Shatner Show.” Nowadays the title selection requires talent – of a 12-year-old.

This S-bomb show is a spinoff from a page on the social-media website Twitter with the same toilet-plugging name. Perhaps someone would argue that CBS is merely trying to stay true to the spirit of the actual Twitter page by Justin Halpern, where nearly every 140-character tweet of his dad's cranky “wisdom” is laced with profanities. Halpern already milked his cursing dad for a book deal before turning his excretory ambitions to television executives.

But Variety reported that CBS programming chief Nina Tassler was having fun with the new show title by quipping to reporters that CBS has ordered some “really funny [bleep]” after their sitcom “Big Bang Theory” on Thursdays. Tassler said the new show “proved that new media and traditional media are coming together in very cool ways.” This Tassler has a very twisted idea of what “very cool” is. She also infamously declared that CBS's last attempt to be cool, the bed-hopping Seventies polyester-orgy flop “Swingtown,” was “fun and fresh” and “right in my sweet spot” of nostalgia.

It’s quite clear that this title gives Hollywood and its media lapdogs a naughty thrill as they “mainstream” the most vulgar lingo. Imagine the network salesmen telling advertisers “You really want to bet on [Bleep].” CBS’s perfect sponsor would be Frank's Red Hot Sauce, whose ad agency has the same “standards” as CBS. Their radio ad’s “grabber” is a sweet-voiced grandmother type who says of the hot sauce, “I put that [bleep] on everything.” What an appetizing combo plate these merchants would make.

Critics outside the Hollywood bubble scorned CBS for its gaudy attempt to take profanity to a new level, to which CBS responds that the show will “in no way be indecent and will adhere to all CBS standards.” What is clear is that there is no such thing as “CBS standards.” There is only that which CBS can, and can’t get away with.

The network also lamely noted the show can be blocked using the V-chip. But the V-chip can be organized to block out L-codes for crude language, but it blocks the actual episode (if it’s coded), not titles. If there were a “D” for dishonesty, CBS would be banned.

The whole S-word debut was unveiled on the same day that CBS submitted a legal brief in a federal appeals court declaring once again that it cannot be fined for the Janet Jackson breast exposure. In a defense that would make Bill Clinton proud, CBS argued it did not have a “guilty mind” in airing the wardrobe malfunction.

Doesn't the one hand of CBS really betray the other hand, as much as they try to play ignorant?

CBS lawyers get paid the big bucks to be perpetually clueless, since some people have long enough memories to recall that Viacom president Mel Karmazin took responsibility and owned the guilt before Congress in 2005. He admitted that halftime-show organizers planned out a ripped-shirt finale, and “we take responsibility for it.” Karmazin and CBS clearly didn’t believe a word of it. 

Our broadcast television networks are not being shy about their agenda. They clearly intend to drag the American people into the enlightenment of the “21st century,” where all that is putrid is permissible.

On Saturday’s Fox News Watch, as the panel discussed revelations that Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano admitted to not having read the Arizona immigration law even as they criticized it publicly, FNC contributor Jim Pinkerton cited the Media Research Center, parent organization of NewsBusters, and passed on findings contained in the May 18 "Bozell Column," as he informed the panel that ABC, CBS and NBC had all ignored these embarrassing admissions by Obama administration cabinet members. Pinkerton:

And it was interesting, as Brent Bozell at the Media Research Center pointed out, not any of the big networks – ABC, CBS, or NBC – reported that Holder and Napolitano hadn't read it. And the major newspapers, the Post and Times, also didn't report it. By comparison, we could imagine what would have happened if a Democratic Congressman asked Alberto Gonzales, the former Attorney General under President Bush, if he hadn't read something. There would have been a typhoon of, "What a moron." And yet, stone silence from the mainstream media.

Panel member Rich Lowry of the National Review may also have picked up on a NewsBusters item when he recounted FNC veteran Brit Hume’s criticism of the inaccurate media coverage of the Arizona immigration law, and the mistake he admitted to making in initially believing the media misinformation. Lowry:

One of my favorite comments on this, Jon, was the Sunday afterwards, Brit Hume was on Fox News Sunday and commented on the law and said he was quite troubled by it. The next Sunday, he went back and said, "You know what, I actually read it. The prior Sunday, I relied on that media coverage. That was a mistake. Now I think it's quite reasonable."

After host Jon Scott cited a Fox News poll showing solid public support for Arizona’s efforts to deal with illegal immigration, even left-leaning FNC analyst Kirsten Powers conceded the media’s bias in a direction opposite to public opinion:

JON SCOTT: There's a Fox News poll out this week, Kirsten. 65 percent of Americans say that they think the states have the right to make their own immigration laws and protect their borders if the federal government doesn't do the job. Does that point of view get reflected in the media coverage?

KIRSTEN POWERS: No, what gets reflected in the media coverage is what the media thinks, and I think it's probably flipped with the media.

Below is a complete transcript of the relevant segment from the Saturday, May 22, Fox News Watch on FNC:

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ): Have you had a chance to review the new law that was passed by the state of Arizona?

JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: I have not reviewed it in detail. I certainly know of it, Senator.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you read the Arizona law?

HOLDER: I have not had a chance to. I've glanced at it. I have not read it.

JON SCOTT: All right, there you go. Two key members of President Obama's cabinet, who have been critical of Arizona's new illegal immigration law, both admitting they hadn't actually read it. Later in the week, while hosting Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Mr. Obama had his chance to comment on the Arizona law.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I want everyone, American and Mexican, to know my administration is taking a close look at the Arizona law. We're examining any implications, especially for civil rights, because in the United States of America, no law-abiding person, be they an American citizen, illegal immigrant or a visitor or a tourist from Mexico, should ever be subject to suspicion simply because of what they look like.

SCOTT: Kirsten, it seems that there has been a sort of campaign of misinformation about this law, whether intentional or otherwise. I mean, is that a result of what the administration has been doing or is it the media sort of jumping on a bandwagon?

KIRSTEN POWERS, FNC CONTRIBUTOR: I think it’s probably a little bit of both, but I think, even if they had read the law, I don't their positions are going to particularly change on it. I think this may become the new thing that now we always do, always ask people if they've read something. You know, in the past, nobody ever asked anybody if they read the laws when we all know they didn't. And, you know, now it’s something that you can kind of jump on people about.

SCOTT: Have you read the law?

POWERS: No, I haven't. Substantively, I don't think it is going to change their positions anyway.

RICH LOWRY, NATIONAL REVIEW: But this is not, I mean, the health care bill, okay, Betsy McCaughey read it. It’s 2,000 pages long. It's understandable most people wouldn't read it. But Eric Holder saying he glanced at it. You cannot glance at this thing without basically reading it. I mean, it is 10 pages long. The most controversial provision is about a paragraph long. And Kirsten is right, these are people that wanted to reject the law and oppose it no matter what, so it doesn’t really matter what’s in there. There hasn't been one, given how controversial this is, not one, that I've seen, lengthy article setting out the legal precedents that are behind this law and that the drafters relied on. And there are plenty of them.

SCOTT: It does seem like the media headlines, Judy, have been "Arizona law bad."

JUDY MILLER, FNC CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, that was certainly the message. And that continued even after the Arizona legislature changed the law to tone down some of the more objectionable provisions. However, the law, which was read and analyzed here on Fox News by Judge Napolitano, he maintains it’s clearly unconstitutional in that a 1939 Supreme Court decision gave the authority over immigration policy to the President.

LOWRY: No, he's wrong about that.

MILLER: And the President doesn't want to go near this.

LOWRY: We don't want to get into the legalities, but it’s wrong.

MILLER: Cheap labor for the Republicans and cheap votes for the Democrats.

JIM PINKERTON, NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION: All the more reason, then, to actually read the law. Somebody ought to read it.

MILLER: Yes, yes.

PINKERTON: And it was interesting, as Brent Bozell at the Media Research Center pointed out, not any of the big networks – ABC, CBS, or NBC – reported that Holder and Napolitano hadn't read it. And the major newspapers, the Post and Times, also didn't report it. By comparison, we could imagine what would have happened if a Democratic Congressman asked Alberto Gonzales, the former Attorney General under President Bush, if he hadn't read something. There would have been a typhoon of, "What a moron." And yet, stone silence from the mainstream media.

LOWRY: One of my favorite comments on this, Jon, was the Sunday afterwards, Brit Hume was on Fox News Sunday and commented on the law and said he was quite troubled by it. The next Sunday, he went back and said, "You know what, I actually read it. The prior Sunday, I relied on that media coverage. That was a mistake. Now I think it’s quite reasonable."

SCOTT: And related to that, when President Calderon made that appearance in front of the joint meeting of Congress, he talked about his objections to the law, he got a 15-second standing ovation, including Vice President Biden and the Attorney General Eric Holder.

MILLER: Right, well, he got a standing ovation from the Democrats. He did not get a standing ovation from Republicans. I mean, look, this has become-

SCOTT: But did the Attorney General read the law before he applauded?

MILLER: Maybe he had read it by the-

LOWRY: Has Calderon read the law?

MILLER: Yes, probably in Spanish and in English because he speaks both languages well and he reads in both.

PINKERTON: But the dog that didn't bark this week on this whole issue was President Obama saying, standing next to Calderon in the Rose Garden, quote, "We are not defined by our borders." If that’s not a signal as to where the Democrats really are on this border issue, nothing is.

SCOTT: There's a Fox News poll out this week, Kirsten. 65 percent of Americans say that they think the states have the right to make their own immigration laws and protect their borders if the federal government doesn't do the job. Does that point of view get reflected in the media coverage?

POWERS: No, what gets reflected in the media coverage is what the media thinks, and I think it’s probably flipped with the media. You know, but, at the same time, this is not a popular position, but it is what I actually believe. That's nice that Americans think that, but I don't know how they have the expertise to know that unless they’re all lawyers, unless they’re all, you know, able to make judgments about how the legalities of these things play out. So, in the end, I don't think that's how we make our laws. I think we should make them based on what is the legal thing, what is constitutional and what is the right thing.

SCOTT: Well, okay. What is the legal thing regarding immigration? That's, I guess, the question for Washington.

PINKERTON: But remember, the law is a function of public sentiment. In the end, people get to define what their governors and what their Constitution says.

MILLER: Yes, but this is a cry for help from Arizona. And most Americans understand that. And I think that's why they are sympathetic to the fact that the federal government has done nothing for Arizona and for their problem.

On Sunday's Face the Nation on CBS, host Bob Schieffer interrogated Republican Senator Lamar Alexander on GOP senate nominee Rand Paul: "Can you see yourself supporting a candidate who takes those kinds of positions, Senator?" However, Schieffer lobbed softballs to Democratic senate nominee Joe Sestak minutes later, who claimed the White House offered him a job to quit the primary race.  

In his interview with Alexander, Schieffer focused almost exclusively on comments made by Paul: "...he has had some rather controversial things to say, like the '64 Civil Rights bill may have been too broad. He's questioned the Disabilities Act. He's talking about abolishing the Federal Reserve and the Department of Education." Alexander chalked up some of Paul's remarks to political inexperience, but also noted: "...we’ve got a Democratic Caucus with nearly 60 votes that includes a very nice senator from Vermont who proudly describes himself as a Socialist."

Schieffer pressed on: "...the Republican Party, as I understand it, is trying to broaden its appeal to African Americans, to minorities. Why would any member of any minority group want to vote or want to be for someone who says that, well, you know, maybe that Civil Rights Act went a little too far?...I mean, can you be for that?" Schieffer went on to wonder: "And what about this whole business of the tea party? Is it going to prove to be a good thing for Republicans or is this something that you need to be worried about here?"

In an interview with Sestak that immediately followed, Schieffer brought up the Pennsylvania Congressman's charge that the Obama White House offered him a job to end his primary challenge to Arlen Specter: "Did the White House offer you a position in the administration if you would not run?" Sestak replied: "Yes, I was asked that question months after it happened. And I felt an obligation to answer it honestly. And I said yes."
                            
Schieffer gently followed up: "Can you tell us what job?" Sestak refused: "No, Bob, I –and then I said at the time, anything beyond that just gets into politics." Schieffer was apparently satisfied with that non-answer and moved on to ask about the campaign: "The White House was for Specter. They obviously wanted you not in the race. But you took them on. Now will you ask for Barack Obama's help?"

Later, Schieffer invited Sestak to recite some talking points: "Was this part of the anti-incumbent mood that's going on in the country right now?...What do you think your victory meant and how do you think you did it?" Sestak replied: "What I listened to was people had literally lost trust. They'd lost faith in Washington D.C....I hope to earn that trust from them....I felt I had to begin to demonstrate, it wasn't about Joe Sestak and his job; it was about yours."

Here is a portion Schieffer's May 23 interview with Alexander:

10:41 AM EST

BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Let's talk, a little bit, about what happened last week, these elections, especially down in – in Kentucky, where you had the hand-picked candidate of Mitch McConnell, your leader in the Senate. The whole Republican establishment down there was for one guy, and along comes Rand Paul, this Tea Party favorite. And he doesn't just beat him. He wins it in a blowout. But since then, he has had some rather controversial things to say, like the '64 Civil Rights bill may have been too broad. He's questioned the Disabilities Act. He's talking about abolishing the Federal Reserve and the Department of Education. Can you see yourself supporting a candidate who takes those kinds of positions, Senator?

ALEXANDER: Yes, I can.

SCHIEFFER: You can?

ALEXANDER: And I'm glad he cleared up at least one of them. But here's what happened. You know, even a very good baseball player sometimes has a hard time going from AAA to the major leagues. And that's what happened to him last week. If he'll stick to the jobs, debt and terror and providing a check-and-balance on a runaway government in Washington, he'll be the next Republican Senator. We'll be glad to have him.

SCHIEFFER: But that's not what he campaigned on. He campaigned on all these other things, doing away with the Department of Education, getting rid of the Federal Reserve, and then talking about that the Civil Rights Act went too far?

ALEXANDER: Well, he clarified that. He made a mistake there. At least I thought he did. At least it’s different than my opinion. We already have senators who want to get rid of the Fed. And, you know, we've – we've got a Democratic Caucus with nearly 60 votes that includes a very nice senator from Vermont who proudly describes himself as a Socialist. So a little check and balance in the Senate wouldn't be a bad thing.

SCHIEFFER: Well, I think the Republican Party, as I understand it, is trying to broaden its appeal to African Americans, to minorities. Why would any member of any minority group want to vote or want to be for someone who says that, well, you know, maybe that Civil Rights Act went a little too far? I know you say he's clarified it. Now he says he wouldn't vote to repeal it. But just saying you wouldn't repeal it, after saying, maybe, it went too far, I mean, can you be for that?

ALEXANDER: Oh, I cannot be for that. I was for the Civil Rights Act of '64, '68, '75. I helped put in the Martin Luther King holiday. In Tennessee, when I ran for re-election in 2008, I got 25 percent of the African American vote with President Obama on the ticket. So we have plenty of Republican candidates who will get plenty of African American votes. I think Rand Paul had a tough week last week. If he'll focus on providing a check-and-balance on a run-away Washington government, he'll be fine. And he'll be elected.

SCHIEFFER: And what about this whole business of the tea party? Is it going to prove to be a good thing for Republicans or is this something that you need to be worried about here?

ALEXANDER: Well, I think any time Americans want to get out of their chairs and focus on jobs, debt, and terror, and checking a run-away government in Washington. We want them in our primaries. We want them as our nominees. And we want them in the United States Senate. I think it provides diversity in our party. It makes us a bigger tent. Gives us a lot more energy. But I think the American people are really upset right now. And this election is going to have a lot of fresh faces, a lot of surprises. But the mood is, let's throw the rascals out in Washington. And the Democrats are the rascals by a big majority. And I think we're going to have a lot more Republicans in November for that reason.

SCHIEFFER: But there are no Democrats running in some of those Republican primaries out there. There are tea party candidates taking on mainstream members of your party. And I guess that’s what I'm getting at.

Here is a portion of Schieffer's interview with Sestak:

10:48 AM EST

SCHIEFFER: Back now with one of Tuesday's big primary winners, Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestak who took on the establishment, the Democratic establishment in Pennsylvania, and took on the White House and beat Arlen Specter, who had switched from the Republican Party. Let me just ask you first about what I was asking Robert Gibbs about this idea. Did the White House offer you a position in the administration if you would not run?

JOE SESTAK: Yes, I was asked that question months after it happened. And I felt an obligation to answer it honestly. And I said yes. But, Bob...

SCHIEFFER: Can you tell us what job?

SESTAK: No, Bob, I – and then I said at the time, anything beyond that just gets into politics. And actually that's what I think is failing Washington, D.C. principle doesn't seem to triumph over politics where people come here and be willing to lose their job over doing what they said they would do. And so I just stay focused on what I had issued out there which was a plan for Pennsylvania working families, from retirement security to educational opportunity for their children, and small business opportunities. And that’s what I just keep on talking about.

SCHIEFFER: Well, let's talk about the race that you had with Arlen Specter. The White House was for Specter. They obviously wanted you not in the race. But you took them on. Now will you ask for Barack Obama's help?

SESTAK: Well, I have to tell you, the president was the very first one who called me. And I welcome his support. And I have to also tell you, Arlen Specter, when he called me, set a standard for graciousness. Telling me, Joe, congratulations, I'm going to support you. Look, I watched a wonderful primary between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. And they steeled those candidates, much like this primary did. And we're going to come together because we believe in Democratic principles. But I'm going to come to Washington and serve. And I really do want to fight for working families. And, yes, I'll stand up to the party if they're wrong and they aren't going the right way for people in Pennsylvania. But I do believe in Democratic principles.

SCHIEFFER: Do you think the president would help you or hurt you if he came to Pennsylvania? And will you ask him to come?

SESTAK: I'd be honored to stand with the President of the United States – honored.

SCHIEFFER: You would be honored if he came? Have you asked him yet?

SESTAK: Sir, yes, we had a nice discussion and he said he'll look forward to – he said, "I'll support you." And I hope so.

[LAUGHTER]

SCHIEFFER: So what do you think did it? Was this part of the anti-incumbent mood that's going on in the country right now? Because obviously there's a great deal of anger with Washington itself. What do you think your victory meant and how do you think you did it?

SESTAK: When I had to go through those 67 counties last July and decide whether to get in or not after the establishment said, "Sit down," I'll never forget a farmer that said to me, when I asked him how the recession was, and he said, "Not too bad. I was hurting so much already." What I listened to was people had literally lost trust. They'd lost faith in Washington D.C. they saw people actually more willing to try to take positions that might help them in electoral prospects rather than standing up and, with the courage of their convictions, fighting for what was needed for them. They knew that Washington had lost focus.

On Sunday's Face the Nation on CBS, host Bob Schieffer interrogated Republican Senator Lamar Alexander on GOP senate nominee Rand Paul: "Can you see yourself supporting a candidate who takes those kinds of positions, Senator?" However, Schieffer lobbed softballs to Democratic senate nominee Joe Sestak minutes later, who claimed the White House offered him a job to quit the primary race.  

In his interview with Alexander, Schieffer focused almost exclusively on comments made by Paul: "...he has had some rather controversial things to say, like the '64 Civil Rights bill may have been too broad. He's questioned the Disabilities Act. He's talking about abolishing the Federal Reserve and the Department of Education." Alexander chalked up some of Paul's remarks to political inexperience, but also noted: "...we’ve got a Democratic Caucus with nearly 60 votes that includes a very nice senator from Vermont who proudly describes himself as a Socialist."

Schieffer pressed on: "...the Republican Party, as I understand it, is trying to broaden its appeal to African Americans, to minorities. Why would any member of any minority group want to vote or want to be for someone who says that, well, you know, maybe that Civil Rights Act went a little too far?...I mean, can you be for that?" Schieffer went on to wonder: "And what about this whole business of the tea party? Is it going to prove to be a good thing for Republicans or is this something that you need to be worried about here?"

In an interview with Sestak that immediately followed, Schieffer brought up the Pennsylvania Congressman's charge that the Obama White House offered him a job to end his primary challenge to Arlen Specter: "Did the White House offer you a position in the administration if you would not run?" Sestak replied: "Yes, I was asked that question months after it happened. And I felt an obligation to answer it honestly. And I said yes."
                            
Schieffer gently followed up: "Can you tell us what job?" Sestak refused: "No, Bob, I –and then I said at the time, anything beyond that just gets into politics." Schieffer was apparently satisfied with that non-answer and moved on to ask about the campaign: "The White House was for Specter. They obviously wanted you not in the race. But you took them on. Now will you ask for Barack Obama's help?"

Later, Schieffer invited Sestak to recite some talking points: "Was this part of the anti-incumbent mood that's going on in the country right now?...What do you think your victory meant and how do you think you did it?" Sestak replied: "What I listened to was people had literally lost trust. They'd lost faith in Washington D.C....I hope to earn that trust from them....I felt I had to begin to demonstrate, it wasn't about Joe Sestak and his job; it was about yours."

Here is a portion Schieffer's May 23 interview with Alexander:

10:41 AM EST

BOB SCHIEFFER: All right. Let's talk, a little bit, about what happened last week, these elections, especially down in – in Kentucky, where you had the hand-picked candidate of Mitch McConnell, your leader in the Senate. The whole Republican establishment down there was for one guy, and along comes Rand Paul, this Tea Party favorite. And he doesn't just beat him. He wins it in a blowout. But since then, he has had some rather controversial things to say, like the '64 Civil Rights bill may have been too broad. He's questioned the Disabilities Act. He's talking about abolishing the Federal Reserve and the Department of Education. Can you see yourself supporting a candidate who takes those kinds of positions, Senator?

ALEXANDER: Yes, I can.

SCHIEFFER: You can?

ALEXANDER: And I'm glad he cleared up at least one of them. But here's what happened. You know, even a very good baseball player sometimes has a hard time going from AAA to the major leagues. And that's what happened to him last week. If he'll stick to the jobs, debt and terror and providing a check-and-balance on a runaway government in Washington, he'll be the next Republican Senator. We'll be glad to have him.

SCHIEFFER: But that's not what he campaigned on. He campaigned on all these other things, doing away with the Department of Education, getting rid of the Federal Reserve, and then talking about that the Civil Rights Act went too far?

ALEXANDER: Well, he clarified that. He made a mistake there. At least I thought he did. At least it’s different than my opinion. We already have senators who want to get rid of the Fed. And, you know, we've – we've got a Democratic Caucus with nearly 60 votes that includes a very nice senator from Vermont who proudly describes himself as a Socialist. So a little check and balance in the Senate wouldn't be a bad thing.

SCHIEFFER: Well, I think the Republican Party, as I understand it, is trying to broaden its appeal to African Americans, to minorities. Why would any member of any minority group want to vote or want to be for someone who says that, well, you know, maybe that Civil Rights Act went a little too far? I know you say he's clarified it. Now he says he wouldn't vote to repeal it. But just saying you wouldn't repeal it, after saying, maybe, it went too far, I mean, can you be for that?

ALEXANDER: Oh, I cannot be for that. I was for the Civil Rights Act of '64, '68, '75. I helped put in the Martin Luther King holiday. In Tennessee, when I ran for re-election in 2008, I got 25 percent of the African American vote with President Obama on the ticket. So we have plenty of Republican candidates who will get plenty of African American votes. I think Rand Paul had a tough week last week. If he'll focus on providing a check-and-balance on a run-away Washington government, he'll be fine. And he'll be elected.

SCHIEFFER: And what about this whole business of the tea party? Is it going to prove to be a good thing for Republicans or is this something that you need to be worried about here?

ALEXANDER: Well, I think any time Americans want to get out of their chairs and focus on jobs, debt, and terror, and checking a run-away government in Washington. We want them in our primaries. We want them as our nominees. And we want them in the United States Senate. I think it provides diversity in our party. It makes us a bigger tent. Gives us a lot more energy. But I think the American people are really upset right now. And this election is going to have a lot of fresh faces, a lot of surprises. But the mood is, let's throw the rascals out in Washington. And the Democrats are the rascals by a big majority. And I think we're going to have a lot more Republicans in November for that reason.

SCHIEFFER: But there are no Democrats running in some of those Republican primaries out there. There are tea party candidates taking on mainstream members of your party. And I guess that’s what I'm getting at.

Here is a portion of Schieffer's interview with Sestak:

10:48 AM EST

SCHIEFFER: Back now with one of Tuesday's big primary winners, Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestak who took on the establishment, the Democratic establishment in Pennsylvania, and took on the White House and beat Arlen Specter, who had switched from the Republican Party. Let me just ask you first about what I was asking Robert Gibbs about this idea. Did the White House offer you a position in the administration if you would not run?

JOE SESTAK: Yes, I was asked that question months after it happened. And I felt an obligation to answer it honestly. And I said yes. But, Bob...

SCHIEFFER: Can you tell us what job?

SESTAK: No, Bob, I – and then I said at the time, anything beyond that just gets into politics. And actually that's what I think is failing Washington, D.C. principle doesn't seem to triumph over politics where people come here and be willing to lose their job over doing what they said they would do. And so I just stay focused on what I had issued out there which was a plan for Pennsylvania working families, from retirement security to educational opportunity for their children, and small business opportunities. And that’s what I just keep on talking about.

SCHIEFFER: Well, let's talk about the race that you had with Arlen Specter. The White House was for Specter. They obviously wanted you not in the race. But you took them on. Now will you ask for Barack Obama's help?

SESTAK: Well, I have to tell you, the president was the very first one who called me. And I welcome his support. And I have to also tell you, Arlen Specter, when he called me, set a standard for graciousness. Telling me, Joe, congratulations, I'm going to support you. Look, I watched a wonderful primary between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. And they steeled those candidates, much like this primary did. And we're going to come together because we believe in Democratic principles. But I'm going to come to Washington and serve. And I really do want to fight for working families. And, yes, I'll stand up to the party if they're wrong and they aren't going the right way for people in Pennsylvania. But I do believe in Democratic principles.

SCHIEFFER: Do you think the president would help you or hurt you if he came to Pennsylvania? And will you ask him to come?

SESTAK: I'd be honored to stand with the President of the United States – honored.

SCHIEFFER: You would be honored if he came? Have you asked him yet?

SESTAK: Sir, yes, we had a nice discussion and he said he'll look forward to – he said, "I'll support you." And I hope so.

[LAUGHTER]

SCHIEFFER: So what do you think did it? Was this part of the anti-incumbent mood that's going on in the country right now? Because obviously there's a great deal of anger with Washington itself. What do you think your victory meant and how do you think you did it?

SESTAK: When I had to go through those 67 counties last July and decide whether to get in or not after the establishment said, "Sit down," I'll never forget a farmer that said to me, when I asked him how the recession was, and he said, "Not too bad. I was hurting so much already." What I listened to was people had literally lost trust. They'd lost faith in Washington D.C. they saw people actually more willing to try to take positions that might help them in electoral prospects rather than standing up and, with the courage of their convictions, fighting for what was needed for them. They knew that Washington had lost focus.

Would you watch a sitcom with your kids at 8:30 PM that had the title "$#*! My Dad Says?"

The folks at CBS think you will.

In fact, they're so confident the vulgar reference won't offend viewers that the star -- and hence, the dad in the vulgar title!!! -- is none other than "Star Trek's" William Shatner.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, the Parents Television Council is threatening to challenge broadcast licenses over this issue (video of preview also follows with commentary):

At its upfront presentation in New York on Wednesday, CBS announced "$#*!" My Dad Says," a new comedy based on the popular Twitter feed "Shit My Dad Says." The show will air at 8:30 p.m. on Thursday nights this fall. The comedy stars William Shatner in the title role as a curmudgeon who dispenses politically incorrect opinions and advice to his son.

Tim Winter, president of the Los Angeles-based PTC, said he was aware that CBS was developing a series based on the Twitter sensation, but "we couldn't imagine that a network would actually name a program either with an expletive or with the expletive ostensibly bleeped out."

"We're talking here not about a Twitter feed, we're talking about broadcast television that requires a license to use the airwaves," Winter said. "There are an infinite number of alternatives that CBS could have chosen but its desire to shock and offend is crystal clear in this decision."

Winter is threatening an "unrelenting campaign" against the show's advertisers and to issue challenges against the license of any affiliate that airs the show before 10 p.m.

CBS will promote the show verbally with the word "bleep" instead of the profanity in ads -- as in, "Bleep My Dad Says." 

Is this clearly over the line for a prime time broadcast sitcom airing at 8:30 PM? If so, what's next?

Recently the Washington Post announced that they were putting their weekly liberal opinion magazine Newsweek up for sale after recording horrific losses. And about the same time, CNN and CBS announced that they were in talks to consolidate news operations. What ties these two stories together? All three outfits fell victim to The News They Kept To Themselves

On Friday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez interrogated BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles on the Gulf oil spill: "Can you can understand why a Congressman told us that BP has lost all credibility?" However, on Thursday, fellow co-host Harry Smith went easy on Energy Secretary Ken Salazar, allowing the Obama administration official to shift blame to the oil company.

Rodriguez pressed Suttles repeatedly: "But it seems like every day we hear new allegations that BP had been cutting corners beforehand….So many of these keep mounting. How can you keep responding to this?…are you confident that BP will survive this?"

In contrast, Smith never asked Salazar if the Obama administration could "survive" its failures in responding to the crisis. Instead, he gave the cabinet secretary every opportunity to go after BP: "…The CEO of BP says the environmental impact in the Gulf is going to be minimal. Is this guy in touch with reality?" As NewsBusters’ Scott Whitlock noted on Thursday, hosts on both the ABC and NBC morning shows actually had some tough questions for Salazar.

Before Rodriguez’s interview with Suttles, correspondent Mark Strassmann reported on the spill from Louisiana and actually mentioned public anger not just at BP, but at the government as well: "…as more oil does wash ashore, a deepening frustration and fury and gloom is also settling here. Harsh feelings directed toward BP and the federal government."

Strassmann explained how: "People in Grand Isle had wanted the feds to build sand barriers. They’re still asking, but less politely." A clip was played of one local official pleading: "We want them to get off their butts, excuse my French. I’m telling you that you’ve got to give us a permit."

Despite featuring that criticism of the government response, Strassmann still credited Congress for putting "pressure" on BP. He featured a clip of Democratic Massachusetts Congressman Ed Markey: "BP has lost all credibility. Now the decisions will have to be made by others, because it’s clear that they have been hiding the actual consequences of this spill."

Strassmann later followed up: "BP’s credibility is a major frustration, a complaint here, a sense that the company will not give people here the straight story about the magnitude of this disaster." He touted how "Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano agrees" and announced that she "has sent a letter to the company demanding a full and public disclosure."   

When will CBS join its network colleagues and start to question the Obama administration’s credibility on this issue?

Here is a full transcript of Rodriguez’s May 21 interview with Suttles:

7:09AM EST

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Joining us now from Robert, Louisiana is BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles. Mr. Suttles, Good morning.

DOUG SUTTLES: Good morning, Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: We’ve learned that BP has been using toxic chemicals to break up this oil. That you grossly underestimated the size of the leak, that Congress had to pressure you to reveal this live video feed of the well. Can you can understand why a Congressman told us that BP has lost all credibility?

SUTTLES: Well, Maggie, I understand the frustration. I know people want more information. I know they want – actually, they want this thing to come to an end, they want us to be able to clean it up very, very quickly and we’re trying to do these things. I can tell you we’re supplying information, we’re trying to give the data as quick as we can. We’ve tried to upload the video to our website. I think that’s up now. The chemicals we’re using for dispersants are actually approved by the EPA.

RODRIGUEZ: Yes, they are now.

SUTTLES: They’re actually the most widely used chemical in the industry.

RODRIGUEZ: But it seems like every day we hear new allegations that BP had been cutting corners beforehand. The most recent one is the company that was hired by BP to test the integrity of the well says that they were told to stop before the explosion, before they were finished. So many of these keep mounting. How can you keep responding to this?

SUTTLES: Maggie, I understand that people are very concerned and they’re trying to find what’s wrong. And I can understand that. Lots of things are being looked at. There’s – as you know, there’s many investigations taking place. I know they’ll get to the bottom of what caused this and I know they’ll figure out what needs to change. But at the moment, as you know, what I’m trying to do is figure out how do we get this thing stopped, how do we minimize the impact, and how do we fight this thing at sea.

RODRIGUEZ: So as the individual who is most focused on the response to this cleanup and stopping this leak, what is the best case scenario and the worst case scenario?

SUTTLES: Maggie, I think the best case scenario is actually either late Sunday or early Monday this ‘top kill’ procedure works and the flow stops. I know we all want that to occur. I know everyone is behind that. I think the worst case is it takes us until the relief well gets down, which would probably be about early August. But between now and then, we’ll try every technique available to us to actually get this flow stopped.

RODRIGUEZ: There are a lot of people who say they’re not sure if the environment will survive this. Are you confident that it will? And are you confident that BP will survive this?

SUTTLES: It’s hard to actually know for certain because I’m not an expert, but I do know there have been larger spills in the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf of Mexico has survived. The experts actually tell me that there are many things going for us in this case. It’s a – it’s a large body of water, it’s a warm body of water, it has natural oil seeps which the environment deals with. But we’re going to put a lot of effort into monitoring this and we’re going to do everything we can to minimize that impact. Time will tell, but I’m optimistic, I’m very optimistic that the Gulf will fully recover.

RODRIGUEZ: And as for your company?

SUTTLES: You know, Maggie, there are over almost 100,000 employees for BP, I think about 40,000 in the United States. We’re the largest investor in oil and gas in the United States, we’re the biggest producer. I believe we will. We have a great team of people that are very dedicated, their commitment has shown up. I’m very, very proud of what they’re actually doing. And I believe we will. I believe we’ll-

RODRIGUEZ: Our satellite seems to have frozen up, but we thank Doug Suttles for his time morning.

All three broadcast evening newscasts have repeatedly touted, as if it is a valid representation of national sentiment, the “boycott” of Arizona by liberal municipalities such as San Francisco and Los Angeles. But when the Arizona Corporation Commissioner on Tuesday made a tongue-in-cheek offer to help Los Angeles out in its boycott by shutting off the electricity flow, CBS and NBC were silent.

The only network to mention the proposal to test the depths of the city’s commitment to liberal sanctimony was ABC, MRC intern Matthew Hadro discovered. White House correspondent Jake Tapper first noted how President Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon both criticized Arizona’s new immigration law at the White House, then reported:

JAKE TAPPER: The debate is intense. The Los Angeles City Council voted last month to boycott all official business in Arizona, prompting an Arizona utilities commissioner to all but threaten to cut off the electricity Arizona power plants provide L.A.
GARY PIERCE, ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSIONER: You can’t call a boycott on the candy store, and then decide to go in and pick and choose candy you really do want.

All three broadcast networks have helped spread the word about liberals’ displeasure with the Arizona law since it passed in late April, even though polls consistently show that most Americans think the law is a good idea. A sampling:

Andrea Mitchell on the April 26 Nightly News: “Anger over the law has gone viral. On Facebook today, pages like this one: ‘Arizona, the Grand Canyon State, welcomes you unless you're a Mexican or look like one.’ Calls for an economic boycott. Already a conference of immigration lawyers at a swanky Scottsdale hotel canceled.”

Barbara Pinto on ABC’s World News, April 26: “The call for an economic boycott has caught fire on the Internet — and even from an Arizona state representative warning conventioneers to stay away....The first to cancel their plans, 400 members of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, who will lose their $92,000 deposit.”

Bill Whitaker on the CBS Evening News, April 29: “Arizona has gone through this kind of economic pressure before. In 1987, when the state refused to observe the national Martin Luther King holiday, there was a national boycott. The Super Bowl pulled out of Tempe. It all cost the state $300 million. Then, Arizona backed down. This time, state lawmakers plan to hang tough.”

ABC correspondent Eric Horng on the May 1 World News: “Already, lawsuits have been filed challenging the law. Activists have called for a boycott of Arizona businesses and the state has been lampooned by comedians.”
Jon Stewart on Comedy Central: “It’s not unprecedented having to carry around your papers. It's the same thing that freed black people had to do in 1863.”

CBS’s Bill Whitaker, May 13 Evening News: “For every action in nature there's an opposite reaction, so, too, in politics. The city of Los Angeles, the latest to react strongly to Arizona's tough new anti-illegal immigration law. City council voted yesterday to ban city travel to Arizona, ban future contracts with Arizona businesses, and to check whether $58 million in existing contracts can be broken legally.”

ABC’s Diane Sawyer, May 13 World News: “All around the country, a kind of emotional civil war continues. Some people deciding to try to hit Arizona in the pocketbook. Today's developments from Barbara Pinto.”
Barbara Pinto: “This is an out and out brawl, a nation choosing sides....Los Angeles now joins San Francisco and St. Paul, Minnesota, banning travel to the state....A list of boycotts costing Arizona an estimated $90 million so far. This heated debate is even playing out here at this suburban Chicago High School, 1,800 miles away. Administrators cancelled the Highland Park girls basketball team's trip to an Arizona tournament amid concerns about the new law.”

In his letter to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Commissioner Pierce wrote:

If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona's utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona's economy.

People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070 [the immigration law]. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.

You can read the full letter here.

At the end of a joint press conference between President Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon on Wenesday, CBS White House correspondent Chip Reid attempted to ask Obama a question about Tuesday's electoral results but was given the brush off for the second time in a week.

Later that afternoon, Reid described the incident on CBSNews.com's Political Hotsheet blog: "As he [Obama] and President Calderon turned to walk back toward the Oval Office I asked, loudly enough for him to hear, if he had any comment on the elections. No response. I then shouted 'Do you have any plans for a real press conference?' No response, not that I expected one."

On Monday, the President refused to answer a question from Reid moments after signing the "Press Freedom Act" into law.

CBS morning and evening news broadcasts have ignored both the Monday and Wednesday snubs by Obama, with Reid only making his displeasure known online.

In his Wednesday blog post, Reid noted:

...so-called 'press conferences' with foreign leaders usually allow for only two questions from the White House press corps and two from foreign reporters. But today he [Obama] said there was time for only one from each side. And in what I suspect was a White House effort to assure that the questioning was limited to immigration and other issues of U.S.-Mexico concern, he called on the Univision reporter from the U.S. side.

Reid even indignantly declared: "So if his goal was to avoid answering any tough questions about yesterday's elections, or the oil spill in the Gulf, or financial regulation, or Iran, or Afghanistan -- he succeeded."

On Wednesday's Evening News, Reid was given the perfect opportunity to voice his grievances on air, when anchor Katie Couric asked: "Chip, how is the White House assessing or spinning yesterday's election results?" However, Reid declined, simply repeating talking points put out by Obama's press office:

Well, Katie, the spin from the White House is that this was a very good day, but they're focusing almost exclusively on that race in southwestern Pennsylvania, where the Democrat beat a Republican. They say it shows that a Democrat in a district where Obama is not very popular can win and they say that's good news for November. They may not lose as many seats as they had feared. Katie.

Early Show's Harry Smith on Thursday conducted a softball interview with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, allowing the Obama official to pass the oil spill blame to BP. He tossed this easy question to the cabinet member: "...The CEO of BP says the environmental impact in the gulf is going to be minimal. Is this guy in touch with reality?"

In contrast, hosts on NBC's Today and ABC's Good Morning America grilled Salazar during similar segments on their shows. Surprisingly, it was GMA's George Stephanopoulos who most stridently demanded answers.

He complained, "You gave BP and other oil companies permits without getting the proper clearances. You failed to conduct four monthly inspections of the rig over the last year."

Stephanopoulos continued, "Are these failures your responsibility? You were secretary at the time." CBS's Smith, however, never asked how responsible the department and the Obama administration are. He also ignored criticism from Republican Congressman John Mica of Florida.

Stephanopoulos didn't avoid the subject. He played the following clip of Mica and forced Salazar to respond to it:

REP. JOHN MICA: I call this the Obama oil spill time line. I think this is the first time we have a public copy of this. This is their approval. It's basically a carte blanche recipe for disaster.

Over on NBC's Today, host Meredith Vieira grilled, "On Capitol Hill this week you acknowledged that the Interior Department had been lax in policing offshore drilling activities and had been weakened by corruption. So, do you now take responsibility, sir, at least in part, for what's happened in the gulf?"

After not getting an answer, Vieira tried again: "So, do you take direct responsibility for what's happened here?"

The best Smith could do was highlight the need for images of how much oil has spilled out. He observed, "But, here we are a month later, Mr. Secretary, I know your agencies have asked for these pictures and BP has not provided them. Why not? Are they in charge out there?"

This still but the onus on BP. The Early Show host continued to place the blame on the company: "Are you satisfied they are using, at least, the proper methods to try and disperse this oil?"

Only CBS allowed the Secretary to get away with such responsibility shifting. For instance, Stephanopoulos highlighted the numerous problems with the response and scolded, "It sounds like you're shifting the blame back. These [problems] all happened on your watch."

Now, ABC and NBC shouldn't be praised too much for finally challenging the Obama response. After all, the disaster is a month old. However, unlike the Early Show, at least they are doing it, albeit belatedly.

A transcript of the Stephanopoulos' interview with Salazar, which occurred at 7:14am EDT, follows:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And for more on this, we're joined by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar down in Washington. Thank you for joining us, Mr. Secretary. You talk about everything we're doing. Yet, we still can't get an accurate measure of the flow out of British Petroleum. You know, you see some scientists estimate it could be five or ten-times, maybe more, than what BP is giving right now. Why can't we get an accurate estimate from BP? And will you demand it?

KEN SALAZAR (Interior Secretary): The answer is, we will get accurate numbers. We will not just rely on BP. We have our own efforts underway with NASA and other federal agencies, NOAA, the USGS, to make sure that we have accurate numbers. We need to have those numbers with respect to natural resource damages and a whole host of other things.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But, sir- Excuse me. We're 31 days into this now. Why can't we get an accurate estimate?

SALAZAR: Yeah- there is a problem, in terms of the sub sea because you're 5,000 feet below. The robots that are working down there are working on what the immediate crisis and problem is. And that is stopping the source. Until we get this geyser stopped at the bottom of the ocean, it's going to continue to spread. And, so, the efforts have been focused on bringing the spill under control. And that essentially means killing the well. And, so, everything we have is being thrown at that particular problem. We will have good numbers for the American people and for everybody else. And they will be independent from B.P.

STEPHANOPOULOS: When?

SALAZAR: It's a matter of days to complete the satellite imagery and to make sure that we have good numbers that are out there. We have good numbers relative to the amount of oil that is now being collected through the so-called riser insertion tube, where there's approximately 3,000 barrels a day that are being collected and not going out to sea. So, we can give the numbers. In terms of how much oil has openly spilled into the Gulf Coast, I can assure you we're going to have good numbers that will be put together by NASA, by USGS, by NOAA and others who are working on this.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You took some heat yesterday on Capitol Hill. Congressman John Mica of Florida, pointed out that your department gave BP a categorical exclusion last year from environmental regulations. Listen to what he said.

REP. JOHN MICA: I call this the Obama oil spill time line. I think this is the first time we have a public copy of this. This is their approval. It's basically a carte blanche recipe for disaster.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Carte blanche recipe for disaster. And that's not all. You gave BP and other oil companies permits without getting the proper clearances. You failed to conduct four monthly inspections of the rig over the last year. Approved dozens of projects without the right permits. Are these failures your responsibility? You were secretary at the time.

SALAZAR: You know, I think Congressman Mica should understand that this is not about finger-pointing. But, it's about solving an immediate problem. And the fact of it is there's responsibility to go around, from the companies to Congress, to the executive branch. The Congress is the one that mandates there be a 30-day approval of the exploration plans. And it's Congress has had that law in place for a number of years. And, so, Congress has a responsibility to step up and also to reform the laws of this country relative to the requirements of the development of energy in the outer continental shelf.

STEPHANOPOULOS: It sounds like you're shifting the blame back. These all happened on your watch.

SALAZAR: George- George- George, I'm not shifting the blame. I'm saying, we have responsibility here in the Department of Interior. We have been on a reform agenda from day one.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, sir, are you optimistic about efforts to cap the well on Sunday?

SALAZAR: You know, I am very hopeful that will happen. But, it's not risk-free. There's a possibility it will not happen on Sunday. But, right now, the schedule is to go ahead and do the so-called dynamic kill and finally put this thing to bed on Sunday. At least with respect to this first phase.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay, Mr. Secretary, thank you for your time this morning.

SALAZAR: Thank you, George.

ROBIN ROBERTS: Everyone's patience wearing thin on this right now.

In an interviewing with senate primary winner Rand Paul on Wednesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez asked the Kentucky Republican about Democratic spin: "What do you say to Democrats who actually are happy about your victory in this primary?...ready to pounce on you in the general election, saying that your views are way too controversial and they could take this Republican seat?"

Paul dismissed the idea and noted the unpopularity of Washington Democrats in the state: "I say, bring it on, and please, please bring President Obama to Kentucky. We'd love for him to campaign down here." Rodriguez acknowledged that fact by pointing out: "It didn't work too well for Arlen Specter to have President Obama on his side." Paul added: "the Democrats will really have to run away from President Obama if they have any chance down here."

Earlier in the interview, Rodriguez wondered if Paul could garner enough Republican support: "a lot of people say that you have your work cut out for you in the general election because how will you unite a GOP party...53% of voters who voted for your opponent in this primary don't like you, 43% said they wouldn't vote for you." After Paul discussed efforts to unify, Rodriguez followed up: "Do you think that your victory gives the tea party legitimacy? Will we see this become a legitimate political party?"

Prior to Rodriguez's interview with Paul, correspondent Jeff Glor reported on electoral results in various states on Tuesday, emphasizing one in particular: "The special congressional race here in Johnstown to replace the late John Murtha. This was seen as a critical bellwether....Democrat Mark Critz, a former John Murtha aide, was triumphant....Beating Republican Tim Burns in a blue collar district that actually went for John McCain in 2008."

Glor noted how both Democrats and Republicans "may have learned something" from the special election result, as a sound bite was featured from the Politics Editor for The Atlantic, Marc Ambinder: "Republicans are going to have to rethink their strategy, perhaps, of trying to nationalize the election, making it a referendum against Obama and the Democrats. Because, in this district, it didn't work." In reality, Critz ran against national Democratic figures like Nancy Pelosi and against ObamaCare.

No expert was brought on to discuss the lack of influence the Obama White House had on the Pennsylvania senate primary.  

Here is a full transcript of Rodriguez's May 19th interview with Paul:       

7:04AM EST

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Joining us this morning from Bowling Green, Kentucky, is the winner of the Republican primary, supported by the tea party, Rand Paul. Senator-elect, good morning – I mean, excuse me, not yet.

RAND PAUL: Good to be with you.

RODRIGUEZ: I guess you're optimistic that that will be-

PAUL: I'd like to skip the November – yeah, I'd like to skip the November election, also.

RODRIGUEZ: Oops, oops. Are you optimistic that that will be the outcome?

PAUL: Well, things look good in Kentucky. You know, if you look at all the polls, John McCain won Kentucky overwhelmingly, in a not so good year for Republicans. And President Obama's less popular in our state than he's ever been. And he never was very popular in Kentucky. So I think we have a very good chance in the fall.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Tea Party Politics; Paul Wins, Capitalizes on Frustration]

RODRIGUEZ: But a lot of people say that you have your work cut out for you in the general election because how will you unite a GOP party that, according to at least one poll, has an unfavorable view of you, 53% of voters who voted for your opponent in this primary don't like you, 43% said they wouldn't vote for you in the general election.

PAUL: Well, the interesting thing is we got nearly 60% of the vote, so I think that's a pretty good mandate from the Republican Party. And the other thing is, is that we're going to unify. I'm going to meet with Senator McConnell on Saturday. We've been talking, actually, for weeks now, about unifying. I've been talking with the Republican Party structure, and I think we will be unified going in to the fall. And I think the message we have is one that not only do Republicans like, a lot of independents like what I have to say. The tea party message is popular well outside the Republican Party.

RODRIGUEZ: But the tea party and the Republican Party, as you're stating, are not the same thing. Do you think that your victory gives the tea party legitimacy? Will we see this become a legitimate political party?

PAUL: No, I don't see the tea party really becoming a political party. But I see it having an influence on both parties. But I also see that the tea party really has ramifications outside the party, and that I think independents are attracted to it, as well.

RODRIGUEZ: What do you say to Democrats who actually are happy about your victory in this primary? Because they are ready to pounce on you in the general election, saying that your views are way too controversial and they could take this Republican seat?

PAUL: I say, bring it on, and please, please bring President Obama to Kentucky. We'd love for him to campaign down here.

RODRIGUEZ: Didn't work too well for Arlen Specter, did it?

PAUL: Run that by me one more time?

RODRIGUEZ: It didn't work too well for Arlen Specter to have President Obama on his side. What do you think that says?

PAUL: Yeah, I think you're right. I think you're right. And actually, in our Democrat primary a few years ago, Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama by 30 points, and he's a lot less popular than he was. And so really, I think his message – the Democrats will really have to run away from President Obama if they have any chance down here. And he's the leader of their party. It's just going to be very difficult for them in Kentucky.

RODRIGUEZ: Alright, Senator-elect wanna-be Rand Paul. I'm sorry for the slip. Although I'm sure you didn't mind it too much. Thank you, sir.

PAUL: Not at all. Thank you.

CBS's Early Show on Tuesday completely ignored the front page New York Times story on Democratic senatorial candidate Richard Blumenthal and his claims to have "served in Vietnam," despite having never done so.

NBC's Today mentioned the subject once in a news brief, but anchor Ann Curry described the Connecticut Democrat only as a "U.S. Senate candidate." On ABC's Good Morning America, co-host George Stephanopoulos described the development as a "huge story."

Yet, the show devoted less than a minute to the topic. Unlike the Early Show, however, Stephanopoulos at least used a party label, explaining that "this was considered a safe Democratic seat. Now, it could be in play."

Remarking on the proximity of the GMA studios to this story, co-host Robin Roberts observed, "Next door in Connecticut, we, you know, wake up. We see in the New York Times this morning about what's going on for Senator Dodd's seat."

Considering that Connecticut is so close to New York (where all the morning shows are filmed), it certainly would have been easy to have a reporter live on the scene.

Over on CNN, the cable network's American Morning covered the developing story with three news briefs. Co-host Kiran Chetry simply discussed the "U.S. Senate candidate."

In other anchor briefs, substitute host Jim Acosta referred to the scandal as something that "could be the biggest political story of the day, coming out of nowhere." He also labeled the allegations "stunning." But, again, no one on the show found time to note that Blumenthal is a Democrat.

A transcript of the May 18 network coverage follows:

GMA

7:12

ROBERTS: Next door in Connecticut, we, you know, wake up. We see in the New York Times this morning about what's going on for Senator Dodd's seat. That was a surprise.

STEPHANOPOULOS: This is a huge story, Robin. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, the Democrats had considered this a safe Senate seat.

ROBERTS: Yes!

STEPHANOPOULOS: But, the New York Times has discovered that on several occasions, he claimed to have served in Vietnam, even though he didn't. He served in the military during the Vietnam era. But, not in Vietnam. And the Attorney General is going to hold a press conference today to talk about that. But, as I said, this was considered a safe Democratic seat. Now, it could be in play.

Today

8:03

ANN CURRY: The New York Times is questioning claims by U.S. Senate candidate and Connecticut Attorney General Rich Blumenthal that he once served in Vietnam. Today, the paper is reporting that Blumenthal obtained military determents and served in the Marine reserves to avoid going to war. Blumenthal denies lying about his service, but says he may have misspoken.

On Monday, President Obama signed into law the "Press Freedom Act," but refused to answer a question from CBS White House correspondent Chip Reid at the conclusion of the signing ceremony. While Reid described the ironic incident on the CBSNews.com Political Hotsheet blog, neither Monday's Evening News nor Tuesday's Early Show mentioned the President's dodge.  

On the CBS blog, Reid described the purpose of the law, which "expands the State Department's annual human rights reports to include a description of press freedoms in each country." He then noted how "It seemed a good opportunity to showcase press freedom in this country....So after he signed the bill, and as the press 'wranglers' began aggressively herding us out of the room, I asked if he still has confidence in BP. He ignored the question."

Reid also pointed out that Obama "has not held a prime-time White House news conference in many months, despite much pleading from pundits and members of the media." However, not much of that "pleading" has been featured on CBS broadcasts.

Update below: Reid discusses the incident. 

In describing the exchange with the President, Reid recalled: "I tried this: 'In the interest of press freedom, would you take a couple questions on BP?' That did elicit a smile, and he told me I was free to ask questions. Someone else shouted, 'Will you answer them?' He said he's not holding a press conference today as we were escorted out the door."

RealClearPolitics.com featured video of the exchange. Interestingly, WhiteHouse.gov also posted video of the signing ceremony on YouTube, but made sure to edit out the President's back and forth with Reid. 

Update:  Talking to Mediaite.com's Tommy Christopher about the exchange with Obama, Reid declared that he was just trying to "express the frustration of the White House Press Corps" at the President's lack of press conferences. 

Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter could find himself out of a job Tuesday night, if his newly-adopted Democratic Party refuses to renominate the 80-year-old incumbent for a sixth term. For the establishment media, Specter’s chief value was as a Republican Senator they could quote espousing anti-conservative talking points usually uttered by liberal Democrats.

It will be interesting to see whether, if Specter is indeed rejected in favor of the more liberal Congressman Joe Sestak (late polls show a virtual dead heat), if that will trigger hand-wringing about the “fringe” of the Democratic Party drumming out a more “moderate” Senator.

A review of how the media have promoted Specter as more desirable than the rest of the GOP over the years, starting with Specter’s (brief) 1995 campaign for the Republican presidential nomination:

“And now joining us from Philadelphia, Senator Arlen Specter, who casts himself as an alternative candidate to the far-right fringe.”
— Today weekend host Giselle Fernandez, February 19, 1995.

“Do you think the fact that the Christian Coalition did not invite Arlen Specter to its convention, in fact, supports his assertion, allegation, that there is intolerance practiced by the religious right?”
— CNN anchor Gene Randall to Lamar Alexander on CNN’s Inside Politics, September 8, 1995.

“The Christian Coalition is holding its big political confab this weekend, has invited all GOP presidential candidates except one, Arlen Specter, the lone non-Christian candidate. Senator Specter, to be sure, has little support in this group, which he has assailed. But as the Simon Wiesenthal Center noted the other day, to exclude only one aspirant could create the impression it has something do with his faith.”
— Wall Street Journal Executive Washington Editor Al Hunt on CNN’s Capital Gang, September 9, 1995.

# After Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords switched to the Democratic Party in 2001:

“Even top Republicans are acknowledging that some soul searching is necessary now regarding how dissenting voices are treated within the Republican Party. Even Senator Arlen Specter said Jeffords’ defection is a very loud wake-up call. Isn’t it?”
— Question to Karen Hughes from CBS’s Jane Clayson, May 25, 2001 Early Show.

# Juxtaposed with conservatives against embryonic stem cell research:

Correspondent Bob Schieffer: “The problem is, many religious conservatives oppose such [embryonic stem cell] research, so the President limited federally-backed research only to cells already created in previous experiments. But will that be enough?...A leading Republican says the President’s plan simply does not make enough cell lines available.”
Senator Arlen Specter: “It has become apparent that many of the lines sighted are not really viable or robust or usable.”
Schieffer: “Specter and the scientific community want a much bigger and more aggressive research program....”
— CBS Evening News, September 5, 2001.

# Talking about the Bush administration’s program to have the National Security Agency eavesdrop on terrorists:

“We better all hope nothing happens to Arlen Specter, the Republican head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, because he might be all that’s standing between us and a full-blown dictatorship in this country.”
— CNN’s Jack Cafferty on The Situation Room, May 11, 2006.

# When Specter switched to the Democratic Party:

“There’s a big message here, which is that the Republican Party has moved so far to the right, that it is making itself uncompetitive in significant parts of the country, like the Northeast. This is really a cannon shot at them, saying this party is no longer competitive in lots of the country.”
— CNN political analyst Bill Schneider, 12pm ET hour of CNN Newsroom, April 28, 2009.

“Specter told us today he thought that he could not win re-election in a primary in his home state....Specter said he couldn’t risk that, and said that voters who tend to turn out in the primaries tend to be on the fringe of the party, not a moderate Republican like he is.”
— Kelly O’Donnell on the April 28, 2009 NBC Nightly News.

CBS reporter Chip Reid: “Moderate Senator Arlen Specter says he’s leaving the Republican Party because the Republican Party left him....Specter blames the party’s increasingly conservative tilt.”
Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA): “There ought to be a rebellion. There ought to be an uprising.”
— CBS Evening News, April 28, 2009.

White House reporter Chuck Todd: “For Arlen Specter the decision to leave the Republican Party was about self-preservation, but for the Republican Party it’s devastating — not just to their hopes of slowing President Obama’s agenda in Congress but for what it says about the future of the GOP.”
Talk radio host Michael Smerconish: “The Republican Party in the aftermath of the presidential race should have come to him and tried to clone him. They need more Arlen Specters. And instead they deride him as a R.I.N.O — Republican In Name Only.”
— NBC’s Today, April 29, 2009.

At the end of Sunday's Face the Nation on CBS, host Bob Schieffer gushed over a recent trip to the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library and one exhibit in particular: "honoring Walter Cronkite....those moments in American history captured by TV...when Walter always seemed to be there....the little things we never saw, Walter's scripts, his pipe, and his office, just the way it was."

Schieffer observed that a tribute to Cronkite being at the library of the Democratic president was a "perfect fit" and noted how: "Johnson liked and respected Walter. Walter liked and respected Johnson." Schieffer went on to fondly remember Cronkite's denunciation of the Vietnam War: "When Walter returned from Vietnam and concluded in a documentary the war was unwinnable, Johnson remarked to an aide, 'if I've lost Cronkite, I've lost America.' And so he had....When Walter came out against the war, he did something he almost never did – he took sides."

While specifically citing Cronkite's bias against the war, Schieffer failed to comment on a Friday report that revealed FBI documents detailing allegations that the then CBS Evening News anchor offered to rent a helicopter to transport Democratic Senator Ed Muskie to an anti-war rally in Florida in November of 1969.   

Instead, Schieffer admitted: "Walter was the person I always wanted to be when I was a very young reporter, the person I'm still trying to be, truth be told."

He concluded his commentary by making a ringing endorsement: "Visit the Johnson Library this summer. It's a fascinating experience, one of the best of the presidential libraries and the Cronkite exhibit makes it even better."

Here is a full transcript:

10:54AM

BOB SCHIEFFER: Finally today, I was at the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library in Austin, Texas this weekend for the opening of an exhibit honoring Walter Cronkite. The exhibit has it all, those moments in American history captured by TV. The Kennedy assassination, the moonwalks, the interviews with presidents, when Walter always seemed to be there. Plus the little things we never saw, Walter's scripts, his pipe, and his office, just the way it was.

That the exhibit is at the LBJ Library to me is the perfect fit. Johnson liked and respected Walter. Walter liked and respected Johnson. And history will always link them. When Walter returned from Vietnam and concluded in a documentary the war was unwinnable, Johnson remarked to an aide, 'if I've lost Cronkite, I've lost America.' And so he had.

Touring the exhibit brought back many memories for me. Johnson was the first politician I ever saw. I was 11-years-old, and he was campaigning for the Senate in 1948. And Walter was the person I always wanted to be when I was a very young reporter, the person I'm still trying to be, truth be told.

When Walter came out against the war, he did something he almost never did – he took sides. And I am going to do something I almost never do – offer a vacation tip. Visit the Johnson Library this summer. It's a fascinating experience, one of the best of the presidential libraries and the Cronkite exhibit makes it even better.

The birth control pill was invented 50 years ago this month. CBS Nightly News anchor Katie Couric was all set to "break out the cake and streamers." But first, she wanted to inform her viewers of a pressing national need: federal subsidies for the pill. Seriously.

Couric was distraught during her "Notebook" segment last night that, in her mind, not enough women have access to birth control. Her solution? Classify it as "preventive medicine" so that federal funds can be allocated to distributing it under the new health care law. Calling birth control "preventive medicine" seems to assume that pregnancy is a medical disorder of some sort, but I digress.

The segment runs like an infomercial for the liberal position on birth control. It lauds Planned Parenthood, the "need" for publicly funded birth control, and even throws in a dash of anti-insurance company populism. Couric caps the segment off by saying, "We've come a long way, baby, but not far enough." (Video and transcript below the fold - h/t Story Balloon)

This month marks the 50th anniversary of the birth control pill, a tiny tablet that revolutionized women's health.

But before we break out the cake and streamers, we should remember the pill is still off limits to millions of American women.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, roughly 17.4 million low-income women need publicly-funded contraception but only 9.4 million are receiving it. As many as 8 million lack adequate care.

Planned Parenthood and other groups are trying to address this gap by encouraging the government to define contraception as preventive medicine, so it's covered under health care reform at little or no cost to the patient.

Insurance companies might balk at that idea, but with half of all pregnancies still unplanned, it deserves careful consideration.

After 50 years of safe, effective birth control, it's too easy to overlook those who can't afford it. We've come a long way, baby... but not far enough.

That's a page from my notebook.

Is anyone still claiming that network news is objective?

On CBS's Sunday Morning, correspondent Dean Reynolds described the latest adaptation of the Robin Hood legend by director Ridley Scott and starring Russell Crowe: "And so here is an evil King John, squeezing his subjects for more taxes....And here is Robin. Not as a thief, but as a revolutionary figure trying to limit the King's power. Robin Hood meets Che Guevara." [Audio available here]   

Protesting high taxes and wanting to limit government power is the equivalent of a Communist revolution? Sounds more like the Tea Party movement.

After making that bizarre comparison, Reynolds further explained the plot of the new film: "This Robin joins the fight to get the English king to sign the Magna Carta in the year 1215, the document establishing the first rights on which modern democracies are based." Guevara, of course, was the ruthless henchman of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, hardly an advocate for democracy.

Here is a transcript of a portion of Reynold's report:

9:38AM

DEAN REYNOLDS: Prepare for Russell Crowe's fight scenes. The new version directed by Ridley Scott is a kind of Robin Hood meets Gladiator meets Saving Private Ryan. And it makes some claim to being, if not historically accurate, at least set in a proper historic context.

RUSSELL CROWE: Robin isn't a super hero. He's not – he doesn't have a cape. And he's – he isn't a cartoon. What we tried to do was find out who the real person was, you know? And sift through history and see which ground was fertile for a rebel leader like Robin Hood.

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR [KING JOHN]: Taxation.

REYNOLDS: And so here is an evil King John, squeezing his subjects for more taxes.

ACTOR [AS JOHN]: The crown is owed money at home.

REYNOLDS: And here is Robin.

RUSSELL CROWE [ROBIN HOOD]: We're trying to build for the future.

REYNOLDS: Not as a thief, but as a revolutionary figure trying to limit the King's power. Robin Hood meets Che Guevara.

CROWE [AS HOOD]: Empower every man and you will gain strength.

REYNOLDS: This Robin joins the fight to get the English king to sign the Magna Carta in the year 1215, the document establishing the first rights on which modern democracies are based.

CROWE: And when we spread history in front of us on a table, we found that the very first time the Magna Carta was signed, and the Magna Carta, obviously, is directly related to the Declaration of Independence, and it seeks to redress the balance of rights and privileges. We started thinking, well, you count back from when that was signed and why did this particular monarch – why was he brought to the table? And it may well have been because he had somebody like a Robin Hood breathing down his neck.

REYNOLDS: It's a preposterous idea, of course, but preposterous in a good way, thinks our modern Robin of today's Sherwood Forest, Aide Andrews.

AIDE ANDREWS: And so now in the 21st century, Robin Hood is being reinterpreted. And that's the beauty of folklore, isn't it? That's the magic of folklore, because here's the-

REYNOLDS: It's still alive today, you're saying.

ANDREWS: Very much so. It's living, breathing tradition. And that's where the magic is. That's what's important about Robin Hood.

REYNOLDS: The forest has changed. Notingham has changed, presumably the sheriff now works here. And if Robin Hood is still a living legend here, he's also an industry. Every time a new Robin shows up on the screen, people show up here. And what's wrong with that?

ANDREWS: The legends are all about escape into the wild wood, aren't they? They're all about freedom, you know, away from this modern world as such. So we too can escape through those stories into the ancient wild wood. And that's got to be – that's got to be good. Isn't it?

On Wednesday's CBS Early Show, correspondent Elizabeth Palmer reported on Conservative Party leader David Cameron becoming the new British prime minister, but downplayed the political shift: "Cameron is a conservative in the British sense. In favor of gay rights, a green agenda, and the welfare state."

While in American conservative terms Cameron would certainly be considered a moderate, for Britain, the swing from 13 years of rule by the liberal Labour Party to a Conservative becoming head of state was quite significant.

Palmer cited more evidence of Cameron's supposed liberalism: "In fact, in his victory speech, addressing the huge challenges facing debt-ridden Britain, he even paraphrased John F. Kennedy." A clip was played of Cameron declaring: "One where we don't just ask, what are my entitlements? But what are my responsibilities? When we don't ask where, what am I just owed, but more, what can I give?" Calling on people to not simply rely on government entitlements hardly sounds like a liberal tenet.  

Meanwhile, on Tuesday, the Early Show fretted over President Obama's Supreme Court pick, Elena Kagan, not being liberal enough and possibly even conservative.

Palmer concluded her Wednesday report by noting: "President Barack Obama was the first foreign leader to call with congratulations and an invitation to visit Washington in July." She made no mention of Obama's strained relationship with Britain since taking office.

Here is a full transcript of the report:

7:11AM

BETTY NGUYEN: Britain's new prime minister is getting down to business today. David Cameron is the first prime minister from the Conservative Party in 13 years. CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer is in London with the latest. Good morning, Elizabeth.

ELIZABETH PALMER: Good morning, Betty. The British election was actually last Thursday. But the Conservatives didn't manage to win an outright majority then. So we've had a five-day political cliffhanger. Horse trading and back room dealing that finally, late last night, produced the first coalition government in Britain since the Second World War.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Strange Political Bedfellows; First Day of Britain's New Coalition Government]

Britain's new coalition partners shook hands this morning outside number 10 Downing Street. 43-year-old Conservative David Cameron is the youngest prime minister in 200 years. His deputy is Nick Clegg, from the Liberal Democratic Party. David Cameron, with his wife Samantha, paid the traditional visit to Queen Elizabeth last night, and accepted her invitation to form a government. Cameron is a conservative in the British sense. In favor of gay rights, a green agenda, and the welfare state. In fact, in his victory speech, addressing the huge challenges facing debt-ridden Britain, he even paraphrased John F. Kennedy.

DAVID CAMERON: One where we don't just ask, what are my entitlements? But what are my responsibilities? When we don't ask where, what am I just owed, but more, what can I give?

PALMER: President Barack Obama was the first foreign leader to call with congratulations and an invitation to visit Washington in July. Now, that's five months down the road and they're likely to be five – I beg your pardon, that's a couple months down the road. Likely to be very rough months, because Britain's facing enormous debt problems, and the government's already said it's going to cut billions from public spending in the next few months. Betty.

NGUYEN: CBS's Elizabeth Palmer in London. Thank you.

In the latest example of a pattern of opacity, the White House has cut off the press's access to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. Kagan has extensive ties to journalists, which only serves as a testament to this administration's determination to control the message on its major initiatives, including Kagan's nomination.

"Tell her we're deeply frustrated," one reporter told White House press secretary Robert Gibbs of the administration's refusal to grant Kagan a traditional interview with the press. Kagan did do a short interview with a White House staff member released only online, in what CBS White House correspondent Peter Maer called "Kagan 'in her own words' without anyone else's words."

Washington Examiner White House correspondent Julie Mason was harsher in her criticism. The White House interview "doesn't count toward the administration's 'accountability' totals," she wrote on the paper's Beltway Confidential blog. "It's just another campaign commercial, masquerading as openness."

The New York Times's Sheryl Gay Stolberg was also disappointed by the interview.

Not surprisingly, there were no questions about her views on abortion, or executive power, or affirmative action, or any of the other hot-button issues that conservatives and liberals alike would love to hear her address. Rather, the video is a bland, overly scripted take on a woman who, by all accounts, is warm, funny and engaging.

The White House's interview with Kagan -- and its simultaneous refusal to allow the press corps meaningful access to the Solicitor General -- is but the latest example of the the administration's concerted efforts to control the flow of information by circumventing traditional journalists.

"This White House has taken its use of the web to a new level with this move," Maer noted. But the strategy has been ongoing for a while.

"[T]echnology gives this White House … the ability to distribute content to millions over the Internet without relying on third parties," reported Lloyd Grove last month.

Of course the press corps is not happy about the White Hosue's new reliance on new media. Helen Thomas told Grove that "we’re all suffering from the real lack of true communication… We can be ignored totally—almost. The White House feels they have other ways."

In all, Politico reported in late April, President Obama "has severely cut back the informal exchanges with the press pool, marking a new low in presidential access." He has also held very few formal press conferences. The last one was in July.

I have praised the White House's new media-centric communications strategy -- and taken on Thomas's criticisms -- as a means to avoid the liberal tint given the news by the overwhelmingly liberal press corps. But the strategy is only beneficial if the White House chooses to share information.

There is no reason that a Supreme Court nominee should have to field questions from a small, exclusive, and predominately leftist group of reporters. But a White House that touted transparency in governance as much as this one did needs to share information in some way if it wishes to live up to its own standards.

Rather than using technology to expand the sharing of information, this White House is using it to restrict it. The online-only Kagan interview was not a means to inform more Americans on the key questions surrounding her nomination, but rather to insulate her from those questions.

It serves as a testament to the White House's efforts that despite Kagan's extensive connections to journalists and major legacy media players, the administration has been able, thus far, to completely control the flow of information, post-nomination.

Politico reported today on Kagan's many media connections:

For Elena Kagan, this much is true: She has friends in journo circles. Seems like everybody has a "Kagan Connection."…

"I first met Kagan in the mid-'90s when we were both former law clerks for Judge Abner Mikva on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit," wrote The New Republic's Jeffrey Rosen.

"Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan and I shared a dinner table once," wrote Washington Post writer Jonathan Capehart.

"I had her for two classes" at Harvard Law School, said CBS' Jan Crawford Greenberg. "But she was very challenging, while at the same time very engaging and lively."

And those are just her periphery acquaintances.

"Elena danced at our wedding in 1986," wrote The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin. "When my wife, Amy, and I bought our first apartment, Elena’s father was our lawyer."

David Brooks wrote: "Kagan has many friends along the Acela corridor, thanks to her time at Hunter College High School, Princeton, Harvard and in Democratic administrations. So far, I haven’t met anybody who is not an admirer."

CQ's Seth Stern told MSNBC: "I was her student in administrative law class" at Harvard.

And, as Howard Kurtz points out, she was even once a lawyer for the Washington Post.

Is it "weird that the White House would choose this  controversial approach in its media unveiling of Kagan," as Politico's Patrick Gavin suggests? It seems that it is quite in line with the White House's communications strategy.

It is controversial, yes, but it seems that the administration would rather stir up controversy with people who don't know Kagan and think they should, than with people who do know her, and don't like her.

In an interview with Senator John Kerry on Wednesday's CBS Early Show on the Gulf Coast oil spill, co-host Maggie Rodriguez hit from the left on new energy legislation proposed by the Massachusetts Democrat: "correct me if I'm wrong, your legislation calls for expanding offshore drilling at a time when polls show most Americans no longer support it. Why do you believe it's necessary to do that?"

A CBS News poll flashed on screen showing that only 46% Americans now support offshore oil drilling in the wake of the spill, as opposed to 62% supporting it in 2008. Kerry responded by pointing out that his bill would "actually restrict the current plan of the President" to expand offshore drilling. Rodriguez pressed further: "Are you saying it does not call for expanded offshore drilling?" Kerry reiterated: "I'm saying that it restricts the current law and it restricts the President's current plan."

Kerry began the interview by touting his desire to restrict oil production: "we have to really take the steps that we've been talking about for 30 years, for too long now, to move away from our energy dependence on fossil fuels, and particularly on imported fuel....The importance is now to move to the new economy." Apparently anything short of an all out ban on offshore drilling was not enough for Rodriguez.

Later in the segment, spurred by Rodriguez, Kerry proclaimed: "we're not going to stop drilling all of a sudden....it isn't going to disappear until we put our bill in place."

On the April 1 Early Show, after the Obama administration first outlined a plan to expand offshore drilling, Rodriguez warned: "President Obama's controversial offshore drilling proposal is making big waves. Critics say the risks are obvious, but not the rewards." She later fretted that Obama was enacting the policy "at the risk of alienating his Democratic base."

Here is a full transcript of the interview:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Joining us from Washington, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. Senator Kerry, good morning.

JOHN KERRY: Good morning to you.

RODRIGUEZ: As we've just heard, BP keeps trying, and so far failing, to contain all these oil leaks. How can our government, how can you assure the American people that everything necessary will be done to make sure this doesn't happen again?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Blame Game; Sen. Kerry on Oil Spill Finger-Pointing]

KERRY: Well, it's going to be. We're – Senator Lieberman and I – are introducing legislation today called the American Power Act, which is a major shift in America's energy policy. What this spill in the Gulf tells us, above all, is that we have to really take the steps that we've been talking about for 30 years, for too long now, to move away from our energy dependence on fossil fuels, and particularly on imported fuel.

The importance is now to move to the new economy, the new – the new energy economy, if you will, where we're producing our energy at home. We're producing green energy. We're producing clean energy. Energy which can't ultimately have the kind of problem that we had in the Gulf. But we also, we know we're going to continue to drill for some period of time, so we have to make certain we know exactly what happened in the Gulf, and that we have the ability to prevent that from ever happening again.

Most importantly, we need to get in to the global marketplace and compete with China, with India, with Mexico, Brazil, other countries. America's falling behind. We want America to be number one in clean energy power production. We can reduce pollution, create jobs, and restore our energy independence, and that's the direction we have to move in.

RODRIGUEZ: But Senator Kerry, correct me if I'm wrong, your legislation calls for expanding offshore drilling at a time when polls show most Americans no longer support it. Why do you believe it's necessary to do that?

[ON-SCREEN GRAPHIC OF CBS NEWS POLL: Increase Offshore Drilling; Now: 46%; 2008: 62%]

KERRY: That's not what we do. We actually restrict the current plan of the President. We give states greater power, and say, over their future, we give them a choice-

RODRIGUEZ: Are you saying it does not-

KERRY: -as to what will happen.

RODRIGUEZ: -call for expanded offshore drilling?

KERRY: I'm saying that it restricts – I'm saying that it restricts the current law and it restricts the President's current plan. That is exactly what I am saying. It gives states greater power to be able to make a choice about what will happen in the future in terms of drilling. And in addition to that, it places a moratorium on current drilling until we know what happened in the Gulf, and then we proceed forward.

But, look, we're not going to stop drilling all of a sudden. Americans drive their cars every day. We heat our homes. We do things with this oil. And it isn't going to disappear until we put our bill in place. The American Power Act, which will move us to a new energy economy, where we're producing clean energy, a broader array of energy options for the country, so we could have clean energy produced in one part of the country, transferred to another part of the country. All of that is going to take time. And we are putting in place the mechanism so we can reduce pollution, clean up our air and our water, create jobs here at home, and increase America's energy independence, thereby strengthening our national security. That's exactly what our bill does today.

RODRIGUEZ: Alright. Senator John Kerry, thank you so much for your time.

KERRY: Thank you. 

As the MRC’s Tim Graham documented yesterday, ABC and NBC's morning and evening newscasts have so far refused to tag Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan as a “liberal,” with CBS’s Jan Crawford offering the sole ideological label of the nominee on Monday's Evening News: “Her career has put her solidly on the left.”

In contrast, all three networks made a major deal out of the last person nominated by a Republican President for a slot on the Court, Justice Samuel Alito. Out of the first 21 stories on the ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news shows after Justice Alito’s selection, correspondents conveyed ten explicit “conservative” labels during the first 36 hours of coverage. In contrast, Graham documented just one “liberal” label in 14 Kagan stories during the equivalent time period after her selection.

In Alito’s case, the networks began trumpeting ideology from the moment he was picked. Anchor Charles Gibson opened ABC’s Special Report announcing Alito’s nomination: “He is very conservative. This is a liberal appellate court, but he is the most conservative  member on it....The President has picked someone very conservative, but a very accomplished jurist as well.”

Over on CBS, correspondent Thalia Assuras began: “Well, this nominee is a conservative that should make conservative Republicans very happy....” After the announcement, correspondent Gloria Borger tweaked: “He may be called ‘Scalito’ because he’s quite conservative, but the conservatives say he is not bombastic like Justice Scalia can sometimes be.”

On NBC, Matt Lauer began his network’s live coverage: “In just a minute or so, President Bush will nominate conservative appeals court Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.” Co-anchor Katie Couric agreed: “Alito is a favorite on the right, and he would replace moderate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.”

Nearly all of the early coverage made Alito’s ideology the centerpiece: “This is the candidate conservatives wanted and Democrats feared,” ABC’s George Stephanopoulos opined on the October 31, 2005 World News Tonight, a few hours after Alito was selected. “Conservatives love him, but some Democrats are already lining up to fight his nomination,” NBC’s Matt Lauer announced the next morning on Today.

But reporters did more than just note which ideological camps liked and disliked Alito — they saw no problem with affixing the “conservative” label on him themselves:

# ABC World News Tonight, October 31: Anchor Elizabeth Vargas: “He is said to be brilliant and A STAUNCH CONSERVATIVE.”

Reporter Terry Moran: “He quickly established a reputation on the bench as brilliant and deeply CONSERVATIVE.”

# CBS Evening News, October 31: Anchor Bob Schieffer: “Conservatives wanted a CONSERVATIVE on the Supreme Court, and said the President ought to risk a fight in the Senate to get one. Their wishes have been fulfilled.”

Correspondent John Roberts: “If confirmed, Alito would wipe out the swing seat now occupied by Sandra Day O'Connor, tilting the Supreme Court in a SOLIDLY CONSERVATIVE direction for years to come.”

# NBC Nightly News, October 31: Correspondent Pete Williams: “Alito is considered dependably CONSERVATIVE, though with an independent streak.”

Williams, later in the same story: “Perhaps because he and Justice Scalia are both Italian American, Catholic and CONSERVATIVE, he’s been nicknamed ‘Scalito.’”

# CBS’s The Early Show, November 1: Co-host Harry Smith: “A bitter partisan confirmation battle is brewing over President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito. We’ll speak with members of the Judiciary Committee and take a closer look at the CONSERVATIVE judge.”

Reporter Thalia Assuras: “Alito’s CONSERVATIVE stance would eliminate the swing vote of outgoing Justice Sandra Day O’Connor....”

# NBC’s Today, November 1: Co-host Katie Couric: “President Bush’s latest Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito, is known for his solid CONSERVATIVE record and a well-developed sense of humor....”

Five weeks ago (covered at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), the Big Three Networks' combined evening news audiences dropped to below 20 million -- an audience about 5% less than what Matt Drudge in the summer of 2006 headlined as “TV’s Lowest Week.”

Three weeks ago (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), their combined audience came in at 19.61 million, down over 12% from the previous year.

For the week of May 3, the combined total fell further, to the point where they're one more really bad week away from hitting an all-time low -- a low that was "achieved" in mid-June of last year (Source -- Media Bistro, week of May 3, 2010; week of May 4, 2009):

The May 3, 2010 combined total audience is less than 2% higher than the 19.06 million of June 15, 2009. The 25-54 demo audience is less than 200,000 above that same week.

Those who properly point out that the audience figures cited here are much larger than seen on cable news networks can take some comfort and solace in the following:

• Just 10 years ago, the nets' evening news audience was about 12 million larger in a country with a population that was about 9% smaller.
• At this point, it's likely that many people who continue to watch these shows, other than the brave souls at the Media Research Center who do it so the rest of us don't have to, are lost causes to conservatism. Otherwise, they couldn't bear sitting through what Brian, Diane, and Katie constantly feed them. The fact that their numbers are shrinking may mean that more people are open to sensible conservative arguments.
• Though it's difficult to gauge, it seems that right and center-right new media outlets are gathering a bit of a head of steam compared to the leftist counterparts.

Anyway, the regularly scheduled summer viewing slump is only a month away. Two words: Faster please.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Late in Tuesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez interviewed 9-year-old actress Fatima Ptacek and wondered: "What do you want to be when you grow up?" Ptacek replied: "I definitely want to be the first female president. But I also want to be a lawyer, so I can protect those innocent people." Rodriguez gushed: "Oh, that's good. You sound like President Obama."

Rodriguez then remarked: "So he [Obama] went to Harvard. Where do you want to go to college?" Ptacek predictably responded: "Harvard."

Later in the interview, Rodriguez mentioned a recent television appearance by Ptacek: "And you've gotten to do some really cool things. What was it like to be on Sesame Street with Michelle Obama?" Ptacek declared: "It was an amazing experience, Michelle Obama is very sweet, very down to earth. She's great." Rodriguez asked: "Did she give you any words of wisdom?"

Ptacek revealed that she had written letters back and forth with the First Lady, prompting Rodriguez to excitedly proclaim: "You're pen pals with Mrs. Obama? Well that's a nice perk, isn't it?" Ptacek joked: "It's great. And I look up to her, literally." Rodriguez added: "Yeah, she's very tall. I look up to her, too."

Rodriguez concluded the segment: "Fatima, congrats....It's a pleasure to meet you, good luck....Madame President."

This is not the first time Rodriguez jumped to a Barack Obama comparison. On the April 13 Early Show, the President was the first person on her mind when she remarked to Entertainment Weekly assistant managing editor Dalton Ross that comedian Conan O'Brien would need a "young revolution, you know, a la President Obama" in order for his new TBS cable show to be a success.

On the March 8 broadcast, fellow co-host Erica Hill described a "compassion boom" of volunteerism in America, as her guest, Parade Magazine contributing editor Emily Listfield argued: "There's something we call the 'Obama Effect.' People are responding to the President's call to service."

Here is a transcript of relevant portions of Rodriguez's Tuesday interview with Ptacek:

8:34AM

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: I know school is super important to you. You're in an academically gifted program and you have high aspirations, right?

PTACEK: Yeah, so I got to keep up. But I'm doing it.

RODRIGUEZ: What do you want to be when you grow up? I heard you want to be the first female president.

PTACEK: Yes, I definitely want to be the first female president. But I also want to be a lawyer, so I can protect those innocent people.

RODRIGUEZ: Oh, that's good. You sound like President Obama. So he went to Harvard. Where do you want to go to college?

PTACEK: Harvard.

RODRIGUEZ: You want to go to Harvard?

PTACEK: Definitely.

...

RODRIGUEZ: And you've gotten to do some really cool things. What was it like to be on Sesame Street with Michelle Obama?

PTACEK: It was an amazing experience, Michelle Obama is very sweet, very down to earth. She's great.

RODRIGUEZ: And she has two daughters. Did she give you any words of wisdom?

PTACEK: No, not really. She was really, really focused on what she had to do because she had to flight out right afterwards.

RODRIGUEZ: Yeah.

PTACEK: But, you know, we got to speak, to get to know each other and sometimes we send letters to each other, say hello.

RODRIGUEZ: You do?

PTACEK: Yeah.

RODRIGUEZ: You're pen pals with Mrs. Obama? Well that's a nice perk, isn't it?

PTACEK: It's great. And I look up to her, literally.

RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, she's very tall. I look up to her, too.

In an interview with Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith lamented President Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court: "Liberals feel let down because she would be filling a seat left by John Paul Stevens, they don't feel like she's enough – has enough gravitas to fill his shoes."

In his first question to Biden, Smith fretted: "Some people have said she's a person so careful as to leave no footprint. Do you really know what you're getting? Do the American people know what they're getting?" Smith went on to question Kagan's qualifications: "she's never been a public defender, she's never been a prosecutor, she's never been a judge. Most of her career has been in Washington or in an ivy or ivory tower."

In an interview with Republican Senator Jeff Sessions immediately following the Biden interview, co-host Maggie Rodriguez went so far as to wonder if Kagan would have a conservative influence on the court: "When she worked for the Clinton administration, Ms. Kagan asked the President to support a ban on all abortions of viable fetuses except when the mother's health was at risk. And some analysts have used that example to show that she may actually shift the court to the Right, compared with Justice Stevens. How do you respond to that?"

Rodriguez was referring to a Monday Associated Press report that detailed a memo Kagan wrote in 1997, advising Clinton to support a ban on partial-birth abortions. However, Rodriguez failed to note that the article concludes that Kagan's advice was "more of a political calculation than a legal brief." It pointed out:

The abortion proposal was a compromise by Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle. Clinton supported it, but the proposal failed and Clinton vetoed a stricter Republican ban. In a May 13, 1997, memo from the White House domestic policy office, Kagan and her boss, Bruce Reed, told Clinton that abortion rights groups opposed Daschle's compromise. But they urged the president to support it, saying he otherwise risked seeing a Republican-led Congress override his veto on the stricter bill.

In other words, Kagan recommended Clinton support the more moderate ban, rather than risk the possibility that the Republican Congress would push through tougher legislation. The memo was more about political expediency than a statement of principle by Kagan.

Rodriguez began the interview with Sessions by citing Biden: "I'd like first to ask you to respond to Vice President Biden's prediction that Elena Kagan will be confirmed with strong bipartisan support. Will, as he put it, his 'Republican friends' proceed as he expects they will?" At the end of his interview with Smith, Biden had proclaimed: "I am confident of that, assuming that our Republican friends proceed as I expect they will....I think she'll pass and I think she'll pass with strong bipartisan support."

On Monday night, the CBS Evening News was the only network evening newscast to identify Kagan as a liberal. It appears Tuesday's Early Show was trying to back off that label.

Here is a full transcript of Smith's interview with Biden:

7:06AM

HARRY SMITH Joining us from Wilmington, Delaware is Vice President Joe Biden. Mr. Vice President, good morning.

JOE BIDEN: Hey, Harry. How you doing, man.

SMITH: Very well. All kinds of criticism coming this morning about the choice of Elena Kagan to be the next Supreme Court justice, associate justice. Some people have said she's a person so careful as to leave no footprint. Do you really know what you're getting? Do the American people know what they're getting?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Supreme Choice; V.P. on Kagan Decision]

BIDEN: Well, the American people see what they're getting. They're getting a woman who is practical, a woman who is committed, a woman who is open-minded, and a woman who does what judges are supposed to do, listen to both sides of the argument. And I do know her, she used to work for me on the Judiciary Committee years ago, when we were both a lot younger, she's still young. And I do know her and she has an exemplary record, Harry, and she's a tenured professor at Chicago, left to go work for the government, then became Dean of Harvard Law School, the first woman in the history of that great institution, and she left to become solicitor general. And she's now what everybody calls the 10th justice, Supreme Court justice, solicitor general.

SMITH: Liberals feel let down because she would be filling a seat left by John Paul Stevens, they don't feel like she's enough – has enough gravitas to fill his shoes.

BIDEN: Well, look, John Paul Stevens, who swore me in as Vice President of the United States, is a friend and I don't know that anybody's going to fill his shoes. But when John Paul Stevens was appointed, I don't recall liberals being particularly happy at the time. And the fact of the matter is, this woman is incredibly qualified. Again, Dean of the Harvard Law School, solicitor general. I mean, look at the people whose record she is similar to. Rehnquist, Justice Jackson, Marshall. I mean, you know, these are – you know, she is – she comes with a very strong record.

SMITH: On the other side of this, though, Mr. Vice President, people will say, well, where is – she's never been a public defender, she's never been a prosecutor, she's never been a judge. Most of her career has been in Washington or in an ivy or ivory tower.

BIDEN: Well, I think that criticism will be made, but I point out Justice Jackson, Hugo Black, although he was a senator, you have Rehnquist, Chief Justice Rehnquist, who never was any of the things you just mentioned. And so her – I guess her career most closely parallels Rehnquist, except she's solicitor general. And she's the dean of a famous law school. But look, there are a number of really incredible justices who have never been prosecutors, never been a judge, never been a public defender.

SMITH: The political climate grows more contentious by the day. Are you confident-

BIDEN: That's true.

SMITH: -she is confirmable by the end of the summer and would be ready to take the bench by fall?

BIDEN: I am confident of that, assuming that our Republican friends proceed as I expect they will, they've had plenty of time, there's been plenty of notice. They moved expeditiously with Sotomayor and we moved with, when President Bush's last two nominees. We moved them in plenty of time. I think there'll be, you know, a lot of noise, but this is a mainstream incredibly qualified woman to be the third woman to sit on the Supreme Court. I think – I think she'll pass and I think she'll pass with strong bipartisan support.

SMITH: Vice President Joe Biden, we thank you for your time this morning. Do appreciate it.

BIDEN: Thanks a lot, Harry.

Here is a full transcript of Rodriguez's interview with Sessions:

7:10AM

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Republican Senator Jeff Sessions is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He voted against Elena Kagan's nomination for solicitor general last year and this morning he joins us live from Capitol Hill. Senator Sessions, good morning to you.

JEFF SESSIONS: Thank you, good to be with you.

RODRIGUEZ: Good to have you. I'd like first to ask you to respond to Vice President Biden's prediction that Elena Kagan will be confirmed with strong bipartisan support. Will, as he put it, his 'Republican friends' proceed as he expects they will?

JEFF SESSIONS: I think the Congress and the Senate needs to examine her record carefully. This is not a coronation. She's going to be subjected to scrutiny. We need to know whether or not, once she obtains that robe and sits on that bench, will she be an objective person, will she say no even to the Obama administration and some of their agenda items if they're unconstitutional. She's got to demonstrate that or she shouldn't be given a lifetime appointment.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Concerns Over Kagan; Sen. Sessions on GOP's Objections]

RODRIGUEZ: When she worked for the Clinton administration, Ms. Kagan asked the President to support a ban on all abortions of viable fetuses except when the mother's health was at risk. And some analysts have used that example to show that she may actually shift the court to the Right, compared with Justice Stevens. How do you respond to that?

SESSIONS: I don't sense that she would, on that issue, move the court to the Right. That partial birth abortion situation was something that is to me unthinkable that somebody would oppose that. So she was correct on that for sure. But I don't know that that reflects any serious disagreement with the court's view on abortion.

RODRIGUEZ: What do you need to hear that would convince you to support her as a justice of the Supreme Court?

SESSIONS: I'm not sure what we'll be looking to hear. I'll be meeting with her personally, I look forward to that. She's got a good academic background. But not much actual practical experience. Her – most of her actual legal experience has been in sort of political law, been within the Clinton administration or the Obama administration. We need to know that she's got the personal discipline that good judges and good lawyers have so that day after day, week after week, it won't be her politics or her ideology, but the law and her fidelity to it, will – that will decide how she handles her cases.

RODRIGUEZ: Has she, in your view, shown otherwise as solicitor general?

SESSIONS: I think we're going to look at that record. It's not been long, just a little over a year. It's a good legal position. It's the first real significant legal position she's ever had. So I think it is something to examine.

RODRIGUEZ: And lastly, your prediction, will she or won't she be confirmed by the summer, ready to take the bench by the fall?

SESSIONS: Well, I'm not going to predict that. I think it'll depend on how well she does. The American people need to know that this appointment is very, very important for our country. The next Supreme Court, as configured, will decide many important issues about the limited nature of the federal government and is it actually limited still today. So those are important issues. Her background is on the other side. She's been a liberal political activist throughout her life. And she'll need to put that aside and be an objective judge. That will be, I think, the examination's center.

RODRIGUEZ: Alright, Senator Jeff Sessions, thank you so much for your time, sir.

SESSIONS: Thank you.

In the 7:30AM ET half hour on Monday's CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez lobbed softballs to disgraced former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer about his college friend and Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan: "She's been labeled as moderate. If you had to put a label on her, would you say that one is accurate?" A headline on screen read: "Who is Elena Kagan?"

Spitzer replied: "I guess you could say moderate....it's very hard to pigeon hole her." Rodriguez's question was prompted by his insistence that Kagan "is not an ideologue of the Left or the Right and that is clear from what she did as dean of Harvard Law School. Just a perfect temperament to be a justice." Of course, during Kagan's tenure as dean of Harvard Law, she pushed for military recruiters to be barred from campus because of her opposition to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy.   

Rodriguez wondered about Kagan's college days: "Can you think of a story or an anecdote from back then?" Spitzer recalled: "a friend and I were going back and forth about who could eat more, she goaded us into having a spaghetti eating contest." Rodriguez looked for the best way to spin the story to make it relevant: "I'm trying to take something from that, could it be that she's persuasive, can bring people together, which is what the President is hoping?" In response, Spitzer declared that once on the Supreme Court, Kagan "will get the fifth vote."

Rodriguez went on to fret: "When she was confirmed as solicitor general, she only had seven Republicans vote for her. Now it's even more contentious, it's an election year. Will there be any hurdles, in your view?" Spitzer reassured her: "everybody's been saying this is an election year, this is partisan politics. But the good news is, her paper record is pristine."

In an attempt at a challenging question, Rodriguez noted: "she's never been a judge before and she's going to the Supreme Court, that's something that hasn't been done in a long, long time. Can't you see that being an issue?" Spitzer dismissed the idea: "not being a judge is a good thing. She has seen the world from different perspectives. In my mind, and I don't say this as an ideological argument, one of the greatest chief justices Supreme Court in modern history, Earl Warren."

Rodriguez then requested a more personal side to Kagan: "You've told us a lot about her professionally, but people will want to dig into her personal life a little bit. What can you tell us about her as a person that we might not know?" Spitzer gushed: "good humored, always upbeat, looks at hard problems, knows how to figure them out. Can't imagine a better, more perfect nominee."

In reply, Rodriguez remarked: "Someone we want long term on there?" Spitzer agreed: "I hope so....she will be there for a long time and that is good for stability in terms of legal reasoning, the ability to project her thoughts for a long time into the court."

Following Rodriguez's interview with Spitzer, fellow co-host Harry Smith happily joked: "And conservatives are saying Earl Warren two? No!"

On ABC's Good Morning America on Monday, co-host George Stephanopoulos similarly tossed softballs to former Obama White House Counsel Greg Craig, who followed Democratic talking points praising Kagan's nomination.

Here is a full transcript of the Early Show segment:

7:17AM TEASE:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Coming up here this morning, so just who is Elena Kagan, President Obama's pick for the Supreme Court? We'll hear from her former classmate and longtime friend, former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer.

7:21AM TEASE:

RODRIGUEZ: Back in 1977, Elena Kagan, President Obama's choice replace Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court, was a Freshman at Harvard, where she went on to be the first dean of the law school. Her classmate at the time, Eliot Spitzer, went on to be Governor of New York. He joins us exclusively this morning to give us a little insight. They've been friends for 30 years. We'll hear more about Elena Kagan from Eliot Spitzer in just a minute.

7:30AM SEGMENT:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: But first, President Obama's second nomination to the Supreme Court. His choice is Elena Kagan, she is currently the nation's solicitor general and she was the first female dean of Harvard Law School. But what is she really like and what do we know about her? These are questions a lot of Americans have, so we're going to put them to former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, who has been friends with Ms. Kagan since their days at Princeton more than 30 years ago. Sorry to date you like that.

ELIOT SPITZER: I was going to say, this is – you didn't need to be quite so clear how long ago this was. But that's alright.

RODRIGUEZ: But the point is, you've known her a long time.

SPITZER: Absolutely.

RODRIGUEZ: Went to Princeton, went to Harvard. What can you tell us about her, going way back?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama's Pick; Who is Elena Kagan?]

SPITZER: First, from the perspective of the public, she is unbelievably smart and thoughtful and careful, the sort of perfect qualifications to be a justice of the Supreme Court. Somebody who will look at every case, think about the constitutional issues, and do what is right for the country. She is not an ideologue of the Left or the Right and that is clear from what she did as dean of Harvard Law School. Just a perfect temperament to be a justice.

RODRIGUEZ: She's been labeled as moderate. If you had to put a label on her, would you say that one is accurate?

SPITZER: I guess you could say moderate, but I would say she's really thoughtful and then passionate about what she believes, but very careful about what she believes. And that is why it's very hard to pigeon hole her. And that is why, I think, at Harvard she did a – such a spectacular job.

RODRIGUEZ: Can you think of a story or an anecdote from back then?

SPITZER: Well look-

RODRIGUEZ: That might interest the public?

SPITZER: I have to think of one that won't, you know, cause any problems in Washington. But, you know, it's typical of her – a friend and I were going back and forth about who could eat more, she goaded us into having a spaghetti eating contest. And then, since she worked in the newspaper at the time, put a big picture of it on the front page. The place we had the spaghetti eating contest went out of business two days later because of all we ate, so we felt guilty about that, but she was always the one sort orchestrating things, getting other people to do things. Smart, funny, witty, thoughtful, as clever as can be.

RODRIGUEZ: Okay, so I'm trying to take something from that, could it be that she's persuasive, can bring people together, which is what the President is hoping?

SPITZER: Well, she will – she will get the fifth vote. To put this in the context of the Supreme Court, when she is on the court and she's looking for a fifth vote because she needs to get the majority, she will argue for a perspective that will get, whether it's a Kennedy or Scalia, whomever it will be, she will be persuasive to get that vote.
                    
RODRIGUEZ: But first, she's got to be confirmed. When she was confirmed as solicitor general, she only had seven Republicans vote for her. Now it's even more contentious, it's an election year. Will there be any hurdles, in your view?

SPITZER: Well, of course there are hurdles. Because everybody's been saying this is an election year, this is partisan politics. But the good news is, her paper record is pristine. She has just been confirmed, she has not taken issues on some of the hot-button issues that give either side a reason to object, and everybody has agreed she's incredibly smart and thoughtful and careful. And those are the qualities that you want in a justice. And if she does not pass muster, who would? So I think that is argument people should make.

RODRIGUEZ: You're her friend. President Obama has worked with her a long time, they are also old friends. So you can see why both of you would give such ringing endorsements. But she's never been a judge before and she's going to the Supreme Court, that's something that hasn't been done in a long, long time. Can't you see that being an issue?

SPITZER: Disagree. In other words, not being a judge is a good thing. She has seen the world from different perspectives. In my mind, and I don't say this as an ideological argument, one of the greatest chief justices Supreme Court in modern history, Earl Warren. Earl Warren was the attorney general of California and then the governor of California before he was elevated to the Supreme Court. Experience as a judge or a justice is useful, but certainly not critical. What matters is life experience. Life experience, intellect, and the temperament to be a judge and think through these issues the way she will.

RODRIGUEZ: You've told us a lot about her professionally, but people will want to dig into her personal life a little bit. What can you tell us about her as a person that we might not know?

SPITZER: You know, when we go out to dinner and with friends, and look, there are a lot of us who have been friends for, as you pointed out, over 30 years, since college days, she's funny, she's witty, she enjoys having a good time, doesn't take herself too seriously. Looks at the world and can laugh at it the right way and say isn't it kind of amusing. There she was, in the White House, the dean of Harvard Law School, now she'll be, we hope, a justice on the Supreme Court. Somebody who is good humored, always upbeat, looks at hard problems, knows how to figure them out. Can't imagine a better, more perfect nominee.

RODRIGUEZ: Someone we want long term on there?

SPITZER: I hope so. Look, she's 50. She will – hate to admit it, Elena, you're 50 – but she will be there for a long time and that is good for stability in terms of legal reasoning, the ability to project her thoughts for a long time into the court.

RODRIGUEZ: Eliot Spitzer, thank you so much.

SPITZER: My pleasure, thank you.

RODRIGUEZ: Good to have you. Now let's go back-

HARRY SMITH: And conservatives are saying Earl Warren two? No! Alright. Thanks, Governor. Appreciate it.

During live CBS News coverage on Monday of President Obama's nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer argued that the Senate confirmation process would be "nasty....Not because of Elena Kagan....she is imminently qualified" but because Republicans are "very wary of what the right part of their party is thinking about them."

As evidence of his theory, Schieffer pointed to the primary defeat of Republican Utah Senator Bob Bennet on Saturday: "it is a very toxic election year. You saw over the weekend that Bob Bennett, the very conservative Republican senator from Utah lost the Republican nomination out in his home state because people there, including a lot of tea party people, thought he was not conservative enough." He concluded: "I think in the end, she will probably be confirmed, but I think it's going to be a very tough vote for a lot of Republicans and I think it's going to take some time before they get to that final vote."

In response to Schieffer's assertion, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric, who broke into CBS daytime programing at 10AM ET with a special report on the nomination, lamented: "Nothing is easy or simple in Washington these days, Bob."

Schieffer gave nearly identical analysis at the top of the CBS Early Show in the 7AM ET hour when co-host Harry Smith wondered: "What kind of fight do you think will ensue over the next couple of months?" Schieffer replied: "A really bitter and vicious one....she is imminently qualified. But we're in an election year, an especially toxic election year." Schieffer cited the Bennet defeat and observed: "In a way, a vote against her would be kind of tea party insurance to let people know that they're moving to the right. The Republican Party is moving very far to the right."

On both the Early Show and during the 10AM special report, CBS News legal analyst Jan Crawford was also a featured guest and touted her personal connection to Kagan, as a student of the former University of Chicago law professor. Crawford told Couric that Kagan:

...was incredibly dynamic. She was one of the most well-liked professors, very challenging, but in the classroom, she was very engaging with the students....those qualities that the White House believes she will take on to that Supreme Court and be a very effective justice, her ability to engage with people, those people skills will make her, they think, a consensus builder.

Couric observed: "You know, oftentimes in these confirmation hearings, people are described, or nominees are described as either strict constructionists or judicial activists. Certainly, she seems to fall into the latter category." Crawford dismissed the "activist" label for Kagan: "Elena Kagan is a moderate liberal. And so to call her an activist, I think, would be really a stretch for some, of even the Republicans. She's got a lot of conservative support....I don't think you're going to be hearing many people tag her as an activist."

On the Early Show, Smith noted to Crawford how "it seemed she [Kagan] was almost as valued for her EQ as her IQ, her ability to get along with other people." Crawford agreed: "Well, she actually has both....she's very engaging, very challenging, she's quite dynamic in her personality. And you see that when she's arguing cases before the Supreme Court. The justices really like her."

Here is a transcript of Couric's Exchange with Schieffer and Crawford in the 10AM special report:

KATIE COURIC: So a beaming Elena Kagan getting a standing ovation in the East Room of the White House. Whether her confirmation hearing will be as smooth remains to be seen, but she has now been nominated to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court. Solicitor general, former dean of Harvard Law School, and of course, a former professor at the University of Chicago as well, a professor who taught our chief legal correspondent, Jan Crawford. Jan, tell us what your impressions were as a student of Elena Kagan's.

JAN CRAWFORD: Well, she was just starting out, Katie, as a young professor and she was incredibly dynamic. She was one of the most well-liked professors, very challenging, but in the classroom, she was very engaging with the students. And we see some of those same qualities now when she's arguing cases before the Supreme Court. She keeps it light, but she's serious. She's engaging with the justices. And as we heard President Obama say just now, it is, I think, those qualities that the White House believes she will take on to that Supreme Court and be a very effective justice, her ability to engage with people, those people skills will make her, they think, a consensus builder.

COURIC: And Jan, as we heard the President say, he praised her understanding of the law as it will affect the lives of ordinary people. You know, oftentimes in these confirmation hearings, people are described, or nominees are described as either strict constructionists or judicial activists. Certainly, she seems to fall into the latter category.

CRAWFORD: Well, you hear conservatives talk about strict constructionists and that's what a conservative justice would be, someone who looks really closely at only the words of the Constitution. It's conservatives who actually refer to liberals as activists because they think they go too far in reading the Constitution. Now, Elena Kagan is a moderate liberal. And so to call her an activist, I think, would be really a stretch for some, of even the Republicans. She's got a lot of conservative support. Conservatives will testify, some of her colleagues, at her confirmation hearings, so I don't think you're going to be hearing many people tag her as an activist.

COURIC: How big a role, Jan, do you think gender played in this? I know Sandra Day O'Connor has spoken about the need for another woman on the high court and the National Association of Women Judges sent the President a letter urging him to, in fact, nominate another woman. Do you think this was a key factor?

CRAWFORD: I don't think it was the key factor, but I think it was certainly one that went into the overall mix. I think the main factor was her youth. At 50, she'll be on that court for a really long time. And her ability, like I said, to build those coalitions. It's a group of nine people, sometimes back in the old days, people called the court, you know, nine scorpions in a bottle, it's a pretty hard place to navigate. They're not lacking in ego up there. But certainly, it was a plus that she's a woman and as you said, Justice O'Connor has always said there should be not – you know, just one or two or even three women on the court, maybe someday we'll have even four or five.

COURIC: Alright, Jan Crawford. Jan, thanks so much. Let's go to Bob Schieffer, who is our expert in all things political. Bob, do you think a rocky confirmation process is before Elena Kagan? We've already seen some conservatives come out swinging about the fact that she didn't allow military recruiters onto the campus at Harvard because of her opposition to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' What do you think is likely to happen?

BOB SCHIEFFER: A very contentious, and probably at times, nasty confirmation hearing. Not because of Elena Kagan and who she is. I think as you saw there, she is quite compelling and certainly, she is imminently qualified. This is an election year, Katie, and it is a very toxic election year. You saw over the weekend that Bob Bennett, the very conservative Republican senator from Utah lost the Republican nomination out in his home state because people there, including a lot of tea party people, thought he was not conservative enough. I think you're going to see it very difficult for Republicans to vote for her, not because of her, but because she's simply been nominated by Barack Obama. And they are going to be very, very wary of what the right part of their party is thinking about them this time. I think in the end, she will probably be confirmed, but I think it's going to be a very tough vote for a lot of Republicans and I think it's going to take some time before they get to that final vote.

COURIC: Nothing is easy or simple in Washington these days, Bob.

SCHIEFFER: Nope. Nope.

COURIC: Alright.

SCHIEFFER: You're right.

COURIC: Bob Schieffer. Bob, thanks so much for your insight as always.

Here is a transcript of Smith's exchange with Schieffer and Crawford on the Early Show:

HARRY SMITH: Also in Washington, our CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford and Bob Schieffer, chief Washington correspondent and host of Face the Nation. Good morning, all.

JAN CRAWFORD: Hello.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Good morning.

SMITH: Jan, let me start with you. Why Elena Kagan?

CRAWFORD: Well, at the end of the day, she gave the White House everything that they wanted. She's progressive, even though some people say she may be moderate, but she is a progressive, she will be a leader on that court, she can build coalitions, bring consensus together, and she's 50 years old. So that, combined with the fact that she's not going to be a huge fight, is what tipped the balance to her at the end of the day.

SMITH: It's so interesting, no real paper trail, no judicial record to speak of. I – as I was culling  through her information, it seemed she was almost as valued for her EQ as her IQ, her ability to get along with other people.

CRAWFORD: Well, she actually has both. I mean, I've known her for a long time. She was a professor of mine at the University of Chicago law school and she's very engaging, very challenging, she's quite dynamic in her personality. And you see that when she's arguing cases before the Supreme Court. The justices really like her. You should see Justice Scalia, obviously a conservative, and Kagan going back and forth. So the White House sees that as a real plus. And they expect her to be a very effective jurist on that court.

SMITH: Isn't it ironic, thought, here's the President of the United States, during his State of the Union address, specifically chastises the court for its decision on campaign finance reform, and allowing corporations to put as much money in campaigns as possible – as they want, and the person who argued against that was Elena Kagan.

CRAWFORD: Right, I mean she defended that law and you're going to hear that over and over and over in these hearing, that she defended that law. She was on the side of every day Americans. The problem for her, though, and why this doesn't quite fit, is that she's not really an every day American. She's upper west side New York, Princeton, Harvard, Oxford, so, you know, she is part of that elite academic world. Then Republicans this morning already are hammering her as a true, you know, Washington insider.

SMITH: Bob Schieffer, as this bubbles up today and people really start to chime in, people talk about her being confirmable and she was just confirmed as solicitor general, 61-31. What kind of fight do you think will ensue over the next couple of months?

SCHIEFFER: A really bitter and vicious one. I would start by saying, Harry, I think she is imminently qualified. But we're in an election year, an especially toxic election year. Just this weekend, you saw the very conservative Bob Bennett, the senator from Utah, lose the Republican nomination because members of the – to the right of the party, a lot of tea party people, thought that he was not conservative enough. I think you will see some Republican senators, moderates, giving very careful consideration to their vote on Elena Kagan. In a way, a vote against her would be kind of tea party insurance to let people know that they're moving to the right. The Republican Party is moving very far to the right. So I think this is going to be – she may be confirmed in the end, I think she probably will, but this is going to be a very, very difficult election year argument on Capitol Hill.

SMITH: Because there was another candidate who was viewed as being more centrist, as being confirmable in the long run if, for instance, there is a loss of Democratic votes in the Senate in the future. The President clearly decided 'I – this is the card – my best card to play at this time.' You think it's going to be rancorous, though?

SCHIEFFER: I think it will. I mean, you're talking about Merrick Garland. I think most people thought that he would have been – he's the appeals court judge – thought that he would be the most easily confirmed. The President chose not to go that way. I think the second most easily confirmed was probably Kagan, but that doesn't mean it's not going to be a really drawn out and a tough fight. Republicans are going to give very careful consideration to whether they vote for her or not. Just because – not because of her, but because of the situation in this election year.

SMITH: And as young as she is and being around for a long time. Bob Schieffer, thank you very much. Jan Crawford, appreciate your expertise, thank you.

CRAWFORD: Thanks.

On Thursday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith commemorated the 50th anniversary of the invention of the birth control pill: "This week is the golden anniversary of the birth of birth control, a medical breakthrough that has changed society and the sexual landscape forever....'The Pill' promised to free women from biological bonds and it did just that."

In a taped report, Smith described the breaking of those "bonds": "In the 1950s, women made up about a third of the workforce. Today, women hold nearly half of all U.S. jobs. In the 1950s, American women, on average, had 3.8 children. Today that number has dropped to 2.1." The report featured a clip of Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, who proclaimed: "The invention of the birth control pill revolutionized life for women in America. It's completely changed women's options."

Smith noted how the contraceptive "was condemned by the Catholic Church and by many conservatives." A clip of historian Ellen Chesler followed: "It was really considered immoral to suggest that women's primary role should not be that of wife and mother. But, rather, that women should have rights to experience their sexuality free of consequence, just like men have always done."

Following the report, Smith lead a left-wing feminist panel discussion, featuring "women's movement pioneer" Gloria Steinem, actress Hilary Swank, and Early Show medical contributor Dr. Jennifer Ashton. Smith began by touting Steinem's writing on the subject: "The first piece you ever wrote? Do you remember what you said?" Steinem recalled:

Yes, in Esquire in 1962, I think it was, was about the Pill....I ended up saying that the problem was the acceptance of women's sexuality as much as the women's ability to control it. You know, were there enough liberated men to go around to the newly liberated women. Which turned out to be kind of prescient.   

Smith agreed with that assessment and added: "so many men wrote about it then and they were up in arms. They were afraid of what was being unleashed." Steinem replied: "Well, some of them still are, actually." Her and Smith then shared a laugh.

After remarking that the Pill was supposed to "change the planet," Smith fretted: "Relatively speaking, there are very few women who actually still have access to it, because of cost, because of all kinds of different reasons." Steinem lamented: "Right, and because of abstinence only education which has been a problem, because now pharmacists can refuse to fill a prescription because of health insurance. So, you know, we still have a long way to go in expanding access."

Smith turned to Swank: "Your mother certainly had an attitude that was sort of in tune with the idea of being able to do anything you ever wanted to." Swank explained: "I think for my generation, people like Gloria, and you know, I played Alice Paul, one of the original suffragettes....these women have blazed trails for us, for my generation and generations to come and we still have a lot of work to do to be able to live, you know, our lives the way we want." She also declared: "this anniversary to me marks a real time for empowerment for women."

Moving back to Steinem, Smith wondered: "in all the time that you've been writing about this and talking about this and even protesting for this, was the Pill an important part in this journey?" Steinem responded: "Yes, absolutely. Because it dramatized what has been true throughout human history to varying degrees, which is that human sexuality is not entirely about procreation....there have always been methods of contraception, but this was much more dramatic, complete, and public." Smith added: "And something the woman actually could control."

Smith concluded the segment: "Thank you all very much for sitting on the couch with us....And walking down memory line for a few moments."

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

8:06AM

HARRY SMITH:  In this morning's 'Health Watch,' 50 years of 'the Pill.' This week is the golden anniversary of the birth of birth control, a medical breakthrough that has changed society and the sexual landscape forever. Today it is still – it still has critics, but about 100 million women around the world use it to control when and how, and how many times, they become pregnant.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Revolution In A Pill; 50-Year Anniversary of Birth Control Pill]

CECILE RICHARDS [PRESIDENT, PLANNED PARENTHOOD]: The invention of the birth control pill revolutionized life for women in America. It's completely changed women's options.

SMITH: 'The Pill' promised to free women from biological bonds and it did just that. In the 1950s, women made up about a third of the workforce. Today, women hold nearly half of all U.S. jobs. In the 1950s, American women, on average, had 3.8 children. Today that number has dropped to 2.1.

RICHARDS: It made them able to pursue higher education, to pursue careers. And to plan the size of their families. Which was something they had never been able to do before.

SMITH: For the first decade after its creation, the Pill could only be legally prescribed to married women. Still it was condemned by the Catholic Church and by many conservatives.

ELLEN CHESLER [HISTORIAN AND AUTHOR]: It was really considered immoral to suggest that women's primary role should not be that of wife and mother. But, rather, that women should have rights to experience their sexuality free of consequence, just like men have always done.

SMITH: And here with us to talk about the Pill are women's movement pioneer Gloria Steinem, two-time Oscar winner Hilary Swank, as well as our Dr. Jennifer Ashton. Good morning, all.

GLORIA STEINEM: Good morning.

SMITH: The first piece you ever wrote?

GLORIA STEINEM: Yes, in Esquire in 1962, I think it was, was about the Pill.

SMITH: Was about the Pill-

STEINEM: Which was then, fairly new.

SMITH: Do you remember what you said?

STEINEM: Well, I ended up saying that the problem was the acceptance of women's sexuality as much as the women's ability to control it. You know, were there enough liberated men to go around to the newly liberated women. Which turned out to be kind of prescient.

SMITH: Well it was so interesting because so many men wrote about it then and they were up in arms. They were afraid of what was being unleashed.

STEINEM: Well, some of them still are, actually.

[LAUGHTER]

STEINEM: In a political sense.

SMITH: Yeah, yeah. The other thing that's interesting about it was this notion that as it was being introduced, it was going to become – it was going to change the planet. Relatively speaking, there are very few women who actually still have access to it, because of cost, because of all kinds of different reasons.

STEINEM: Right, and because of abstinence only education which has been a problem, because now pharmacists can refuse to fill a prescription because of health insurance. So, you know, we still have a long way to go in expanding access.

SMITH: Right. Very interesting also how many unintended pregnancies still exist even though there is a kind of a – especially, at least in the United States, this kind of widespread access to different kinds of birth control beyond the Pill. We're still talking about unintended pregnancies at a rate of about 50%.

JENNIFER ASHTON: And teen pregnancy is going up in this country for the first time in decades. So obviously there are still issues. And I think a lot of the aspects of the Pill really have to be uncoupled from the sexual, pregnancy, family planning aspects, because it is medication and it's used off label, albeit, but for many, many other medical indications.

SMITH: Hilary, you come along at a point at which women have been using the Pill for years. Your mother certainly had an attitude that was sort of in tune with the idea of being able to do anything you ever wanted to.

HILARY SWANK: Yeah. You know, I think for my generation, people like Gloria, and you know, I played Alice Paul, one of the original suffragettes, who helped women get the right to vote. You know, these women have blazed trails for us, for my generation and generations to come and we still have a lot of work to do to be able to live, you know, our lives the way we want. My mom said to me 'you know, Hilary, you can do anything you want in life as long as you work hard enough. You know, she believed in me, she gave me that gift. And so, you know, I'm here, this anniversary to me marks a real time for empowerment for women, you know. And to be here to say, you know, don't give up, don't give up what's right for you, don't give up your dreams, you know.

SMITH: Yeah. Do you think it – is it – in all the time that you've been writing about this and talking about this and even protesting for this, was the Pill an important part in this journey?

STEINEM: Yes, absolutely. Because it dramatized what has been true throughout human history to varying degrees, which is that human sexuality is not entirely about procreation. It's also about expressing love and communication and bonding. And there have always been methods of contraception, but this was much more dramatic, complete, and public.

SMITH: And something the woman actually could control.

STEINEM: Yes. Well, there have been other things that the woman could control, but the point was, I think, that it was such a big event and such a public one that it really changed the image of women and of women's lives.

SMITH: Yeah. Thank you all very much for sitting on the couch with us.

STEINEM: Thank you.

SWANK: Thanks for having us.

SMITH: And walking down memory line for a few moments. Do appreciate it very, very much.

When political scientists compare populism and elitism, they could certainly find a test case in the new Arizona law on immigration enforcement. While Rasmussen found 70 percent of Arizonans favored the crackdown on illegal aliens, and new national media polls found majority support as well, ABC, CBS, and NBC denounced the popular will as short-sighted and discriminatory.

From April 23 to May 3, the top three television networks offered viewers 50 stories and interview segments on their morning and evening news programs. The tone was strongly hostile to the law and promotional to the "growing storm" of left-wing protesters: 37 stories (or 74 percent) were negative, 10 were neutral, and only three were positive toward the Arizona law's passage -- 12 negative stories for every one that leaned positive. Stories were much kinder and sympathetic to illegal aliens than they were to police officers. Cops were potential abusers of power. Entering the country illegally was not an abuse of power. It was portrayed as an honorable step by the powerless.

The soundbite count was also slanted, with 92 quotes against the law and only 52 in favor. The pro-law numbers, however, included many soundbites of Arizona public officials defending themselves against liberal charges that they were racists or in favor of racial profiling.

Opponents of the law didn’t even have to speak English to be quoted sympathetically. In a May 3 CBS Evening News story, Katie Couric fretted "many" illegals "no longer feel welcome." Reporter Kelly Cobiella focused on the story of non-English-speaking Manuela Quintana, who decided to move to Colorado. Cobiella cued up the mother of ten to deny she was a criminal: "‘No,’ she says, ‘a criminal is someone who kills. I just want to work.’" Over video of the kids piling into an SUV, Cobiella concluded: "The family packed up before dawn today and headed north to Colorado. Manuela says she's lost hope in this state. She thinks she'll find it again in another."

By contrast, law enforcers were the bad guys. On Sunday morning, April 25, ABC Good Morning America host Bill Weir chided Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a well-known enforcer of immigration law, "With this new law, will you ramp it up?...Will you grab people on street corners?"



While an earlier MRC special report found 44 percent of stories on the Tea Party movement suggested they were dangerous or fringy, none of the Arizona stories ever labeled protesters as "liberal" or on the left. They were often cast in neutral terms as "human rights activists" or "Latino activists."

While several stories forwarded outrage from the Mexican government over the Arizona law, none of the network stories mentioned the hypocrisy: Mexico has a stricter immigration-enforcement regime on its southern border than America does. As with sympathetic media coverage of large amnesty rallies in 2006, none of the stories allowed anyone to suggest it was improper for illegal aliens to petition the government whose laws they're breaking or cancel out the votes of law-abiding citizens.

Civility wasn't necessary. While the harshest Tea Party activists were scorned by the networks for any suggestion President Obama was a "Nazi," on 11 occasions these same networks unquestioningly forwarded smears that proponents of the Arizona law were like Nazis or Civil War-era slaveholders. NBC’s Andrea Mitchell used these slurs from liberal comedians to demonstrate how Arizona was becoming a "laughingstock."

Violence was downplayed. Only one ABC story reported violence by the protesters (in a "mostly peaceful" protest), and only one CBS story mentioned vandalism (smearing refried-bean swastikas on the state capitol building). There were only two references to the murder of rancher Robert Krentz, and four to the shooting of a deputy in Pinal County, all four in larger celebrations of May Day marches.

Viewers would assume protesters were in the majority. ABC Saturday anchor David Muir touted May Day protests on World News. "Angry backlash from coast to coast. Huge rallies across this country tonight against that new controversial immigration law."

Real poll numbers were not important. The networks were very reluctant to note that the Arizona law was popular: only five stories mentioned that the protesters were on the losing side of public opinion, where almost 90 percent of those polled by CBS consider illegal immigration a serious problem. It’s a stunning contrast, then, that 74 percent of the stories channel the view of a tiny minority. When pressed, Americans suggested to pollsters they're sympathetic toward the poverty of illegal aliens and concerned about race-based harassment. But the Big Three TV networks demonstrated no professional appetite for neutrality or civility on this conflict.

On April 13, I reported on CBS 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft complaining about the fact that Dick Cheney and Karl Rove have refused to appear on the program. I pointed to recent instances of 60 Minutes smearing both men as a possible cause of their unwillingness to be guests and found that one of those examples was referenced by Rove in his new book, Courage and Consequence.

On February 24, 2008, 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley did a story on a bizarre conspiracy theory in which an Alabama lawyer named Dana Jill Simpson accused Rove of engineering the political downfall and imprisonment of the state's former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman. In Chapter 34 of his book, entitled "Rove: The Myth," pages 506-507, Rove describes his reaction to Pelley airing the piece: "I was flabbergasted that Pelley had bought her [Simpson's] story. His producers had called me about Simpson the previous October. I told them I had never met the woman or worked with her in any campaign or capacity."

Rove went on to note: "It struck me as odd that five months later, Pelley did not call to say that 60 Minutes was going with the story and that he wanted to give me a chance to tell my version." Rove also explained his efforts to reach out to Pelley after the segment aired: "[I] stewed about it for several weeks before calling Pelley on March 31 to list all the ways I thought he had failed to exercise due diligence. While cordial, Pelley was unresponsive. So I followed up with a letter on April 2, summarizing my concerns....In a letter two weeks later, Pelley answered virtually none of my questions."

On the April 7 60 Minutes broadcast, Pelley updated the story, taking credit for Siegelman being released on appeal by a federal court. Pelley even spoke with the freed former Governor and at the end of the update, briefly noted: "Rove declined to appear before the House Committee investigating the case, but he told us, quote, 'I never talked to the Department of Justice about Siegelman. I never talked to anyone at the White House about Siegelman.'" Of course, Rove had denied any involvement before, but Pelley didn't bother to mention that in the February 24 broadcast.  

So not only was 60 Minutes willing to air the questionable story, but when Rove contacted Pelley to discuss the matter, he was given the brush off. It doesn't sound like CBS was all that eager to get Rove's side of the story.  

Have you seen the new General Motors commercial? In it, CEO Ed Whitacre highlights the taxpayer-funded bailout GM received and then brags: "We have repaid our government loan, in full with interest, five years ahead of the original schedule."

That advertisement (Watch it here) gives the impression that A) GM is financially stable and able to repay its debts B) the government bailout was the right decision. And that was exactly how the Obama administration and network news media celebrated GM's loan repayment of a $6.7 billion government loan.

But the ad is heavy on spin, according to The New York Times and Reason online. The Times reported that GM did make a repayment settling the $6.7 government loan, but it did so using TARP money held in escrow by the Treasury Dept.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., has condemned the ad saying it is "dangerously close to committing fraud" and rebuked the Treasury for supporting GM's claims.

The commercial caused congressmen, journalists and ordinary citizens to scratch their heads in disbelief. After all, GM had posted losses of $4.3 billion in the latter half of 2009. The auto company had been bailed out by $52 billion taxpayer dollars. The Washington Post reported that "a majority of the $52 billion" was "converted into a 61 percent government ownership stake."

GM only repaid the "loan" portion of those $52 billion dollars April 21, but the "in full" phrasing of its ad could lead viewers to believe that taxpayers are no longer on the hook for GM.

Yet, there was no skepticism from the three broadcast networks. Diane Sawyer celebrated the GM announcement April 21 calling it a "happy surprise."

Sawyer described the repayment as "keeping faith with taxpayers." Bill Weir's accompanying report led viewers to believe that GM was in a stronger financial position: "How did it happen? Well, Cash for clunkers and Toyota's PR nightmare helped a bit. But mostly it was bankruptcy which lightened their financial burdens."

Neither Sawyer nor Weir dug much deeper. The other broadcast networks were just as trusting, repeating the news of GM's loan repayment. CBS called it "good news," while NBC's David Gregory mentioned that President Obama boasted about it.

The Treasury Dept. also bragged about the repayment in an April 21 press release that said GM "has fully repaid its debt under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). GM paid the remaining $4.7 billion of the total $6.7 billion in debt owed to Treasury."

The claim turned out to be very misleading. A conservative think tank filed a complaint against GM with the Federal Trade Commission on May 4. Unlike the networks, The New York Times has reported the truth - that GM effectively used TARP money held in an escrow account to repay the TARP funds specified as the $6.7 billion "loan."

"What neither G.M. nor the Treasury disclosed was that the company simply used other funds held by the Treasury to pay off its original loan," New York Times' Gretchen Morgenson wrote on April 30.

But the broadcast networks, having bought into GM and Treasury spin have yet to correct earlier reports and expose the "blatant misrepresentation."

Grassley Catches GM's ‘Money Shuffle'

It was Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who caught the deception and challenged the Treasury department on it.

Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for TARP, had testified before the Senate Finance Committee on April 20. Barofsky told the Senate that the money GM was using to pay off the $6.7 billion loan did not in fact come from the company's earnings, but from part of the $52 billion bailout given to GM in the first place.

The repayment was a "TARP money shuffle," according to Grassley who responded by writing a critical letter to Geithner on April 22 about the GM and Treasury announcements.

Grassley cited Barofsky's testimony about the origin of funds used to repay the $4.7 billion dollars. That letter even quoted an exchange with GM's Vice Chairman Stephen Girsky who admitted GM was using TARP or taxpayer money to repay TARP money:

Question: Are you just paying the government back with government money?

Mr. Girsky: Well listen, that is in effect true, but a year ago nobody thought we'd be able to pay this back.

Radio and TV host Glenn Beck called for the mainstream media to cover the story and described what GM did in his own words on his April 27 radio broadcast.

"It's like [you] taking money from one [of my] pocket and saying, ‘I'm gonna put it over in this pocket, ‘cause I'm repaying you,'" Beck said.

Despite Beck's outrage, and many bloggers calling attention to GM's tricky phrasing, the networks haven't reported the criticism. The national newspapers have done a little better job. The New York Times hit GM the hardest on April 30 when it implied that GM and Treasury tried to "obscure" the truth and celebrated Grassley's discovery.

USA Today explained in its April 21 story on the issue that the GM repayments came from an escrow account. Meanwhile, the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times have only circulated an Associated Press story citing Grassley's criticism.

Despite GM's assertion that the government loan had been paid "in full," Grassley said the Congressional Budget Office estimates "taxpayers will lose around $30 billion on G.M."

A spokesman for GM defended its advertisement telling the Times, "The bottom line is, our strong business performance has put us in the position that we don't need these funds."

The Washington Examiner's Mark Tapscott reported May 4 that free-market think tank the Competitive Enterprise Institute, filed a complaint with the FTC, calling GM's ad misleading, factually inaccurate, and constituting a violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Broadcast Networks Praise GM for Loan Repayment

ABC, CBS and NBC were jubilant as GM announced it's "in full" and ahead of schedule TARP repayment. The Obama administration and Treasury department used the announcement to appease voters still unhappy about the wave of Washington bailouts.

Obama touted it during his weekly radio address. White House economic adviser Larry Summers wrote on the White House blog that, "Just about a year ago, the American auto industry was on the brink of collapse. Today, General Motors announced that it has repaid its $6.7 billion loan to the U.S. government in full five years ahead of schedule."

Then Summers gave Obama the credit saying, "This turnaround wasn't an accident of history. It was the result of considered and politically difficult decisions made by President Obama to provide GM and Chrysler - and indeed the auto industry - a lifeline, if they could demonstrate the will to reshape their businesses and chart a path toward long-term viability without ongoing government assistance."

Summers went on CBS's "Face the Nation" April 25 to make the same argument.

And their friends on the networks spread the spin. ABC's Bianna Golodryga, who is engaged to White House budget director Peter Orszag, said on April 26: "this news has folks here in Washington and the administration particularly very optimistic that the controversial auto industry bailout was indeed successful. Given the news last week, as you recall, GM repaid its government loan five years ahead of schedule."

Of course, the networks have reason to praise the success of the auto bailout since they promoted it almost two years earlier. In 2008, the Business & Media Institute found that the three broadcast networks aired almost three times as many positive (auto bailout) stories as balanced stories (31 to 12). Only one story was anti-bailout in nature.

NBC "Nightly News" anchor Brian Williams warned on Nov. 18, 2008, "GM may not make it without help, and others may have to merge."

ABC correspondent Chris Bury suggested it was only fair that automakers get a bailout because the financial industry got one. "After riding to Wall Street's rescue," Bury said on "Word News" Nov. 11, 2008, "can the government just say no to American automakers that are bleeding cash by the billions?"

CBS's local affiliate in Chicago today threatened to stop covering the Illinois Senate race if the Republican candidate continues to harp on an issue extremely damaging to his Democratic opponent.

If a candidate for the United States Senate was a senior loan officer for a bank that made over $20 million in loans to convicted bookies and pimps (while he was employed as a loan officer), is that candidate's opponent in the wrong for harping on the issue?

Chicago's CBS affiliate apparently thinks such connections should be off limits. A reporter from Chicago's CBS Channel 2 told Mark Kirk, the Republican opponent of former Broadway Bank loan officer Alexi Giannoulias that his channel is "not going to cover the Senate race, if it’s consistently only in your terms, is about Broadway Bank." (H/t Big Journalism, via Steve Gutowski)

"Alexi's been pilloried," the reporter added, seemingly suggesting that Kirk has made his point and should move on. Regardless of the merits of that argument, is the media now the arbiter of what is appropriate for a political campaign? That's generally thought to be the voter's job.

This reporter's request to move on is hardly CBS 2 Chicago policy. The affiliate had no problem, for instance, harping on lawmakers' connections to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. CBS 2 did a number of stories on, as one story put it, Abramoff's "ties to GOP congressional leaders and the White House," which, the station reported "pose a particular problem for Republicans."

The Abramoff issue was pertinent, and well within the purview CBS 2's coverage. But so is Giannoulias's connections to Broadway Bank -- more so, in fact, considering the local nature of the story.

Of course Giannoulias complains about Kirk's dwelling on the Broadway Bank issue. And why wouldn't he? It's egg on his face. If voters weren't swayed by the scandal, Giannoulias would hardly insist the issue be dropped. Kirk's dwelling on it would be a boon for his campaign.

But voters do care that a prospective Senator was a high-up officer of a now-defunct bank that gave loans to felons. If Kirk insists on continuing to tout the issue, the only way the Giannoulias campaign can be spared embarrassment is is if the media stops covering the scandal.

CBS is happy to oblige.

Liberal political pundits frequently remind Americans that words matter, which makes broadcast network reporters' coverage of Arizona's new crack down on illegal immigrants so appalling.  

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed a law on April 23 that would make it a misdemeanor for immigrants to not carry documentation proving they are in the country legally. The bill gave state law enforcement the power to determine the immigration status of any person during "any lawful contact." Amid allegations that this law would lead to "racial profiling," Brewer later amended it to allow law enforcement to only check the immigration status of those involved in a "lawful stop, detention or arrest."

Reporters on ABC, NBC and CBS misled the American people about the law by calling it "anti-immigration" twice as often as correctly identifying the law as "anti-illegal immigration" and reporting, as ABC's Bill Weir did on the April 24 "Good Morning America, "Police [in Arizona] now have the power to stop anyone and make them prove they are legal."

Between April 23, when the law was signed and May 2, reporters on ABC, CBS, and NBC correctly identified the law as an "anti-illegal immigration law" in only 4 percent (3 out of 72) of the references to the law. Nearly ten percent of the references (7 out of 72) referred to the bill as an "anti-immigration law." 

"Anti-immigration" and "anti-illegal immigration" are two distinct labels. The former is a xenophobic view. The latter makes it clear that immigrants are welcome, as long as they go through the proper channels to come to America.

But for the broadcast networks, there's no distinction between the two.

Two segments about Arizona's new measure seem to indicate that reporters don't understand illegal immigration was against the law before Brewer signed the bill.  

"The bill makes it a crime to be in Arizona illegally," reported CBS's Bill Plante during an April 24 "Early Show" segment.

Plante's colleague, Betty Nguyen, echoed him in her April 27 "Early Show" segment. "The law makes it a crime to be an illegal immigrant," she explained.

J.D. Hayworth, a Republican challenger for John McCain's Senate seat, was the only person to ask on broadcast news programs the basic question around which the immigration debate should revolve. "Do you think illegal aliens have done anything wrong by being in this country without authorization?" he asked Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez during a joint May 2 "Face the Nation" appearance on CBS.

Rather than focus on that question and recognizing that illegal immigrants are already breaking federal law by simply being in the country without authorization, CBS instead sympathetically reported on the plight of illegal immigrants under the new law.

Bill Whitaker focused on illegal immigrant Gerardo in his May 1 "Evening News" segment.

"Gerardo, who asked us to conceal his identity, crossed illegally from Mexico to Arizona four years ago. With the new law, he knows there's a greater chance he will be arrested and deported," reported Whitaker.

Gerardo told CBS, "I've got no papers, I've got different color," before Whitaker continued, "He has a daughter, a state job, a home which his American born partner Jessica is packing up fearing they might have to flee."

Jessica lamented, "He cannot stay here. It will be difficult for him to go to work, to go to the store, to even be with my daughter outside."

All three broadcast networks mischaracterized the law in reports after the bill was first signed into law on April 23. ABC's Mike Von Fremd picked up where his colleague Bill Weir left off in his April 24 "Good Morning America" report. "The new law here requires local police to stop and demand proof of citizenship from anyone suspected of being illegal immigrant," he explained. That night on "World News," Clayton Sandell toed the same line, noting, "The new law allows police to demand papers from anyone they suspect may be here legally." NBC's Lester Holt claimed on the April 24, "Saturday Today," the new law "gives police broad new power to crack down on illegal immigration." Over at CBS, Bill Plante reported the law "requires police to question people about their status if there's reason to suspect they're illegal immigrants."

However, the reports missed a key part of the law: these checks of immigration status were to be done only upon "lawful contact." That means if in the course of doing other police work - a traffic stop or the investigation of a crime - an officer has a suspicion, he or she can ask for documentation. Nothing in the bill even suggested the power to "round up" illegal immigrants.

The text of the bill states:

For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person. Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released.

Joe Arpaio, sheriff of Maricopa County in Arizona, rebutted the claims of mainstream reporters during an April 26 "Today" appearance, calling them "hype." Host Matt Lauer asked him why the law wouldn't allow "law enforcement officials walking up to people on the street, questioning them simply because of their appearance, because they appear to be Hispanic?"

Arpaio replied, "Pursuant to their duties, they're not going to go on a street corner and grab people because they look like they're from another country. We haven't been doing that for the past three years and I know law enforcement officers will not do that. That's hype. Those are the critics."

No network reported on the specific changes made to the law on April 30. "Contact" was changed to the more explicit "stop, detention or arrest" and the clause "in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state," was added to guard against any "rounding up" of people.

ABC's David Kerley simply reported during the May 1 "Good Morning America," "Just yesterday Arizona's Governor signed some new changes to that law, which she says will prevent racial profiling." CBS's Bill Whitaker claimed the amended law  "strengthen[ed] restrictions against racial profiling while giving police more latitude to stop suspects and demand proof of citizenship." NBC did not note the changes to the law.

It seems odd that reporters wouldn't at least discuss changes made to address their concerns of police abuse of power in his law.

Filling in for host Bob Schieffer on Sunday's Face the Nation on CBS, Early Show co-host Harry Smith grilled former Republican Congressman J.D. Hayworth on Arizona's new immigration law: "Some people would contend that this law in Arizona is racist in nature. Some have equated it even with Jews having to carry identification during Nazi Germany. How do you respond to that?" [Audio available here]

Hayworth shot down the absurd comparison: "That is overblown rhetoric. And it's a tool that's been used before....what's going on is a deliberate distortion to move this from a question of enforcement to one of ethnicity. It's not the case. I read you the language of the bill-" Smith interrupted: "But hang on second...J.D. let me ask you this. If you were Hispanic and you were walking down the street today in Arizona, would you have some concern if a squad car drove by?"

Only minutes earlier, Hayworth had read from the Arizona law, citing a key provision that directly contradicted Smith's assertions: "It says the law, quote, 'shall be implemented in a matter consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons, and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.'"

Hayworth attempted to reiterate that point: "The law is very finely crafted, protecting-" Smith again interrupted: "It was amended Friday." Hayworth replied: "because good people of good will want to go the extra mile to ensure there is not a hint of racism here."

After having badgered Hayworth, Smith turned to his other guest, Democratic Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez, who declared: "Look, the law the discriminatory.... We're not criminals. We've come here to sweat and to toil and to work hard....And to say that somehow we are all this criminal element and to target us with the discriminatory law is just wrong."

Smith went back to Hayworth and touted the "unintended consequences" of the law: "We have different groups deciding to boycott, move their – move their events and even conventions out of Arizona to other states. There's even talk about wanting to move the all-star game out of – out of Phoenix. Certainly, that wasn't anticipated when this law was passed?"

Early in the segment, Smith lobbed softball at Gutierrez. He cited the Congressman's arrest at an immigration protest outside the White House and sympathetically wondered: "why did you want to be arrested yesterday?"

Moments later, Hayworth attempted to ask Gutierrez a real question: "Luis, do you think illegal aliens have done anything wrong by being in this country without authorization?" Smith intervened and offered Gutierrez an out: "Do you want to answer that?" The Congressman dodged: "Well, here's what I would like to say. I think it's time that we have a discussion and a debate, an earnest one."

Smith did follow up: "But the people who are here illegally, should they be allowed to be here?" Gutierrez again refused to give a direct answer: "The fact is, the federal government, and Mr. Hayworth was a member of Congress for many years when his party was in the majority and passed many laws. They didn't go away....People want to think that if we pass harsh laws, they're just going to go away. That's not going to happen."

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

10:44AM

HARRY SMITH: Now we turn to the other major story in the country this weekend, the uproar over the new Arizona immigration law. Former Arizona Congressman J.D. Hayworth is a proponent of that law. He is in Phoenix. Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez was part of the protest yesterday in Washington. In fact, he was arrested outside the White House. But he is here with us this morning. Good morning, gentlemen.

LUIS GUTIERREZ: Good morning.

HAYWORTH: Good morning.

SMITH: Congressman, why did you want to be arrested yesterday?

GUTIERREZ: My arrest was part of a response to what I consider the immorality of our broken immigration system. We were protesting the fact that hundreds of thousands of immigrant families have been destroyed. Husbands losing their wives. There are 4 million, Harry, American citizen children whose parents have either been deported or are under threat of deportation. It's time to make families sacrosanct once again and to fix our immigration system. So I was arrested yesterday because it was time, I thought, to escalate and to elevate the level of awareness and consciousness for all of those who tried to reach our shores and can't because our system is broken.

SMITH: Let me ask Mr. Hayworth this question. This new law in Arizona, is it really designed to get rid of undocumented people or is it designed to get the attention of the government so that there is, in fact, some sort of comprehensive new immigration law passed?

HAYWORTH: Well, Harry, I would suggest that the law here in Arizona is designed, quite simply, to enforce federal law. And I think what has been going on here has been a massive disinformation campaign and distortion. For example, let me read directly from the law. It says the law, quote, 'shall be implemented in a matter consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons, and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.' The key phrase 'protecting the civil rights of all persons.' So what we're getting here is distortion.

And with all due respect, to hear Luis offer his evaluation, I can recall when Luis derided the 'amnesty' saying, quote,'there's an implication that you did something wrong and you need to be forgiven.' So I think the real question this morning is for Luis. Luis, do you think illegal aliens have done anything wrong by being in this country without authorization?

SMITH: Do you want to answer that?

GUTIERREZ: Well, here's what I would like to say. I think it's time that we have a discussion and a debate, an earnest one. Let me tell you what I propose. I want to end illegal immigration as we know it. How would I propose to do that? I think you have to go after employers that hire undocumented workers and be very severe with them.

I'll tell you something, Harry, the same Social Security card that my granddad got in the '30s is the same one my grandson, who is 7 years old, just got. It's time to bring new technology to make sure that everyone that works in America has a Social Security card. So I'm ready to give a little blood and a little DNA to prove that I'm legally working in the United States of America. That way we end the workers from being able to get those jobs.

SMITH: But the people who are here illegally, should they – should they be allowed to be here?

GUTIERREZ: Here's what I'm going to say. You see, J.D. Hayworth wants to say, if we just pass these laws, they're going to go away. The fact is, the federal government, and Mr. Hayworth was a member of Congress for many years when his party was in the majority and passed many laws. They didn't go away.

The fact is the following. People want to think that if we pass harsh laws, they're just going to go away. That's not going to happen. They have roots in the community. There are millions of American citizen children. And so what I say, make them learn English. Make them pay a fine. Make them pay into our system. And then put them on the track so that there's some relationship between what they did and the punishment.

SMITH: Okay. But I would guess, Mr. Hayworth, your contention was that doesn't really deal with the roots of the problem, which is a border that is porous, through which millions of people come into the country.

HAYWORTH: Harry, border security is national security. And it's not only illegals coming northward from Mexico, we've been getting Chinese. We've been getting people from the Middle East. There is huge criminal component. Just Friday afternoon, a Pinal County sheriff's deputy wounded, apparently surprising drug smugglers. Now 17 people in detention. Three of them persons of interest in the shooting of the deputy sheriff. This is a major problem. And for Luis to suggest that somehow we need to forgive people coming into the country illegally, that's the root of the problem. When you enforce the law, people respond to the law.

GUTIERREZ: And here's what I'm saying, look, I want to secure that border. But the fact is, Harry, 10 years ago, there were 10,000 Border Patrol agents, there's 20. Ten years ago there were no fences. Some places we've tripled the fences. It's not working. Because in the end, it is the jobs here in the United States that they're able to obtain-
                                                
SMITH: That's the magnet.

GUTIERREZ: -that brings them. It's that magnet. But let me just be very clear. I'm ready to triple that border. I'm ready to put more Border Patrol agents. Won't people like J.D. join us in a comprehensive plan so that we can take the 12 million that are here, legalize them, make them pay taxes, know who they are, fingerprint them, because I'm with J.D., I don't like criminals. But the people that J.D. is dealing with, they're drug smugglers. They're criminals. They're vicious, ruthless people. And I want to combat them with J.D.

SMITH: Okay. J.D., let me ask you this. Some people would contend that this law in Arizona is racist in nature. Some have equated it even with Jews having to carry identification during Nazi Germany. How do you respond to that?

J.D. HAYWORTH: That is overblown rhetoric. And it's a tool that's been used before. Former State Senator and immigration activist – or amnesty activist Alfredo Gutierrez put it this way, and I quote: 'We call things racism just to get attention. We reduce complicated problems to racism, not because it's racism, but because it works,' close quote.

Now, Harry, what's going on is a deliberate distortion to move this from a question of enforcement to one of ethnicity. It's not the case. I read you the language of the bill-
                                        
SMITH: But hang on second. Let me ask you – J.D. let me ask you this.

HAYWORTH: Yeah.

SMITH: If you were Hispanic and you were walking down the street today in Arizona, would you have some concern if a squad car drove by?

HAYWORTH: No, I would not, because there has to be reasonable suspicion. The law is very finely crafted, protecting-

SMITH: It was amended – it was amended Friday.

HAYWORTH: Because – because – because good people of good will want to go the extra mile to ensure there is not a hint of racism here.

SMITH [TO GUTIERREZ]: Okay, go ahead.

LUIS GUTIERREZ: And I would just say the following-

HAYWORTH: The other point-

GUTIERREZ: And I would just say the following, Harry. Look, the law the discriminatory. It's the way – the Latino community, the immigrant community, they feel like, 'God, you know, what about all those – all that garlic and grapes and onions we picked? What about the meat slaughter houses where we prepare the meat for the American public?'

Look, even in my district, you can find all the little carriages, and we see all those beautiful little babies of American citizens being raised by immigrants. We're not criminals. We've come here to sweat and to toil and to work hard. Yes, some of us cross that border and some of us overstayed our visa. But, by and large, we love this country. And to say that somehow we are all this criminal element and to target us with the discriminatory law is just wrong.

And what it's done is it's galvanized and unified. And in the end, doesn't it speak to, sadly, the lack of action of the federal government, the lack of action of us taking this core issue that's our responsibility?

SMITH: On those things – on that, I think, you can both probably agree. But, on the other hand, Mr. Hayworth, this notion that this – the passage of this law is having all kinds of unintended consequences. We have different groups deciding to boycott, move their – move their events and even conventions out of Arizona to other states. There's even talk about wanting to move the all-star game out of – out of Phoenix. Certainly, that wasn't anticipated when this law was passed?

HAYWORTH: Well, again, what Arizona wanted to do, dealing with the frustration of Washington D.C. – for example, my opponent, John McCain, has wafted between inaction and embracing amnesty. And there is a need to enforce the law in Arizona.

Now, you spoke of a boycott. What I heard from friends in California the other day is that they want to start a buy-cott, actually come to Arizona to reaffirm the fact that Arizona – all we're doing is enforcing federal law, enforcing laws on the books.

GUTIERREZ: And none of that solves the problem.

HAYWORTH: And as we've heard from Luis – excuse me. As we've heard from Luis, he wants to forgive law-breaking. The first act of people, no matter their later motivation, in coming to the country without authorization, is to break our laws.

Immigration policy, border security, and national security are synonymous. Crime is on the increase. Arizonans have had enough. And interestingly, a majority of Hispanics agree that this law should be enforced here in Arizona, those living here-

SMITH: J.D., hang on. Luis, I'm going to give you the final word.

GUTIERREZ: Thank you. The Cato Institute, not conservative, libertarian, says crime is down, statistically. Look, it's a red herring. The fact is, I want to secure that border, Washington D.C. has to get involved in securing that border.

Look, what is the greatest tool the police have in combating crime? I hate those drug dealers. I hate those involved in human smuggling. But the greatest asset that the police have are the eyes and the ears of the public. Let's not drive a wedge between the police and the public in general. And that's all.  You know who's happy with that law? Criminals and drug dealers. I want to end illegal immigration as we know it. I hope J.D. will – will join me in that effort.

SMITH: Congressman, thank you very much. J.D., we do appreciate your time this morning. Thank you very much.

HAYWORTH: Harry, thank you.

[FOOTAGE OF PROTEST AGAINST ARIZONA LAW]

In wake of Arizona's new immigration law, CBS 60 Minutes anchor Scott Pelley fretted over illegal immigrants entering the United States by swimming across California's All-American Canal: "a national moat on our southern border, and hundreds of people have perished in its waters. It is a carnage that has gone mostly unnoticed because many of the victims are buried without their names." [Audio available here]

Pelley began the story by proclaiming: "In the California desert, in a field of mud, is a graveyard that is hard to imagine in America. Bricks mark the final resting place of hundreds of human beings, identities unknown. They died traveling to America in search of a life better than their home countries could offer." Moments later, Pelley explained: "While the canal is a death trap, it is also a lifeline for the nation....Two thirds of our winter fruits and vegetables are grown with this water. But half of the people who pick those crops are illegal immigrants. To get the jobs created by the canal, they cross the canal, usually at night on makeshift rafts or using plastic jugs for flotation."

It did not take long to for Pelley place blame for drownings, not on those crossing the border illegally, but on those operating the canal: "The water is 225 feet across, 20 feet deep, with almost no rescue lines or climb-out ladders, safety devices that you would find in some other canals....management is controlled by a regional authority called the Imperial Irrigation District....They've taken votes, commissioned studies, but done almost nothing."

Pelley grilled one of the authority directors, Stella Mendoza: "I wonder whether you feel the canal is safe?" Mendoza began to explain: "The canal is intended to convey water to the Imperial Valley via – from the – from the Colorado River. It's not intended as a – as a recreation and – and so we-" Pelley indignantly retorted: "We're not talking about recreation here. We're talking about people desperate to come into the United States and who are losing their lives in your canal."

Mendoza again attempted to express common sense: "When an individual decides to cross the desert, decides to cross the mountains, decides to jump into the canal to swim across, they're taking their life in their own hands. They have to be accountable for their actions." A brief time later, Pelley continued to portray Mendoza as uncaring: "There doesn't seem to be any sense of urgency here, if you see what I mean."

Early in the piece, Pelley found a token "life-long Republican" to bolster his case: "Dr. John Hunter showed us the hydroelectric dams, or drops, that catch most of the bodies. Hunter is an unlikely activist. He is a physicist and life-long Republican who has spent much of his career designing weapons for the U.S. government." Hunter declared: "I'm a very right-wing guy. I'm not a – an open border kind of person. I just don't believe we should let – be letting people drown in our backyards. It's – it's inhuman."

Pelley waited until the end of the story to reveal Hunter's full identity:

...in the 1990s, after scenes like this of immigrants rushing border stations, Congress beefed up the border, and a California congressman led the charge to build a better fence in San Diego....The fence channeled illegal immigrants away from the cities and rerouted them to the desert and the remote canal. Drownings rose rapidly from 6 in 1994 to more than 30 in 1998. That county cemetery we showed you earlier had to expand....Former Congressman Duncan Hunter says the fence is a success and now the canal should be made safer. The Congressman's brother, John Hunter, feels the unintended cost of the fence has been too high.

After springing that family connection on viewers, Pelley asked John Hunter: "I wonder whether any of this is family guilt that motivates you?"

Pelley concluded the segment by again talking to Mendoza and again portraying her as insensitive:

SCOTT PELLEY: The Imperial Irrigation District has recently started a year-long test of a single safety line. If the board votes to install the system that it's testing, it will still cover only a short stretch of the canal that's lined with concrete. So three-quarters of the canal would have no safety features?

MENDOZA: Correct.

PELLEY: And there's no plan for putting in safety features?

MENDOZA: Not at this time.

PELLEY: So it's not likely people are going to stop drowning in the canal?

MENDOZA: Probably.

Here is a transcript of relevant portions of the story:

7:04PM

SCOTT PELLEY: For the first time beginning this summer, police in Arizona will be able to stop anyone they like and order a check of their ID to determine whether the person is in the U.S. illegally. The new powers – just recently signed into law – have reignited the national debate on immigration. Since 9/11, getting into the United States has become a good deal harder and for some much more dangerous. With border enforcement increasing, many illegal immigrants are now attempting to cross one of this country's most important irrigation projects, called the All-American Canal. The canal has become sort of a national moat on our southern border, and hundreds of people have perished in its waters. It is a carnage that has gone mostly unnoticed because many of the victims are buried without their names.

In the California desert, in a field of mud, is a graveyard that is hard to imagine in America. Bricks mark the final resting place of hundreds of human beings, identities unknown. They died traveling to America in search of a life better than their home countries could offer. They rolled the dice in the underworld of human smuggling and lost. Their families back home never learned that their journey ended here in the All-American Canal. Where do they find the bodies?

JOHN HUNTER: Typically, they'll find them at the drops. And so for example, there's five of these big hydro drops here. Drop one, they found over a hundred bodies at drop one. Drop two, they had 60. Drop three, 60, etcetera.

PELLEY: Dr. John Hunter showed us the hydroelectric dams, or drops, that catch most of the bodies. Hunter is an unlikely activist. He is a physicist and life-long Republican who has spent much of his career designing weapons for the U.S. government.

HUNTER: I'm a very right-wing guy. I'm not a – an open border kind of person. I just don't believe we should let – be letting people drown in our backyards. It's – it's inhuman.

...

PELLEY: While the canal is a death trap, it is also a lifeline for the nation. It flows a length of 85 miles, just north of California's border with Mexico, transporting water from the Colorado River to the Imperial Valley. Two thirds of our winter fruits and vegetables are grown with this water. But half of the people who pick those crops are illegal immigrants. To get the jobs created by the canal, they cross the canal, usually at night on makeshift rafts or using plastic jugs for flotation. The water is 225 feet across, 20 feet deep, with almost no rescue lines or climb-out ladders, safety devices that you would find in some other canals. The All-American is owned by the federal government but its management is controlled by a regional authority called the Imperial Irrigation District. And for ten years, Hunter has been lobbying the elected members of the Irrigation District to add safety features. They've taken votes, commissioned studies, but done almost nothing.

...

PELLEY: One of the directors listening that day was Stella Mendoza, who's been with the Imperial Irrigation District, the IID, for 9 years.

STELLA MENDOZA: Is the IID supposed to save every individual that jumps into the canal? Is that – is that my role as a director?

PELLEY: Mendoza told us that she worries adding safety features like buoys, lines, or ladders would give illegal immigrants a false sense of security. I wonder whether you feel the canal is safe?

MENDOZA: The canal is intended to convey water to the Imperial Valley via – from the – from the Colorado River. It's not intended as a – as a recreation and – and so we-

PELLEY: We're not talking about recreation here. We're talking about people desperate to come into the United States-

MENDOZA: I – I understand that.

PELLEY: -and who are losing their lives in your canal.

MENDOZA: I understand that. When an individual decides to cross the desert, decides to cross the mountains, decides to jump into the canal to swim across, they're taking their life in their own hands. They have to be accountable for their actions.

PELLEY: In 2007, as the drownings continued, the board approved climb-out ladders along about one quarter of the canal's length. But they're spaced every 500 feet, a drowning man would be lucky to reach one.

...

PELLEY: There doesn't seem to be any sense of urgency here, if you see what I mean.

MENDOZA: I understand what you're saying.

...

PELLEY: In fact, crossing illegally is a Class B misdemeanor, same as loitering. But in the 1990s, after scenes like this of immigrants rushing border stations, Congress beefed up the border, and a California congressman led the charge to build a better fence in San Diego.

DUNCAN HUNTER: I'm Duncan Hunter. We built this double fence here at the Mexican border in San Diego, and reduced the smuggling of hundreds of thousands of people and tons of drugs by more than 90%. The fence works.

PELLEY: It did work. The fence channeled illegal immigrants away from the cities and rerouted them to the desert and the remote canal. Drownings rose rapidly from 6 in 1994 to more than 30 in 1998. That county cemetery we showed you earlier had to expand. There are now 850 bricks in the paupers graveyards, mostly people who drowned or perished in the desert. Former Congressman Duncan Hunter says the fence is a success and now the canal should be made safer. The Congressman's brother, John Hunter, feels the unintended cost of the fence has been too high. I wonder whether any of this is family guilt-

HUNTER: Well-

PELLEY: -that motivates you?

...

PELLEY: The Imperial Irrigation District has recently started a year-long test of a single safety line. If the board votes to install the system that it's testing, it will still cover only a short stretch of the canal that's lined with concrete. So three-quarters of the canal would have no safety features?

MENDOZA: Correct.

PELLEY: And there's no plan for putting in safety features?

MENDOZA: Not at this time.

PELLEY: So it's not likely people are going to stop drowning in the canal?

MENDOZA: Probably.

In wake of Arizona's new immigration law, CBS 60 Minutes anchor Scott Pelley fretted over illegal immigrants entering the United States by swimming across California's All-American Canal: "a national moat on our southern border, and hundreds of people have perished in its waters. It is a carnage that has gone mostly unnoticed because many of the victims are buried without their names." [Audio available here]

Pelley began the story by proclaiming: "In the California desert, in a field of mud, is a graveyard that is hard to imagine in America. Bricks mark the final resting place of hundreds of human beings, identities unknown. They died traveling to America in search of a life better than their home countries could offer." Moments later, Pelley explained: "While the canal is a death trap, it is also a lifeline for the nation....Two thirds of our winter fruits and vegetables are grown with this water. But half of the people who pick those crops are illegal immigrants. To get the jobs created by the canal, they cross the canal, usually at night on makeshift rafts or using plastic jugs for flotation."

It did not take long to for Pelley place blame for drownings, not on those crossing the border illegally, but on those operating the canal: "The water is 225 feet across, 20 feet deep, with almost no rescue lines or climb-out ladders, safety devices that you would find in some other canals....management is controlled by a regional authority called the Imperial Irrigation District....They've taken votes, commissioned studies, but done almost nothing."

Pelley grilled one of the authority directors, Stella Mendoza: "I wonder whether you feel the canal is safe?" Mendoza began to explain: "The canal is intended to convey water to the Imperial Valley via – from the – from the Colorado River. It's not intended as a – as a recreation and – and so we-" Pelley indignantly retorted: "We're not talking about recreation here. We're talking about people desperate to come into the United States and who are losing their lives in your canal."

Mendoza again attempted to express common sense: "When an individual decides to cross the desert, decides to cross the mountains, decides to jump into the canal to swim across, they're taking their life in their own hands. They have to be accountable for their actions." A brief time later, Pelley continued to portray Mendoza as uncaring: "There doesn't seem to be any sense of urgency here, if you see what I mean."

Early in the piece, Pelley found a token "life-long Republican" to bolster his case: "Dr. John Hunter showed us the hydroelectric dams, or drops, that catch most of the bodies. Hunter is an unlikely activist. He is a physicist and life-long Republican who has spent much of his career designing weapons for the U.S. government." Hunter declared: "I'm a very right-wing guy. I'm not a – an open border kind of person. I just don't believe we should let – be letting people drown in our backyards. It's – it's inhuman."

Pelley waited until the end of the story to reveal Hunter's full identity:

...in the 1990s, after scenes like this of immigrants rushing border stations, Congress beefed up the border, and a California congressman led the charge to build a better fence in San Diego....The fence channeled illegal immigrants away from the cities and rerouted them to the desert and the remote canal. Drownings rose rapidly from 6 in 1994 to more than 30 in 1998. That county cemetery we showed you earlier had to expand....Former Congressman Duncan Hunter says the fence is a success and now the canal should be made safer. The Congressman's brother, John Hunter, feels the unintended cost of the fence has been too high.

After springing that family connection on viewers, Pelley asked John Hunter: "I wonder whether any of this is family guilt that motivates you?"

Pelley concluded the segment by again talking to Mendoza and again portraying her as insensitive:

SCOTT PELLEY: The Imperial Irrigation District has recently started a year-long test of a single safety line. If the board votes to install the system that it's testing, it will still cover only a short stretch of the canal that's lined with concrete. So three-quarters of the canal would have no safety features?

MENDOZA: Correct.

PELLEY: And there's no plan for putting in safety features?

MENDOZA: Not at this time.

PELLEY: So it's not likely people are going to stop drowning in the canal?

MENDOZA: Probably.

Here is a transcript of relevant portions of the story:

7:04PM

SCOTT PELLEY: For the first time beginning this summer, police in Arizona will be able to stop anyone they like and order a check of their ID to determine whether the person is in the U.S. illegally. The new powers – just recently signed into law – have reignited the national debate on immigration. Since 9/11, getting into the United States has become a good deal harder and for some much more dangerous. With border enforcement increasing, many illegal immigrants are now attempting to cross one of this country's most important irrigation projects, called the All-American Canal. The canal has become sort of a national moat on our southern border, and hundreds of people have perished in its waters. It is a carnage that has gone mostly unnoticed because many of the victims are buried without their names.

In the California desert, in a field of mud, is a graveyard that is hard to imagine in America. Bricks mark the final resting place of hundreds of human beings, identities unknown. They died traveling to America in search of a life better than their home countries could offer. They rolled the dice in the underworld of human smuggling and lost. Their families back home never learned that their journey ended here in the All-American Canal. Where do they find the bodies?

JOHN HUNTER: Typically, they'll find them at the drops. And so for example, there's five of these big hydro drops here. Drop one, they found over a hundred bodies at drop one. Drop two, they had 60. Drop three, 60, etcetera.

PELLEY: Dr. John Hunter showed us the hydroelectric dams, or drops, that catch most of the bodies. Hunter is an unlikely activist. He is a physicist and life-long Republican who has spent much of his career designing weapons for the U.S. government.

HUNTER: I'm a very right-wing guy. I'm not a – an open border kind of person. I just don't believe we should let – be letting people drown in our backyards. It's – it's inhuman.

...

PELLEY: While the canal is a death trap, it is also a lifeline for the nation. It flows a length of 85 miles, just north of California's border with Mexico, transporting water from the Colorado River to the Imperial Valley. Two thirds of our winter fruits and vegetables are grown with this water. But half of the people who pick those crops are illegal immigrants. To get the jobs created by the canal, they cross the canal, usually at night on makeshift rafts or using plastic jugs for flotation. The water is 225 feet across, 20 feet deep, with almost no rescue lines or climb-out ladders, safety devices that you would find in some other canals. The All-American is owned by the federal government but its management is controlled by a regional authority called the Imperial Irrigation District. And for ten years, Hunter has been lobbying the elected members of the Irrigation District to add safety features. They've taken votes, commissioned studies, but done almost nothing.

...

PELLEY: One of the directors listening that day was Stella Mendoza, who's been with the Imperial Irrigation District, the IID, for 9 years.

STELLA MENDOZA: Is the IID supposed to save every individual that jumps into the canal? Is that – is that my role as a director?

PELLEY: Mendoza told us that she worries adding safety features like buoys, lines, or ladders would give illegal immigrants a false sense of security. I wonder whether you feel the canal is safe?

MENDOZA: The canal is intended to convey water to the Imperial Valley via – from the – from the Colorado River. It's not intended as a – as a recreation and – and so we-

PELLEY: We're not talking about recreation here. We're talking about people desperate to come into the United States-

MENDOZA: I – I understand that.

PELLEY: -and who are losing their lives in your canal.

MENDOZA: I understand that. When an individual decides to cross the desert, decides to cross the mountains, decides to jump into the canal to swim across, they're taking their life in their own hands. They have to be accountable for their actions.

PELLEY: In 2007, as the drownings continued, the board approved climb-out ladders along about one quarter of the canal's length. But they're spaced every 500 feet, a drowning man would be lucky to reach one.

...

PELLEY: There doesn't seem to be any sense of urgency here, if you see what I mean.

MENDOZA: I understand what you're saying.

...

PELLEY: In fact, crossing illegally is a Class B misdemeanor, same as loitering. But in the 1990s, after scenes like this of immigrants rushing border stations, Congress beefed up the border, and a California congressman led the charge to build a better fence in San Diego.

DUNCAN HUNTER: I'm Duncan Hunter. We built this double fence here at the Mexican border in San Diego, and reduced the smuggling of hundreds of thousands of people and tons of drugs by more than 90%. The fence works.

PELLEY: It did work. The fence channeled illegal immigrants away from the cities and rerouted them to the desert and the remote canal. Drownings rose rapidly from 6 in 1994 to more than 30 in 1998. That county cemetery we showed you earlier had to expand. There are now 850 bricks in the paupers graveyards, mostly people who drowned or perished in the desert. Former Congressman Duncan Hunter says the fence is a success and now the canal should be made safer. The Congressman's brother, John Hunter, feels the unintended cost of the fence has been too high. I wonder whether any of this is family guilt-

HUNTER: Well-

PELLEY: -that motivates you?

...

PELLEY: The Imperial Irrigation District has recently started a year-long test of a single safety line. If the board votes to install the system that it's testing, it will still cover only a short stretch of the canal that's lined with concrete. So three-quarters of the canal would have no safety features?

MENDOZA: Correct.

PELLEY: And there's no plan for putting in safety features?

MENDOZA: Not at this time.

PELLEY: So it's not likely people are going to stop drowning in the canal?

MENDOZA: Probably.

People on the Left squawked in January when a poll was released finding Americans felt the Fox News Network was BY FAR the most trusted name in news.

On Sunday, the results of a new online survey were released by a liberal entity somewhat confirming the Public Policy Polling data NewsBusters shared with you earlier in the year.

According to the "60 Minutes"/Vanity Fair poll, when asked the question, "Which one of the following do you consider to be the most trustworthy source of daily news in the United States," 32 percent of respondents answered CNN and 29 percent said FNC.

CBSNews.com reported the complete results:

Is America becoming a cable nation? With CNN getting 32 percent and Fox News 29 percent as the most trustworthy source of news, it would appear so. But if you factor in that around 50 percent of those that chose Fox were Republicans and 46 percent of those who chose CNN were Democrats (surprise) it might be an indication that America's propensity for fractious ideological divisions has spilled into how they choose to receive their daily ration of news. The big three networks (13 percent), The New York Times (8 percent) and the Wall Street Journal (7 percent) reflect an increasing diminution of old model, mainstream news delivery. 

As Steve Krakauer noted Monday:

There was a breakdown between Republicans and Democrats too, and while CNN dominated among Dems and FNC among the GOP, CNN got more than 20% of the Republican "vote" while more than 10% of the Democrats polled picked Fox News as most trusted.

The numbers are staggering, and continue to prove that cable news has a relationship with viewers that is more comfortable and trusting than the other forms of news dissemination. For CNN, the title of "most trusted name in news" continues to bear out, even as ratings fall. For FNC, the close 2nd should be a point of pride for its journalistic bonafides, especially considering the right/left breakdown.

Indeed.

One final note: those worshiping Jon Stewart will be unhappy to hear the "Daily Show" came in last. 

I guess that's why his writers got to assist President Obama in creating jokes for Saturday's White House Correspondents' Dinner. 

People on the Left squawked in January when a poll was released finding Americans felt the Fox News Network was BY FAR the most trusted name in news.

On Sunday, the results of a new online survey were released by a liberal entity somewhat confirming the Public Policy Polling data NewsBusters shared with you earlier in the year.

According to the "60 Minutes"/Vanity Fair poll, when asked the question, "Which one of the following do you consider to be the most trustworthy source of daily news in the United States," 32 percent of respondents answered CNN and 29 percent said FNC.

CBSNews.com reported the complete results:

Is America becoming a cable nation? With CNN getting 32 percent and Fox News 29 percent as the most trustworthy source of news, it would appear so. But if you factor in that around 50 percent of those that chose Fox were Republicans and 46 percent of those who chose CNN were Democrats (surprise) it might be an indication that America's propensity for fractious ideological divisions has spilled into how they choose to receive their daily ration of news. The big three networks (13 percent), The New York Times (8 percent) and the Wall Street Journal (7 percent) reflect an increasing diminution of old model, mainstream news delivery. 

As Steve Krakauer noted Monday:

There was a breakdown between Republicans and Democrats too, and while CNN dominated among Dems and FNC among the GOP, CNN got more than 20% of the Republican "vote" while more than 10% of the Democrats polled picked Fox News as most trusted.

The numbers are staggering, and continue to prove that cable news has a relationship with viewers that is more comfortable and trusting than the other forms of news dissemination. For CNN, the title of "most trusted name in news" continues to bear out, even as ratings fall. For FNC, the close 2nd should be a point of pride for its journalistic bonafides, especially considering the right/left breakdown.

Indeed.

One final note: those worshiping Jon Stewart will be unhappy to hear the "Daily Show" came in last. 

I guess that's why his writers got to assist President Obama in creating jokes for Saturday's White House Correspondents' Dinner. 

People on the Left squawked in January when a poll was released finding Americans felt the Fox News Network was BY FAR the most trusted name in news.

On Sunday, the results of a new online survey were released by a liberal entity somewhat confirming the Public Policy Polling data NewsBusters shared with you earlier in the year.

According to the "60 Minutes"/Vanity Fair poll, when asked the question, "Which one of the following do you consider to be the most trustworthy source of daily news in the United States," 32 percent of respondents answered CNN and 29 percent said FNC.

CBSNews.com reported the complete results:

Is America becoming a cable nation? With CNN getting 32 percent and Fox News 29 percent as the most trustworthy source of news, it would appear so. But if you factor in that around 50 percent of those that chose Fox were Republicans and 46 percent of those who chose CNN were Democrats (surprise) it might be an indication that America's propensity for fractious ideological divisions has spilled into how they choose to receive their daily ration of news. The big three networks (13 percent), The New York Times (8 percent) and the Wall Street Journal (7 percent) reflect an increasing diminution of old model, mainstream news delivery. 

As Steve Krakauer noted Monday:

There was a breakdown between Republicans and Democrats too, and while CNN dominated among Dems and FNC among the GOP, CNN got more than 20% of the Republican "vote" while more than 10% of the Democrats polled picked Fox News as most trusted.

The numbers are staggering, and continue to prove that cable news has a relationship with viewers that is more comfortable and trusting than the other forms of news dissemination. For CNN, the title of "most trusted name in news" continues to bear out, even as ratings fall. For FNC, the close 2nd should be a point of pride for its journalistic bonafides, especially considering the right/left breakdown.

Indeed.

One final note: those worshiping Jon Stewart will be unhappy to hear the "Daily Show" came in last. 

I guess that's why his writers got to assist President Obama in creating jokes for Saturday's White House Correspondents' Dinner. 

On Friday's CBS Early Show, correspondent Bill Whitaker reported on protests against Arizona's new immigration law, citing several opponents of the new measure, but failing to feature a single supporter. On Thursday's Evening News, Whitaker filed a nearly identical report that included a clip of at least one proponent of the legislation.

In the Early Show report, footage was show of an immigration law protestor declaring: "We are America. Get over it." Whitaker followed by proclaiming: "Opponents say requiring police to demand proof of citizenship from anyone they suspect is un-American. Even the mayor of Phoenix is suing to have the law overturned." A clip was played of Mayor Phil Gordon ranting: "Arizona and Phoenix is not the Arizona or Phoenix that you have seen portrayed by some individuals that have brought this racist, this hateful law to the state."

Whitaker noted how "protesters turned up the star power. Pop star Shakira voiced her opposition." A clip was played of the singer fretting: "I'm worried about the impact that the implementation of this law will have on hard working Latino families." Whitaker added: "Mexican American singer Linda Ronstadt spoke out, as well." Ronstadt remarked: "Gee, I better pack my passport, you know, coming to Tucson."

In his Evening News report, Whitaker cited Ronstadt and other opponents of the new Arizona law, but also cited Republican Texas State Representative Debbie Riddle, who is considering proposing similar legislation for her state: "The citizens are sick and tired of political correctness. They want, they want to take their country back."

So while soundbites from the lopsided Evening News report were 4-to-1 against the Arizona law, Whitaker's Early Show report was even worse, with 4-to-0 against. 

In both the Early Show and Evening News reports, Whitaker pointed out the arrest of 105 illegal immigrants along the Mexico-Arizona border on Wednesday as bolstering support of the law.

Here is a full transcript of Whitaker's Early Show report:

7:12AM

BETTY NGUYEN: This weekend, protests against Arizona's new immigration law are planned in more than 70 cities. CBS News correspondent Bill Whitaker is in Phoenix with more. Good morning, Bill.

BILL WHITAKER: Good morning, Betty. Now, one week after Arizona gained notice and notoriety with the toughest anti-immigration law in the country, protests are building, opposing sides are hardening, and outside pressure is mounting. Supporters of the tough new anti-immigration law need no more reason than this, 105 immigrants arrested Wednesday, crossing the border from Mexico to Arizona illegally.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Border Battle; Arizona's Immigration Debate]

UNIDENTIFIED MAN [IMMIGRATION PROTESTOR]: We are America. Get over it.

WHITAKER: But now the legislation is going to be challenged in court. Opponents say requiring police to demand proof of citizenship from anyone they suspect is un-American. Even the mayor of Phoenix is suing to have the law overturned.

PHIL GORDON: Arizona and Phoenix is not the Arizona or Phoenix that you have seen portrayed by some individuals that have brought this racist, this hateful law to the state.

WHITAKER: Arizona is being hit in the courts and the pocketbook. Cities across the country are threatening to boycott the state. Eight conventions have pulled out of Phoenix already. Each could cost the city up to $45,000. Yesterday, protesters turned up the star power. Pop star Shakira voiced her opposition.

SHAKIRA: I'm worried about the impact that the implementation of this law will have on hard working Latino families.

WHITAKER: Mexican American singer Linda Ronstadt spoke out, as well.

LINDA RONSTADT: Gee, I better pack my passport, you know, coming to Tucson.

WHITAKER: But there's just as much passion in support of the legislation. According to a new poll, 70% of Arizona residents are in favor of the law. And legislators in a number of states, including Ohio and Texas, say they plan to introduce Arizona-style laws there. On the other side, hundreds of thousands of Latinos and their supporters are expected to take to streets in cities across the country tomorrow calling for immigration reform. Betty.

NGUYEN: CBS's Bill Whitaker in Phoenix. Thank you.

Given the contentious debate over the proper role of religion in American public life, you'd think an important Supreme Court ruling on the issue would be a big story to the network news. But the Court's April 28 finding regarding a cross on a World War I memorial in the Mojave Desert elicited a yawn from CBS's "Evening News," a 78-word report from NBC's "Nightly News," and a one-sided segment from ABC's "World News with Diane Sawyer" that fretted if the Court "move[d] the bar on the separation of church and state."

The cross in question is part of a memorial built in 1934 in the federal-owned Mojave National Preserve to honor fallen WWI veterans. Lower courts ruled the cross unconstitutional and had it covered with a box, despite efforts taken in recent years by Congress to avoid constitutional questions over it by transferring that portion of the Preserve to private owners.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled this was not a clear-cut violation of the separation of church and state.

"The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion. Kennedy noted specifically about this cross that it "evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten."

ABC's Terry Moran examined the ruling in an April 28 "World News" segment and focused only on the "dismayed" reactions of those opposed to the cross. Neither soundbite in the segment came from anybody who was happy with the ruling.

Frank Buono, the former National Park Service employee who first raised the question about the cross told ABC, "It's a symbol of death and sacrifice only in the extent that it symbolizes the death and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. I mean, this is as religious as it gets."

Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State called the ruling "an example of a bad trend" and accused the Supreme Court of not caring about "religious minorities and non-believers."

Moran pointed out that the Supreme Court "ruling sends the case back down to lower courts," but failed to note that the ruling doesn't allow the cross to be uncovered. He also did not note that the issue of religious symbols on war memorials is still not completely settled.

Kelly Shackleford of the Liberty Institute, an organization that seeks protection of religious freedom, outlined to OneNewsNow the work that still needs to be done to settle the issue.

"We've got to go back down to the district court and still get a ruling taking this box off. And then additionally, the issue is still open as to whether veterans' memorials that have religious imagery should be left alone or whether the ACLU can continue to file these kinds of attacks," he explained.

  CBS won’t comment, but the NY Times reports that on Tuesday night’s episode of the ”The Good Wife” the story revolved around an artist killed by a bomb after he drew a...

View Original Post

On Thursday, Time magazine published a love letter from activist and musician Bono to former President Bill Clinton.

"There are professors who pretend to be populists and populists who pretend to be professors," the U2 lead-singer began his piece in the Heroes section of the 2010 Time 100 list.

"But there have never been a head and heart so perfectly matched as the pair within William Jefferson Clinton," he continued.

What followed was even more sick-making (h/t NBer Rusty Weiss):

It's an impossible equilibrium: wonky intellectual meets "Oh, hell" card player, oxygen and hydrogen. He defies the laws of physics as his daily exercise, but without him the universe just wouldn't be as friendly to humans.

Without him the universe just wouldn't be as friendly to humans?

That much sugar could send one into a diabetic coma.

But Bono wasn't done:

Tackling extreme poverty is something Clinton is no stranger to - he has worked in Africa for many years, kicking off debt cancellation, which resulted in an additional 42 million African children going to school. He had a huge hand in slashing the price of AIDS drugs for people who couldn't afford them.

Slashing the price of AIDS drugs in Africa. Hmm. Who did that?

Oh. That's right. It was former President George W. Bush.

In fact, in January 2003, Bono praised Bush for his Africa AIDS relief program as reported by BBC.com:

U2 frontman Bono has welcomed US President George Bush's decision to spend more on Aids prevention in Africa and the Caribbean.

The US leader is to increase the country's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief budget by $10 billion (£6.28bn) to $15 billion (£9.43bn) over the next five years.

President Bush said on Tuesday the budget would help prevent seven million new infections.

"If we can turn the president's bold long term vision into near term results we're excited," Bono said in a statement.

Three years later, Bono was interviewed on NBC's "Meet the Press" and continued to praise Bush:

I think he's done an incredible job, his administration, on AIDS. And 250,000 Africans are on anti-viral drugs. They literally owe their lives to America. In one year that's been done.

This program was so successful that CBS's "60 Minutes" did a piece earlier this month calling it "something so momentous that it is saving millions of lives and generating goodwill for America around the world." An AIDS doctor in Uganda was quoted as saying, "There has never been a rescue mission, a mission of mercy of this magnitude that has produced such magnanimous results."

Yet, roughly three weeks later, Bono is praising Clinton for slashing the price of AIDS drugs in Africa?

To be sure, the rock star did mention Bush's name in his Time love letter -- "That's why he was a brilliant choice to coordinate U.S. support earlier this year, along with President George W. Bush" -- but Clinton got all the AIDS relief credit. 

Unfortunately, despite Bush's fabulous work on a cause Bono himself championed, this wasn't the first time the rock star snubbed the 43rd President.

Back in 2006, Bono dodged a photo op hug with Bush as reported by Irish Central last July:

On a BBC program last night, the superstar U2 singer recalled how he he stiffed President Bush out of the photo op in 2006 at the National Prayer Breakfast.

The former President was on the stage with Bush when "Dubya" tried to hug Bono.

"There were all kinds of people in the audience," Bono recalled on Jonathan Ross' talk show.

Bono admitted he didn't feel like being the recipient of a hug from a man with whom he had so many political disagreements.

As the affectionate President neared, Bono tried to "dodge the hug" by jumping behind a podium.

The sidestep worked, and just about nobody in the audience knew it happened - though it was all captured on camera.

But - there was one sharp-eyed Senator in the bipartisan crowd who saw it all.

"When I was sitting down I was beside Sen. Obama, the star said the future President whispered to him, 'Nice work with the hug dodge.'"

Yeah. Nice work dodging a man that has saved millions of lives in Africa advancing a program you supported.

Makes you want to chuckle with Bono and that British television audience, doesn't it? 

Irony is the rock star isn't laughing now, for the Democrat-controlled Congress is about to cut foreign aid dollars, and Bono is none-too-pleased according to a piece published by Foreign Policy Thursday:

Add artist and activist Bono to the list of development leaders protesting the proposed cuts in foreign aid funding put forth by Senate Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad. The U2 frontman pleaded for Washington to resist Conrad's cuts during an impassioned speech Wednesday night in Washington. [...]

"Development gets even less if Senator Conrad gets his way," Bono told a crowd of generals, politicians, and other Washington glitterati at the Ritz Carlton, where the Atlantic Council was holding its annual awards dinner and gala. "So you peaceniks in fatigues have a job to do over the next few weeks."

For the record, that would be DEMOCRAT Senator Conrad, Mr. Rock Star.

As for the Clinton loving, this wasn't the first time Bono's done that either. As NewsBusters' Tim Graham pointed out in 2007, the U2 singer gave an interview to Rolling Stone that November extolling the brilliance of the 42nd President for having spoken with leading members of the IRA in the '90s.

Of course, he also said told Rolling Stone that America should talk to terrorist groups Hamas and al Qaeda.

Makes you wonder about the matching of HIS head and heart. 

On MediaBistro.com's TVNewser blog, Chris Ariens reported on Wednesday that CBS News has announced a list of special guests seated at its table for Saturday's upcoming White House Correspondents Association Dinner, a list which includes a handful of celebrities as well as a seven prominent political figures, only one of whom is a Republican.

The public officials who will be sitting down for a meal with CBS anchors and correspondents are White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Attorney General Eric Holder, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Washington DC Mayor Adrian Fenty, Democratic Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, and the lone Republican, Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor. I wonder who Katie Couric will choose to sit next to?
                    
The non-political guests are actor Morgan Freeman, who narrates the opening of the CBS Evening News, actress Julianna Margulies, actress Betty White, talk show host Chelsea Handler, and Ayla Brown, the daughter of Republican Senator Scott Brown and newly named contributor to the CBS Early Show. 

 

As congressional Democrats press on with their attempts to get financial legislation reform passed, a key component has been lacking from the debate: how to handle the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae (NYSE:FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE:FRE). 

Although some Republican lawmakers have cried foul over the fact nothing has been included in a bill sponsored by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sen. Chris Dodd, (D-Conn.), President Barack Obama's administration has vowed to pursue reforming the GSEs ... eventually. 

However, despite a long history of alleged corruption, close ties to the current administration and a recent $10-billion extension of "emergency aid" to Freddie and Fannie in the deadest possible part of the news cycle, these two entities have gone relatively unnoticed by the news media, with a lion's share of the spotlight given to Wall Street bogeymen like Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS).

More Video Below Fold

Reporting on the roles of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has been almost nonexistent, particularly in the broadcast media. Since March 28, ABC, CBS and NBC put together only broached the topic of GSEs one time. But Goldman Sachs and the circumstances surrounding an SEC investigation were mentioned 37 times.

Even in the cable media, home of the 24-hour news cycle, when GSE-reform is discussed, it's dismissed as some sort of Republican talking point or distraction.

Background: Freddie and Fannie ‘Proximate Cause' of Crisis

Though the attention has been lacking, there is a strong to be made that these government-sponsored enterprises are at least somewhat, if not largely, culpable for the economic crisis.

According to the "Financial Services Committee Republican Plan for Reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," posted on March 26, it's not just the collapse in housing these GSEs are responsible for, but the entire economic crisis.

"The evidence is clear that the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) - specifically, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - were the proximate cause of the economic crisis," the Republican plan explained. "Ultimately supported by the taxpayers to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, Fannie and Freddie permitted their executives, investors, and creditors to make outsize profits when times were good, but stuck taxpayers with the tab when the housing bubble burst. Fannie and Freddie's access to cheap capital and the taxpayers' pocketbook helped run up housing prices to unsustainable levels, while crowding out lenders and investors who could not afford to compete against these government-sponsored juggernauts."

And as Business & Media Institute adviser John Lott pointed out on his blog on April 7, the notion that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played pivotal role in the financial isn't just a Republican talking point, but also one that former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified to in front the Financial Crisis Inquiry on April 7.

"While the roots of the crisis were global, it was securitized U.S. subprime mortgages that served as the crisis' immediate trigger," Greenspan said. "The surge in demand for mortgage back securities was heavily driven by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which were pressed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Congress to expand affordable housing commitments."

The federal government was forced to bail Fannie and Freddie out in 2008 to avert what some believed would have been a complete collapse of the U.S. financial system. Peter Wallison, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and considered by many to be the one of the foremost experts on these government-sponsored enterprises, wrote for the Wall Street Journal on April 20 this bailout isn't cheap.

"The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that, in the wake of the housing bubble and the unprecedented deflation in housing values that resulted, the government's cost to bail out Fannie and Freddie will eventually reach $381 billion," Wallison wrote. "That estimate may be too optimistic. Last Christmas Eve, Treasury removed the $400 billion cap on what the government might be required to invest in these two GSEs in the future, and this may tell the real story about the cost to taxpayers. In typical Washington fashion, everyone has amnesia about how this disaster occurred."

Called a ‘Red Herring,' ‘Diversionary Tactic'

Yet despite these exorbitant numbers, proponents of the Democratic reform legislation dismiss Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as irrelevant.

On CNBC's April 23 "Power Lunch," network contributor Keith Boykin pooh poohed former Bush administration adviser Ron Christie's assertion that GSE reform was essential.

"If we talk about serious regulatory reform, you need to have Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in there," Christie said. "The fact that those two entities, those GSE aren't in here makes me believe that the Democrats aren't serious.
"This is a red herring," Boykin responded. "The Republicans have been using this distraction about Fannie Mae and the GSEs - trying to throw this out there. If we don't get the government-sponsored enterprises in the loop, then somehow we're not doing serious financial reform. But this is really a trick I think on the part of the Republicans to prevent financial reform from taking place at all. Let's focuses on if it does well in this bill."

On CNN's April 22 "Rick's List," fill-in host Drew Griffin attempted to tackle the topic in an interview with Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio. But for that, Griffin was promptly rebuffed by Brown.

"Fannie and Freddie made mistakes, absolutely," Brown said. "I'm very willing to address them, but it's all diversionary tactics. It's what they do. I mean, again, I know you don't like to hear this, Drew, and maybe some of your viewers don't either, but when one party - and there are too many Democrats that are responsive to Wall Street. I don't deny that either, but when one party is totally captured by Wall Street interests, just like in the health care bill they were totally captured by insurance company interests, then it's hard to - it's hard to move forward. All this other stuff is diversionary tactics because they're trying to protect Wall Street."

Why? According to Brown, the GOP was pandering to Wall Street in return for campaign donations, despite evidence showing Democrats' willingness to accept Wall Street contributions and Wall Street's eagerness to make them. So to Brown, GSE reform was not a pressing matter.

"They meet with them," Brown continued. "They ask them for campaign money. They try to protect them. We've got a lot of work to do this right. We know how to do it. I hope we deal with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But they aren't the underpinning of the problem. They were basically imitating some of the awful things that Wall Street did. That doesn't let them off the hook. But the fundamental reform is to do what we're doing in this bill and to do it frankly a little bit stronger than we're doing it now."

Members of the media are no more willing to address GSE reform than Democrat politicians, as Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. Discovered on On MSNBC's April 22 broadcast of "MSNBC News Live."

"Well, the president is doing two things, pushing hard for what he calls reform and villifying Wall Street very broadly. And I think the pushback has to be that Wall Street was part of the problem, but it was only part of Wall Street," Issa explained. "Not every investment bank was part of this. You know, I think about Blackrock, who publicly said more than a year before the collapse that subprime was a problem, was getting out of it. There were plenty of people who did the right thing and certainly conventional banks did the right thing. So when we talk about somehow regulating this amorphous group on Wall Street, we're talking about people who in many cases had nothing to do with it, while Fannie and Freddie and AIG's FP division in England would not be covered by this bill."

But MSNBC host Tamron Hall rejected Issa's breakdown. In her view, its fine to punish for the whole for the crimes of a few. But oddly, that whole doesn't encompass GES.

"But congressman, you and I both know that's how life is," Hall replied. "I mean, you can have a neighborhood for example and something bad happens in the neighborhood. You're going to focus on what to do to fix that problem and most folks in that community being Wall Street in this case may be doing the right thing but when those who are making big mistakes affect our economy and effect the way you and I live and everyone watching, you want those problems corrected - even if it's one percent or two percent, if they're causing potential disaster to this country."

Broadcast Nets Make Little Mention of GSEs

While the actually role of government-sponsored enterprises in the financial crisis is a matter of debate for some of the cable media, even most of their defenders would likely concede Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played some role.

However, a Nexis search of ABC, CBS and NBC coverage of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac over the past month revealed very disappointing numbers. Dating back to March 28, these GSEs have been mentioned in news coverage by anyone who is not an elected official only once, when New York Times columnist David Brooks mounted his quasi-defense of Goldman Sachs on the April 25 "Meet the Press."

"I'd like to defend Goldman Sachs," Brooks said. "I mean, we had a mania. Everybody thought housing prices were going to go up forever. Who was going to stop that? Well, it wasn't the Fed. It wasn't the guys at Fannie and Freddie. It wasn't the great and the good, the people leading Citigroup and all those. It was a bunch of arrogant scuzzballs who said, ‘Everybody else in the world is a bunch of idiots. I know better, I'm going to put a lot of money betting against that, betting against this bubble.' And they happened to be right and they happened to be intelligent. And they are scuzzballs, but frankly a lot of people who were going long on the market were scuzzballs, too."

Goldman Sachs, however, being the scapegoat du jour was mentioned on 51 broadcasts on CBS, NBC and ABC. Each of the networks hit the topic 17 times.

It is important to note that, during that time, the Securities and Exchanges Commission charged Goldman with fraud. Therefore, the investment bank would logically overshadow the GSEs, even though President Barack Obama had explicitly said those filings had nothing to do with the politics of the financial regulation bill.

"Categorically, we found out about it on CNBC," Obama said to CNBC's John Harwood on April 21. "The SEC is an entirely independent agency that we have no day-to-day control over. And they have never discussed with us anything with respect to the charge that would be brought. So this notion that somehow there would be any attempt to interfere with an independent agency is completely false."

Arizona officially joined the South this month. In other words, it became for our Northeastern media elitists a state dominated by backward, slack-jawed racists. The Associated Press marked the passage of a tough new anti-immigration law with the leftist version of a Welcome Wagon: “The furor over Arizona's new law cracking down on illegal immigrants grew Monday as opponents used refried beans to smear swastikas on the state Capitol.”

Disagreeing with the left – and more importantly, handing them a political defeat – brings a lot of ugliness these days from the forces of “tolerance.” Character assassination is required. A citizen of Arizona cannot be concerned about higher rates of crime and strained government budgets without being Mexican-food-smeared as an adorer of Adolf Hitler.

But what’s truly outrageous if not surprising is that the same media that visibly quivered with anger that anyone would draw a Hitler moustache on their hero Barack Obama now present these Nazi smears as not an embarrassment to the left, but as a way of augmenting the left. The “furor was growing” over the tough new law, they dutifully report.

On the CBS Evening News, Katie Couric calmly forwarded as credible the Nazi charge against those who support enforcing federal immigration laws. On April 23, CBS reporter Bill Whitaker suddenly liked the Catholics: “In Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahony, head of the country’s largest Catholic archdiocese, called the law mean-spirited and compared it to Nazi oppression.”

On April 26, CBS spotlighted a swastika sign with the words “Achtung! Papers Please,” and Couric relayed the AP line that “some of those opponents vandalized the state capital building, smearing refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the windows.” Ho hum.

Don’t these “journalists” see the contradiction? Are they really that blind, or that dumb?  

A month ago, when the Tea Party movement brought their ardor to Capitol Hill against a government takeover of the health industry, “ugly” was the defining word.

Here’s David Muir on ABC’s March 20 World News: “Protesters against the plan gathered on the streets of the Capitol, where late today we learned words shouted turned very ugly – reports of racial and homophobic slurs, one protesters actually spitting on a Congressman.” There were no arrests, and no actual proof of the “slurs” alleged. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver backed off the claim he was spit on. The N-word was never used, as so dishonestly claimed.

And still, the Tea Party is “very ugly.”

When protesters are left-wing, how it changes. Look at the Arizona coverage. On the same network on April 24, ABC reporter Mike von Fremd was spinning wildly: “Riot police were called in to try and control demonstrators protesting outside the capital. Most were peaceful. A handful threw bottles at police and were arrested.”

This spin line – that rioting protesters were “mostly peaceful” -- was repeated by the New York Times, and by CNN (who called them “largely peaceful”). The Times made sure its photo choices radiated sympathy for the protesters. On Saturday, they stood enveloped in a huge American flag. On Sunday, they were holding a sober candlelight vigil. There were no photos of a cop getting hit in the head with a bottle. ABC and NBC noted the protests, and mentioned neither the violence, nor the “mostly peaceful” spin.

A leftist protester of the World Bank was also arrested in Washington on April 24 for felony assault on a policeman, one of eight arrests. No one heard about that violence. Media liberals may dismiss the notion of violence by insisting that policemen haven’t been hospitalized.

But leftist protests, in the architecture of their organizing principles, rely on making days miserable for police, forcing arrests for disturbing the peace, on forcibly blocking traffic and then going limp and forcing officers carry them to jail. In the interest of drawing media attention, they often plan on violence against policemen and property.  They must sneer at conservative protests as placid garden parties by comparison.'

And the tea party protesters are the “ugly,” “violent” ones.

A Washington Post article glorifying this last weekend’s leftist jog in our nation’s capital as a “run on the bank” to “destroy capitalism” offered a telling line. One protester described the expected behavior for their “convergence space” before protest activities, warning “Don’t be a jackass in the neighborhood. Save that for downtown.”

The sick joke in that line is that protesters can be as aggressive and offensive anywhere they want, and they can count on their media sympathizers to romanticize their struggle against whatever power structure that has failed to bow to their utopian wishes.

Hitting from the left in an interview with Republican Senator John McCain on Tuesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith worried about the ability of financial reform legislation to expand government control over Wall Street: "How are you going to dis – how does any of this dismantle these giant financial institutions?"

On April 22, ABC Good Morning America co-host George Stephanopoulos asked Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner a similar question: "Why shouldn't those big banks be broken up?"  

At the top of Tuesday's Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez put the GOP on the defensive: "Democrats continue to push for Wall Street reform. But are Republicans on board?" Smith later introduced the segment by portraying Democrats as fighting for reform: "Democrats refuse to give up on reforming Wall Street. Yesterday Republicans put the brakes on, but another vote could happen today."

In a report that followed, correspondent Nancy Cordes declared: "Senate Republicans voted last night against moving forward with debate on the massive financial reform bill. That drew angry recriminations from Democrats." A clip was played of Democratic Virginia Senator Mark Warner slamming Republican opposition: "I never got the memo that said our job wasn't actually to get stuff done."

Smith asked McCain about the bill's effectiveness in preventing another financial crisis: "will Americans be immune from the same kind of cataclysm that almost took the country off the economic edge two years ago?" McCain responded by pointing out problems with the legislation: "The bill, as it's constituted, I certainly couldn't give that guarantee....Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not included in any way in this legislation. They were the major catalyst behind this meltdown."

Smith went on to fret: "these giant financial institutions make most of their money now, not by mergers and acquisitions, not by investment banking, but by trading. They don't want to get out of the trading business. How are you going to dis – how does any of this dismantle these giant financial institutions?"

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Goldman Sachs executives get grilled on Capitol Hill today as Democrats continue to push for Wall Street reform. But are Republicans on board? We'll talk exclusively with Senator John McCain.

7:01AM SEGMENT

HARRY SMITH: First, Democrats refuse to give up on reforming Wall Street. Yesterday Republicans put the brakes on, but another vote could happen today. And in the hot seat this morning, the embattled head of Goldman Sachs. CBS News congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes has more from Capitol Hill. Nancy, good morning.

NANCY CORDES: Good morning, Harry. This is the first time that the CEO of Goldman Sachs will testify here on Capitol Hill since his company was accused of fraud. Now, the Senators have been conducting their own investigation here. They say the company was making huge bets against the mortgage market, hastening its decline. According to his prepared testimony, Lloyd Blankfein, the embattled CEO of investment banking giant Goldman Sachs, will tell senators today, quote, 'we certainly did not bet against our clients.'

CARL LEVIN: I don't think they've been forthcoming with the public.

CORDES: The Securities and Exchange Commission has accused Goldman of knowingly deceiving clients, not telling them that one of its mortgage related investments called 'Abacus' was designed to fail. Internal company e-mails just released by congressional investigators suggest Goldman was having trouble finding an outside manager to vouch for Abacus, with one trader writing that one manager, quote, 'declined given their negative views on most of the credits. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan will lead the questioning today. What is it that your investigation has uncovered that has troubled you the most?

LEVIN: I think what troubles me, probably the most, is the conflicts of interest which are fundamentally inherent.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: The motion is not agreed to.

CORDES: Meanwhile, Senate Republicans voted last night against moving forward with debate on the massive financial reform bill. That drew angry recriminations from Democrats.

MARK WARNER: I never got the memo that said our job wasn't actually to get stuff done.

CORDES: Republicans say they want to get stuff done, too. They just have problems with the bill, the two sides are still at the bargaining table. They say those talks are going well and the Democrats could schedule another vote in the next few days. Harry.

SMITH: Nancy Cordes on Capitol Hill this morning. Thank you very much. Joining us exclusively from Washington is Arizona senator and former Republican presidential nominee John McCain. Senator, good morning.

JOHN MCCAIN: Good morning, Harry.

SMITH: Finance reform bill. Dead, alive, comatose, how would you describe it?

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Financial Reform; McCain, GOP Take on Obama Plan]

MCCAIN: I'd say alive. I think that there's been significant progress made. I think there's more progress that needs to be made. There's a lot of complexities here, a lot of members frankly don't understand all aspects of the bill. But I think there is a common desire to achieve a goal here.

SMITH: In the end, will Americans – if this gets passed – in the end, will Americans be immune from the same kind of cataclysm that almost took the country off the economic edge two years ago?

MCCAIN: The bill, as it's constituted, I certainly couldn't give that guarantee. For example, Fannie and Freddie are not – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not included in any way in this legislation. They were the major catalyst behind this meltdown.

SMITH: The big mortgage lenders, yeah.

MCCAIN: Exactly. I'm very worried about the fact that these – if financial institutions that are big have gotten bigger. So there's a lot of concern here. But I think there is a good faith effort being made to reach an agreement.

SMITH: One of the things that was talked about was this whole notion of 'too big to fail,' these giant financial institutions make most of their money now, not by mergers and acquisitions, not by investment banking, but by trading. They don't want to get out of the trading business. How are you going to dis – how does any of this dismantle these giant financial institutions?

MCCAIN: Well, I think that there are regulations over so-called derivatives and there's other measures. But what bothers me is that why not – don't we just, as I, Senator Cantwell and I recommended, just go back to the point where banks that do the traditional banking things, making loans to people so they can buy their homes and all of that, just make them separate from these financial institutions. As we'll find out today in the hearing with Mr. Blankfein, that they do a lot of other things. In fact, there is compelling evidence, as was just reported, that the kind of activity that Goldman was in hastened the – and deepened the crisis.

SMITH: Yeah. Do you feel like – or from what you understand of it anyway – that Goldman Sachs was literally betting against itself?

MCCAIN: I don't think they were betting against themselves. I think they were trying to hedge their bets the same way if you go to it Las Vegas, the sports book, and the sports book balances the bets. But it had the effect of worsening and deepening the housing crisis, in my view.

With the release of the Department of Defense's report on the November Fort Hood massacre, two tends are becoming increasingly clear: the administration does not want to talk about Islam's violent elements, and the mainstream media is more than willing to play along.

The administration's position clear to anyone examining official documentation. The Fort Hood report, the FBI's counterterrorism lexicon, and the 2009 National Intelligence Strategy do not even use the words enemy, jihad, Muslim, or Islam. The original 9/11 Commission Report, in contrast, used those words a combined 632 times.

The media's attitude towards radical Islam's role in this particular attack is evident in its reluctance to attribute Maj. Nidal Hasan's motives to jihad. The members of the media who share this attitude obfuscate the threats facing the nation.

Shortly after the shooting at Fort Hood, the Culture and Media Institute released a report that highlighted three telling facts:

Networks Decide Attack Wasn’t Terror: 85 percent of the broadcast stories didn’t mention the word “terror.” ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news referenced terrorism connections to the Fort  Hood attack just seven times in 48 reports.

ABC, CBS, NBC Follow White House Line: Before Obama's Nov. 10 speech, 93 percent of the stories had ignored any terror connection. But after Obama hinted at what ABC called “Islamic extremist views,” all three networks mentioned terrorism.

Alleged Attacker’s Muslim Faith Not Important Either: Slightly more than one-fourth (29 percent) of evening news reports mentioned that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was a Muslim. Of those, half (7 out of 14) defended the religion or included experts to do so.

Chris Matthews was even said that Hasan's attempts to contact al-Qaeda were not necessarily cause for action. "That's not a crime to contact al-Qaeda, is it?" Matthews asked.

"The Christian religion has its full helping of nuts too," Bob Scheiffer made sure to note. That comment was indicative of the larger trend in the media's coverage of the incident. That "don't jump to conclusions" attitude stands in stark contrast to much of the media's condemnations of Christianity.

Take General William "Jerry" Boykin, for instance.

Boykin was reprimanded for voicing personal religious views regarding the war on terror at his church. The Washington Post reported that the General was issued "a 'complete exoneration' that ultimately found Boykin responsible for a few 'relatively minor offenses' related to technical and bureaucratic issues."

The liberal media disagreed. CBS carried a segment (found via Nexis) on Boykin entitled "Holy Warrior." NPR's Nina Totenberg hoped "he's not long for this world," quickly clarifying that she meant "in his job, in his job, please, please, in his job."

The Washington Post and New York Times -- among many other newspapers -- lamented that Boykin's comments would be construed as endorsing a holy war against Islam.

Meanwhile, swaths of the mainstream media danced around Islam's holy war (the direct translation of "jihad") against all of Western civilization. While the American left was opining about the inference of holy war, an actual holy war had already been declared!

The horrible plight that Muslims in the military were sure to suffer at the hands of their bigoted, light-skinned comrades in arms never materialized. Meanwhile, 14 Americans had just been killed by a man screaming "Allahu Akbar" as he pumped round after round into his unarmed victims.

If the liberal media -- and their ideological counterparts in the federal government -- continue their Orwellian campaign against the use of religiously-charged words in national security documents, we may forget that a real war is going on, and start worrying about a hypothetical one.

Near the end of an interview with Arizona Senator John McCain on Tuesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith turned to the subject of illegal immigration and the new Arizona law to combat it: "a very tough immigration reform bill which basically makes it illegal for you to be in the state without some sort of documentation. Is this law the answer to the immigration crisis?"

McCain noted the number of illegal immigrants entering Arizona and the level of drug trafficking taking place: "Across the Tucson sector of Arizona last year, there was 241,000 apprehensions of illegal immigrants....1.3 million pounds of marijuana intercepted on the Tucson border just last year." Smith followed up by wondering: "And for the millions of Hispanic Americans who live in Arizona, what do you say to them who feel like this bill is purely discriminatory?"

In a news brief on the topic at the top of the 8AM ET hour, fill-in news reader Betty Nguyen described how: "The Obama administration and activists are considering legal challenges to Arizona's new immigration enforcement law, which has reignited a national debate." A series of signs from an immigration protest in San Francisco appeared on screen: "Latinos Today, Who's Next? Shame on Arizona;" "Boycott Arizona;" "Brown Is Not A Crime."As footage of the protest rolled, Nguyen explained: "The law makes it a crime to be an illegal immigrant." On Monday, an MSNBC headline made the same odd statement.

On Monday's CBS Evening News, correspondent John Blackstone argued: "many feel the sting of racism in the new law."

The Saturday Early Show also covered the passage of the Arizona immigration law, as co-host Chris Wragge declared at the show's opening: "Border War. Arizona's governor signs the nation's toughest law against illegal immigration. Will the new legislation help secure the nation's borders or expand racial profiling?"

Moments later, White House correspondent Bill Plante reported: "The bill makes it a crime to be in Arizona illegally....Brewer said that she would not tolerate racial profiling, but that's what federal officials fear. President Obama called the Arizona law 'misguided' and urged lawmakers to get going on immigration reform. 'Failure to act,' he said, 'opens the door to irresponsibility.'" A headline on screen read: "Arizona Crackdown; New Law Makes Illegal Immigration A Crime" Apparently neither MSNBC nor CBS seem capable of seeing the irony in that declaration.

Following Plante's report, Wragge moderated a debate on the issue between Republican strategist Bay Buchanan and Democratic strategist Maria Cardona. Wragge wondered: "Does Arizona's new immigration law go too far?" He then asked Buchanan: "Do you find it in any way unconstitutional?"

Turning to Cardona, Wragge continued his negative tone: "Why is this bad for the people of Arizona, in your eyes?" That gave Cardona the opportunity to rant: "It is not only horrendous policy, it is even worse politics. This is an insidious law that will actually make, not just all undocumented immigrants, but all legal and U.S. citizen Latinos, many of which, whose families have been in Arizona even before Arizona was part of the United States. It makes them under suspicion."

Following up, Wragge did challenge Cardona to present an alternative solution to the immigration problem: "$3 billion a year to educate, medicate, and incarcerate illegals in the state of Arizona. You're not in favor of this law, so what could have been done differently?" Cardona called for a "comprehensive" federal approach and again attacked the Arizona law: "The only thing this law will do is to make it open season for any immigrant, anybody who does not look Anglo, and it will make actually racial profiling legal in Arizona. It's insidious and it's wrongheaded."

Here is a full transcript of Wragge's discussion with Buchanan and Cardona:

CHRIS WRAGGE: So, does Arizona's new immigration law go too far? Let's get two points of view this morning. Bay Buchanan is a Republican strategist, who supports the measure. Maria Cardona is a Democratic strategist, opposed to it. Both are in our Washington bureau this morning. Ladies, good morning to the both of you.

BAY BUCHANAN: Good morning to you.

MARIA CARDONA: Good morning.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: The Great Immigration Debate; Does Arizona's New Law Go Too Far?]

WRAGGE: Bay, I'm going to start with you. I know you fully support this bill, but do you-

BUCHANAN: Absolutely.

WRAGGE: -do you find it in any way unconstitutional?

BUCHANAN: Oh not – not whatsoever. You know what they're giving is the tools to the law enforcement officers of Arizona. The same tools that we now have given to the border agents. They have the ability to ask people about their legal status. And the key was what Russell Pearce, the Senator who's behind this bill, did. See he went to the police officers and the law enforcement officers, the prosecutors in Arizona and said, 'what can we do? What do you need to finally take care of this issue here in the state?' And they said, 'we need greater tools, we need these abilities,' and that's what they did, is they have now put it into law, given the law enforcement officers of Arizona the ability to secure the welfare and the safety of the people of Arizona.

WRAGGE: Lots of responsibility for local law enforcement in Arizona. Maria, why is this bad for the people of Arizona, in your eyes?

CARDONA: It is not only horrendous policy, it is even worse politics. This is an insidious law that will actually make, not just all undocumented immigrants, but all legal and U.S. citizen Latinos, many of which, whose families have been in Arizona even before Arizona was part of the United States. It makes them under suspicion. They become people of interest under this law. They could be speaking Spanish on a corner. Who knows what 'reasonable suspicion' means. The Governor herself could not answer the question yesterday about what an illegal immigrant looks like. So, law enforcement officers, a lot of – a lot of law enforcement officers in Arizona don't want this law. They understand that they need community policing and in order to be effective law enforcement officers, they need the trust of the Hispanic community, which will absolutely evaporate under this law.

BUCHANAN: But-

WRAGGE: Yeah, go ahead, Bay.

BUCHANAN: But you know, Chris, the law, as it stands before this was written, has not done the job. Arizona is a target for human and drug smuggling. It's the number one place, the number one state in the country where that's coming through, that's the target of the drug cartels to take them right through that state. And, as a result, Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of the country and it's one of the top kidnapping capitals of the world now.

CARDONA: But, the-

BUCHANAN: The crime in Arizona is outrageous. People are being murdered, the crime is high. The schools are overloaded. This – laws have not worked and so now they're given the tools. They're taking the handcuffs off the police officers and they're going to be putting them on those who are violating the laws of this country.

WRAGGE: Alright. Maria, let me ask you this. $3 billion a year along the lines of what Bay is saying here, $3 billion a year to educate, medicate, and incarcerate illegals in the state of Arizona. You're not in favor of this law, so what could have been done differently?

CARDONA: Look, what we need, clearly, is comprehensive immigration reform. I absolutely understand the frustration of the folks in Arizona, of all of our leaders in the border states who – who look at this problem and have – and have had this problem for many, many, many years. It is an issue that we need to deal with at a federal level, which is why the President said yesterday that we need to deal with this by passing comprehensive immigration reform.

The law in Arizona is not the way to go. I agree with Bay that there is a huge problem with undocumented immigrants who are actually drug traffickers and – and all of the crime is clearly an issue. This law does nothing to address this. The only thing this law will do is to make it open season for any immigrant, anybody who does not look Anglo, and it will make actually racial profiling legal in Arizona.

WRAGGE: Bay, last word to you, Bay-

CARDONA: It's insidious and it's wrongheaded.

WRAGGE: Bay, last word to you. How do you apply this law without racially discriminating against people or profiling?

BUCHANAN: You know, our border agents do it every day. So, this is nothing new. And, so-

CARDONA: They are trained.

BUCHANAN: -what they're saying is – they are trained – and that is what the governor of Arizona said, she's going to train her police officers. The key here is this is what the people of Arizona want. They've had it with federal government. They have refused to do the job, and the answer is not amnesty for the 15 to 20 million illegals here. That's what Obama wants. That's what the Democrats want. It is not – that just increases the number of people coming into the country illegal. The people of Arizona on the front lines that are paying the price, they've had it. This will clean up the problem in Arizona. That's what it'll do.

WRAGGE: Ladies, I got to leave it there.

CARDONA: It'll do nothing to do that.

WRAGGE: Got to leave it there. Thank you both very much. We could probably spend the next two hours on this topic.

BUCHANAN: We could.

WRAGGE: It is a hot topic. Alright. Republican strategist Bay Buchanan, Democratic strategist Maria Cardona. Thank you both, ladies, we do appreciate you getting up early with us this morning.

BUCHANAN: Sure, thank you.

CARDONA: Thank you very much.

At the top of Monday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith referenced a possible Senate vote on the Democrats' financial reform bill and proclaimed: "Showdown in the Senate. Democrats are scrambling to get enough votes. Will anyone in the GOP break ranks?" It was just the latest example of a week of CBS coverage pressuring Republicans to sign on to the controversial legislation.

In a later report, correspondent Nancy Cordes explained: "both parties say they are for reform and they are deep in negotiations over it....But without a deal, many, if not all, Senate Republicans plan to vote 'no' today, blocking a floor debate on the bill." That was followed by a clip of Democratic Senator Chris Dodd declaring: "Here we are 17 months after someone broke into our house, in effect, robbed us, and we still haven't even changed the locks on the doors." A headline on screen read: "Financial Reform Showdown; Will Anyone in GOP Break Ranks?"

In his introduction to the report, Smith described the Democratic effort as a "test vote." Cordes pointed out: "this vote that Democrats have called for today could very well fail." She later concluded: "Even if the vote fails today, negotiations will go on and Republicans and Democrats seem confident that a financial reform bill will pass sooner rather than later." However, neither her nor Smith questioned holding the vote or suggested it was political theater to force a deal.

Following Cordes's report, Smith asked Republican Congressman Darrell Issa about GOP objections to the bill: "This legislation is supposed to help prevent big banks from taking risks that ultimately will take down the economy like we saw 18 or 19 months ago. Do you see things in this legislation, as it stands right now, that can do that?" Issa replied by pointing out an obvious flaw in the legislation:

What Republicans are asking for, when you say big banks, you have to realize the biggest bank-like entities involved in this were Freddie [Mac] and Fannie [Mae]....entities that had something to do with, you know, basically a meltdown that began with too many mortgages, many of them bought – bought and encouraged by the federal government.

Over the past week, the Early Show failed to note that the government-backed mortgage lenders were not addressed as part of the supposed reform of the financial industry. Even after Issa brought up the subject, Smith dismissed it as a side issue, instead wanting to only focus on the private sector: "In the end, though, those things were turned into derivatives that were traded all over the place, which gave impetus to the market that said this can go on forever."

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE

HARRY SMITH: Showdown in the Senate. Democrats are scrambling to get enough votes. Will anyone in the GOP break ranks? We'll take you to Capitol Hill.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Reform Showdown]

7:08AM SEGMENT

SMITH:  Now to the showdown in the Senate. Democrats are pressing ahead with a possible test vote on financial reform even though they may not have enough votes. CBS News congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes is in Washington with details and the numbers. Nancy, good morning.

NANCY CORDES: Good morning to you, Harry. That's right, both parties say they are for reform and they are deep in negotiations over it. But they're not there yet, which means this vote that Democrats have called for today could very well fail.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Financial Reform Showdown; Will Anyone in GOP Break Ranks?]

RICHARD SHELBY: I think we will get a bill. If the Democrats want a bill and will give us some things that we think that are substantive in nature.

CORDES: But without a deal, many, if not all, Senate Republicans plan to vote 'no' today, blocking a floor debate on the bill.

CHRIS DODD: Here we are 17 months after someone broke into our house, in effect, robbed us, and we still haven't even changed the locks on the doors.

CORDES: Republicans think the bill needs to make it clear, failing firms will not be bailed out. And they think that consumer protections and regulations on derivatives in the bill are too onerous.

MITCH MCCONNELL: This is not a situation where anybody I know in the Senate wants no bill to pass, but it is important to pass a good bill.

CORDES: Tomorrow, the CEO of Goldman Sachs will come to Capitol Hill to testify. He'll likely be asked about newly released internal e-mails that show his company profited from the mortgage meltdown. 'Sounds like we will make some serious money,' emailed one employee to another as foreclosures mounted. In another online exchange, one trader told another, 'I'm not so convinced this is a total death spiral. In fact, we may have terrific opportunities.'

LARRY SUMMERS: This underscores what is at the center of the President's vision here. The importance of transparency, the importance of things being in the open.

CORDES: Even if the vote fails today, negotiations will go on and Republicans and Democrats seem confident that a financial reform bill will pass sooner rather than later. Harry.

SMITH: Nancy Cordes on Capitol Hill this morning. Thank you. One of the critics of the financial reform bill is Republican Congressman Darrell Issa of California. He joins us now from Washington. Congressman, good morning.

DARRELL ISSA: Good morning, Harry.

SMITH: This legislation is supposed to help prevent big banks from taking risks that ultimately will take down the economy like we saw 18 or 19 months ago. Do you see things in this legislation, as it stands right now, that can do that?

ISSA: Well, there are some things in this legislation. What Republicans are asking for, when you say big banks, you have to realize the biggest bank-like entities involved in this were Freddie and Fannie. And we're still sitting there with trillions of dollars of underwater loans. So, yes, we want to have reform, but it's clear that a 'no' vote today by 41 Republicans is a 'yes' vote to do more comprehensive reform, more balanced reform, including the other entities that had something to do with, you know, basically a meltdown that began with too many mortgages, many of them bought – bought and encouraged by the federal government.
                                    
SMITH: In the end, though, those things were turned into derivatives that were traded all over the place, which gave impetus to the market that said this can go on forever. We'll come back and ask a different question, though. This bailout fund that's sort of looming out there, this sort of idea of putting together about $50 billion, probably paid for by the banks, that would help deconstruct a bank if it came up to the edge and would be on the verge of going out of business, good idea or bad idea?

ISSA: Well, Harry, I think what we have to remember is there already is a fund for banks. What we're talking about here is bank-like entities. And the last thing we need to do is to further confuse what is bank and what isn't a bank. After all, AIG was an insurance company, but AIGFP in England, that did most of these guarantees that went bad, in fact, wasn't even an insurance company by real U.S. standards. So I think what we have to do in financial reform is say what is a bank and it gets one set of rules. Financial institutions get another. And insurance companies, quite frankly, have to be a big part of the new regulation, along with rating agencies that told us things were triple A, when they weren't even triple B.

SMITH: You got that right. Congressman Issa, thank you very much for your time for your time this morning, do appreciate it.

ISSA: My pleasure.

On Friday's CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez declared that when it comes to financial reform legislation, "Democrats have all the leverage right now." Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer appeared on the show and observed that "They think this is the time to picture Republicans as trying to protect fat cat bankers, as it were."

In her first question to Schieffer, Rodriguez wondered: "Do Democrats have anything to lose by going for a vote on Monday even though the Republicans have said they'd like a little bit more time to work on a compromise?" Schieffer replied: "No, they have absolutely nothing to lose. They want to get this out and get it on the table as quickly as possible."

Following his comment about the image of Republicans supporting "fat cat bankers," Schieffer added: "it's one thing to oppose health care reform, but on this case, I think most people would agree that doctors are more popular than bankers, especially at this particular time when you've had this lawsuit filed against Goldman Sachs." The headline on screen throughout the segment read: "Financial Reform Face-Off; Obama Takes on Wall Street, GOP."

Rodriguez later pointed out that Senator John McCain "said he doesn't understand why the Senate is ...talking about Wall Street reform, when so many people are in danger of losing their home." She asked Schieffer: "Do you think that a lot of people will buy into that argument?" As part of his response, Schieffer dismissed McCain's objection as politically motivated: "McCain, we also have to remember, is involved in a very difficult primary campaign against a candidate backed by the tea party out there in Arizona. So that may have something to do with what he said."

After Rodriguez finished talking to Schieffer, co-host Harry Smith sarcastically picked up on McCain's primary fight: "The election couldn't have had anything to do with it, right?" Rodriguez replied: "No, of course not."

On Thursday's CBS Evening News, White House correspondent Chip Reid portrayed Republicans as standing in the way of inevitable passage of the bill: "On Capitol Hill, some angry Republicans said the President's plan is not what the American people want....In the Senate, where just yesterday bipartisanship seemed to be breaking out all over, today saw a return to gridlock and finger pointing....A crucial Senate vote is scheduled for Monday. The White House says they are confident they'll get a bipartisan majority."

Earlier in the report, when discussing President Obama's Wall Street speech that afternoon, Reid remarked: "the President argued there's no legitimate reason to oppose financial reform." Reid added: "He criticized bankers for sending a battalion of lobbyists to Congress and poked fun at Wall Street's instinctive opposition to regulation, reading a quote from Time magazine....He then revealed it was from 1933, opposing the FDIC, the government agency that, to this day, insures bank deposits."

On Thursday's Early Show, co-host Harry Smith interviewed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and wondered: "This looks like it's going to happen, this financial reform....You're confident of it?" Geithner replied: "Oh, very confident. If you just listen to the – just the tone of the last couple days, it's changed. And I spent a huge amount of time with the Republicans over the last few weeks...I think they really want to be for this."

Smith cited that quote from Geithner to Maggie Rodriguez following the interview: "The Treasury Secretary told me that he has spent an awful lot of time with Republicans-" Rodriguez interjected: "Good." Smith continued: "-trying to make sure that they're getting on the same page with the Democrats."

On Wednesday's CBS Evening News, when it seemed like a bipartisan deal was more likely, congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes happily proclaimed: "It appears that bipartisanship is back from the dead here on Capitol Hill....Just last week, Republicans were expressing universal opposition to the financial reform bill....But now they are back at the bargaining table." Cordes quickly found the reason for the resurrection: "The change in tone comes after Democrats accused the GOP of siding with big banks."

On Wednesday's Early Show, Rodriguez cheered: "encouraging news out of Washington, that after a week or so of attacking this financial bill that the Democrats are proposing to regulate Wall Street, Republicans are changing their tone and they seem to be wanting to come on board."

On Tuesday, the Early Show went so far as to have on disgraced ex-New York Governor Eliot Spitzer to discuss the bill, who thought it didn't offer enough government control over the financial industry: "It will happen, but it's not fundamental enough. The critical issue is what should the investment banks do with all the money we've given them. They're not investing it where we need it to go, into the guts of our economy. They're playing games like this."

As for criticism of the proposed legislation, neither the Wednesday or Thursday Evening News broadcasts, nor the Thursday or Friday editions of the Early Show, made any mention of the fact that government-backed mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were left out of the reform bill.

The suspicious timing of the Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit against Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs was mentioned on Wednesday's Evening News, when anchor Katie Couric asked Cordes: "A lot of people have questioned the timing of that SEC case against Goldman Sachs. And the President addressed that today, didn't he?" Cordes recited Obama's denial of any White House involvement: "In that CNBC interview that you saw, he categorically denied that the White House had anything to do with the substance or the timing of that suit....he said any indications that he might have tried to influence that suit are categorically false."

During his interview with Spitzer on Tuesday's Early Show, Harry Smith wondered if the lawsuit "was politically motivated?" Spitzer argued: "Well, I don't want to say politically motivated. The SEC is trying very hard to say 'we're being tough, we're protecting the consumer'....I wouldn't say politics. I would say they're flexing their muscles."

Smith asked one question to Secretary Geithner about a possible $50 billion bank slush fund in the legislation: "having a kind of fund that would be paid for by the banks, but almost like a slush fund to help with that dismantling. Some people would say all that really does is send a signal to the banks, go ahead and gamble."

The rest of the coverage largely repeated Democratic talking points on the plan and promoted it as genuine reform.

For more than two decades, the so-called mainstream media have preached the dangers of manmade global warming, insisting American businesses and consumers must make massive economic sacrifices to ward off a global climate catastrophe. Not even last November’s exposure of e-mails from leading scientists on the alarmist side of the debate — showing them conniving to fudge or suppress data, discredit critics and distort the peer review process — has caused journalists to finally take a skeptical approach to radical environmentalists’ doomsaying.

A new study from the MRC’s Business & Media Institute documents how ABC, CBS and NBC have been just as strident in their advocacy in the months following “ClimateGate” as they were in the 20 years that preceded the scandal. At the same time, a review of the Media Research Center’s archives going back to the late 1980s shows just how strongly reporters have pushed the liberal line on global warming. Here are just some of the many examples:

■ “Global warming could mean economic upheaval. It could bring suffering. It could bring starvation....The causes of global warming are no mystery. The biggest culprit is carbon dioxide, or CO2, a bi-product when man burns fossil fuels to run cars or generate electricity....If we fail to act, there may be hell to pay in a hotter world....Global warming is not a fact, just a widely-held theory. The problem is, if man waits for proof, it may be too late.”
— Host Don Harrison narrating CNN’s primetime Climate In Crisis special, August 1, 1989.

■ “As the science editor at Time, I would freely admit that on this issue we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.”
— Time’s Charles Alexander at a September 16, 1989 global warming conference at the Smithsonian Institute, as quoted in the October 5 Wall Street Journal.

■ “If the world is to head off the risk of global warming, with its danger of massive crop failure, or rising sea levels, or spreading starvation in the poorest countries, then America — the largest producer of the gases that cause global warming — is in the spotlight.”
— ABC reporter Ned Potter on World News Tonight, April 7, 1992.

■ “Environmentalists see catastrophes of biblical proportions, from droughts to melting ice caps that send sea levels rising.”
— Correspondent Barry Petersen on the CBS Evening News, December 1, 1997.

■ Karen Kerrigan, Small Business Survival Committee: “To say that the science is conclusive...is actually bunk.”
Host Ted Koppel: “I was just going to make the observation that there are still some people who believe in the Flat Earth Society, too, but that doesn’t mean they’re right.”
— Exchange on the December 9, 1997 Nightline.

■ “After decades of rancorous debate, only a handful of the most doctrinaire die-hards still dispute the idea that human activity is heating up the planet.”
— Time’s Michael Lemonick in a special edition for Earth Day, 2000.

■ “Despite the danger that climate change poses, the resources currently devoted to studying this problem — and combating it — are inconsequential compared with the trillions spent during the Cold War. Twenty years from now, we may wonder how we could have miscalculated which threat represented the greater peril.”
— Time contributor Eugene Linden, September 4, 2000.

■ “Around the world, the anger runs as deep as the flood waters being blamed on the global warming the Kyoto treaty was supposed to fight. President Bush says he’s putting American economic interests first in rejecting Kyoto, and in Britain, where they’re having their wettest winter ever, they sadly agree....Others point to severe weather conditions around the planet — flooding for the second consecutive year in Mozambique, drought and famine in the Sudan — and they say the U.S. is substantially to blame.”
— Mark Phillips on the March 29, 2001 CBS Evening News.

■ “Frankly, this notion that there isn’t enough science, I mean that’s right up there with does smoking cause lung cancer.”
— Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift discussing global warming on the McLaughlin Group, June 16, 2001.

■ “Glaciers are receding. Oceans are rising. Alaska is thawing. As officials from nearly 180 nations start to gather Monday in Bonn, Germany, to confront the vexing problem of global warming, the issue is no longer whether it is real, but what should be done about it.”
— Opening of July 16, 2001 USA Today front-page article, “Six ways to combat global warming,” by Traci Watson and Jonathan Weisman.

■ Weatherman Mark McEwen: “Up and down the East Coast, it’s coming our way, but we will probably see just rain in the big cities.”
Co-host Bryant Gumbel: “We never get any snow.”
McEwen: “Do you think it’s global warming?”
Gumbel: “Yes, yes.”
McEwen: “Do you, Jane?”
Co-host Jane Clayson: “Yeah.”
McEwen: “We’re unanimous....It’s global warming.”
— Exchange on CBS’s Early Show, February 6, 2002.

■ “ExxonMobil — I think this is a real group of bad guys, considering that they have funded all the anti-global-warming propaganda out there in the world. And Bush is just not going to go against guys like that. They are bad, bad guys, because of what they are doing in fighting the science of global warming.”
— New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman in an interview published in Rolling Stone, October 17, 2002.

■ Peter Jennings: “We’re going to take ‘A Closer Look’ tonight at why the temperature matters to all of us when it is affected by global warming. And just to be clear again, global warming is the gradual increase of the temperature of the Earth’s lower atmosphere as a result of the increase in manmade gases since the industrial revolution....”
Reporter Bill Blakemore: “Severe climate change is accelerating....Polar bears are starving as the ice they hunt on vanishes, along with the seals they eat. Millions of birds are affected as spring comes too early and the fish they eat [have] gone to seek cooler waters.”
— ABC’s World News Tonight, November 8, 2004.

■ “The hurricane that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name is global warming....Unfortunately, very few people in America know the real name of Hurricane Katrina because the coal and oil industries have spent millions of dollars to keep the public in doubt about the issue....As the pace of climate change accelerates, many researchers fear we have already entered a period of irreversible runaway climate change.”
— Former Washington Post and Boston Globe reporter Ross Gelbspan in an August 30, 2005 Boston Globe op-ed.

■ “No one can say exactly what it looks like when a planet takes ill, but it probably looks a lot like Earth....Suddenly and unexpectedly, the crisis is upon us....Something has gone grievously wrong. That something is global warming.”
— Time’s Jeffrey Kluger in the magazine’s April 3, 2006 global warming cover story: “Be Worried. Be Very Worried.”

■ “It is getting hot here on Earth. How hot? Well, maybe hotter than it has been in 2,000 years and it is our fault. Humans, that is.”
— Anchor Bob Schieffer on the CBS Evening News, June 22, 2006.

■ Tom Brokaw: “About 10 percent of the Earth’s surface is covered by ice, most of that in the polar regions. But if enough of that ice melts, the seas will rise dramatically and the results will be calamitous....If this worst-case scenario should occur, in the coming centuries New York could be abandoned, its famous landmarks lost to the sea.”
Dr. James Hansen, Goddard Institute for Space Studies: “Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, Miami — they would all be under water.”
— From Brokaw’s two-hour Discovery Channel special, Global Warming: What You Need to Know, excerpt shown on the July 15, 2006 NBC Nightly News.

■ “Scientists are more certain than ever that humans are heating the globe very quickly with potentially severe consequences.”
— NBC’s Robert Bazell, Dec. 16, 2006 Nightly News.

■ “So I’m running in the park on Saturday, in shorts, thinking this [warm weather] is great, but are we all gonna die? You know? I can’t, I can’t figure this out.”
— Co-host Meredith Vieira talking about global warming on NBC’s Today, January 8, 2007.

■ “It seems like we’re reaching critical mass when it comes to this issue. And all the experts agree. Well, almost every expert. (There are a handful of scientists — many of them on the payroll of big oil companies — who wonder if global warming is a reality.) But my fervent hope is that Hollywood’s embrace of Al Gore doesn’t give people an excuse to condemn and mock the effort — and oppose taking steps that we as a society need to take to deal with the issue of climate change.”
— Anchor Katie Couric writing about the Oscars on her CBSNews.com blog, “Couric & Co.,” February 26, 2007.

■ “I really don’t think climate change is a political issue.... Everyone agrees it’s happening. If it’s a political issue, it’s whether the political will exists to address that change. We know we need to do something, and this is a way to heighten awareness.”
— NBC Senior Vice President Dan Harrison quoted in the July 9, 2007 Washington Post defending NBC Universal’s 75-hour multi-network coverage of Gore’s “Live Earth.”

■ “Global Warming is a Hoax* Or so claim well-funded naysayers who still reject the overwhelming evidence of climate change. Inside the denial machine.”
— Cover of the August 13, 2007 Newsweek.

■ “Climate experts say whether hired guns or honest dissenters, deniers are confusing the issue and delaying solutions....The scientific debate is no longer over society’s role in global warming. It is now a matter of degrees.”
— NBC’s Anne Thompson on the August 16, 2007 Nightly News.

■ “There are a few, I guess you could call them dead enders out there. There are a few that are still holding true to the notion that maybe this is some sort of natural cycle....It is a tiny fraction of a minority of scientists out there. And when you look at those scientists and trace their funding, frequently you are led to the fossil fuel industry. So, really, it’s not a scientific debate anymore.”
— CNN environment correspondent Miles O’Brien talking about scientists who dispute Al Gore’s premise of a coming climate catastrophe, during CNN Newsroom, October 12, 2007.

■ “The verdict from the Nobel committee must be sweet vindication....[But] even the Nobel Prize is not going to be enough to silence the naysayers, some of whom still believe that man is not responsible for global warming.”
— ABC’s David Wright on Al Gore’s winning of the Nobel Peace Prize, World News, October 12, 2007.

■ “The President of the U.S. can better shape the response to climate change than any other person in the world. Given the importance of this issue and the fact that you have emerged as its global spokesman, don’t you have a moral obligation to put yourself forward for the presidency?”
— Time’s Bryan Walsh in an interview with former Vice President Al Gore, who was runner-up in the magazine’s December 31, 2007 “Person of the Year” edition.

■ “Could global warming one day force us into space to live?”
— ABC’s Sam Champion, Good Morning America, February 8, 2008.

■ “Not doing it [fighting global warming] will be catastrophic. We’ll be eight degrees hotter in 10, not 10 but in 30 or 40 years, and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals. Civilization will have broken down.”
— CNN founder Ted Turner on PBS’s Charlie Rose, April 1, 2008.

■ “Global warming naysayers are claiming that e-mails stolen from this research university show climate scientists discussing how to fudge results to promote the idea that humans are altering the planet....[But] the science is solid, according to a vast majority of researchers, with hotter temperatures, melting glaciers, and rising sea level providing the proof.”
— ABC correspondent Clayton Sandell talking about the ClimateGate scandal on World News, December 6, 2009.

■ “Does this controversy change the science? A team of explorers will present findings on Arctic ice melt in Copenhagen, findings that have nothing to do with the e-mails....Beyond just the lack of summer sea ice, scientists also point to some other things happening around the planet. The increased melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, earlier springs....All of those things are certain things that are happening, that they say it doesn’t matter what’s in those e-mails — the Earth is changing.”
— NBC’s Anne Thompson on NBC’s Today, December 7, 2009.

■ Correspondent Wyatt Andrews: “To many Republicans, Climategate proves that global warming is a deception....But if that’s true, it’s a fraud adopted by most of the world’s leading scientists, along with NASA, the U.N., the American Medical Association, and the National Academies of Science of 32 countries, including the United States. To most of them, ClimateGate is a sideshow compared to one overwhelming fact:”
Professor Michael Mann: “The last decade is the warmest decade on record.”
— CBS Evening News, December 9, 2009.

In the 8:30AM ET half hour of Thursday's CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez introduced an Earth Day segment by proclaiming: "Americans throw away more than 30 billion plastic bottles every year....We have a film maker, Stephanie Soechtig, here with us, she has a documentary out called 'Tapped,' which looks the impact that all those bottles have had on the environment."

Rodriguez invited Soechtig to explain her mission: "What has your message been?" Soechtig responded: "we've been trying to educate people that bottled water's one of the greatest marketing scams of all time. 40% of bottled water is really just filtered tap water. And every day we throw away 30 million single serve bottles of water." A headline on-screen read: "Early's Earth Day; Filmmaker Says 'Get Off the Bottle!'"

Soechtig warned of the "tremendous impact" of bottled water on the environment: "there's a soup of plastic in the north Pacific that's twice the size of Texas, that's just littered with plastic. So this type of plastic getting out in the environment is hurting our sea life, it's hurting us....plastic is a byproduct of oil. So from the production of the plastic all the way through the disposal, it just has a tremendous carbon footprint."

Rodriguez then described Soechtig's solution to the problem: "if you encounter Stephanie along her travels, she will likely give you one of these. It's a 'Clean Canteen.' And you're advocating putting tap water in these instead of drinking bottled water." With that, Rodriguez held up a reusable water container made of, you guessed it, plastic.

Wanting to point out her commitment to saving the planet, Rodriguez bragged: "I only drink tap water." Fill-in news reader Betty Nguyen chimed in: "I do, too." Rodriguez also observed: "By the way, it saves me a ton of money, to boot, not only saving the environment."

In concluding the segment, Rodriguez declared: "Stephanie, thank you....Thank you for helping us commemorate Earth Day. Important message." She then handed a 'Clean Canteen' to fellow co-host Harry Smith, who replied: "Thank you very much. I want one of those."  

In a similar demand for people not to use a particular product, on Wednesday, the Early Show touted a report asking the government to "take salt off the table." 

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

8:30AM

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Welcome back to the Early Show on this Earth Day. Americans throw away more than 30 billion plastic bottles every year.

HARRY SMITH: Wait a minute, did you say billion? Billion with a 'B'?

RODRIGUEZ: 30 Billion with a 'B.'

SMITH: Okay.

RODRIGUEZ: We have a film maker, Stephanie Soechtig, here with us, she has a documentary out called 'Tapped,' which looks the impact that all those bottles have had on the environment. And for the past month, she has been collecting bottles in this truck so that everybody can see [Pointing to truck with transparent containers of plastic water bottles]. Good morning, Stephanie.

STEPAHNIE SOECHTIG: Good morning.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Early's Earth Day; Filmmaker Says 'Get Off the Bottle!']

RODRIGUEZ: You've been traveling the country collecting these bottles. Why and what has your message been?

SOECHTIG: Well, we've been trying to educate people that bottled water's one of the greatest marketing scams of all time. 40% of bottled water is really just filtered tap water. And every day we throw away 30 million single serve bottles of water. [Pointing to the truck] So this represents about four seconds worth of what we throw away every single day.

BETTY NGUYEN: 4 seconds?

HARRY SMITH: 4 seconds?

SOECHTIG: 4 seconds every day, into landfills and the ocean.

RODRIGUEZ: And what impact has this had on the environment?

SOECHTIG: Well, it's had a tremendous impact. I mean, there's a soup of plastic in the north Pacific that's twice the size of Texas, that's just littered with plastic. So this type of plastic getting out in the environment is hurting our sea life, it's hurting us, it's ending up back in our food chain. Every step along the way seems to be bad. It's also oil – plastic is a byproduct of oil. So from the production of the plastic all the way through the disposal, it just has a tremendous carbon footprint.

RODRIGUEZ: So if you encounter Stephanie along her travels, she will likely give you one of these. It's a 'Clean Canteen' [holds up plastic reusable container]. And you're advocating putting tap water in these instead of drinking bottled water. I only drink tap water.

NGUYEN: I do, too.

RODRIGUEZ: By the way, it saves me a ton of money, to boot, not only saving the environment.

NGUYEN: Exactly. And this would save you money, too, because you don't have to go to the stores and keep buying that bottled water. You just have to think a little and pack it.

SOECHTIG: Right.

RODRIGUEZ: Exactly. Which is easy. Stephanie, thank you.

SOECHTIG: Thanks so much.

RODRIGUEZ: Thank you for helping us commemorate Earth Day. Important message. Your 'Clean Canteen,' sir.

HARRY SMITH: Thank you very much. I want one of those.

For years the global warming alarmists' mantra has been "the science is settled." But a recent series of shocking disclosures about climate science has shaken the credibility of that claim.

The first scandal - ClimateGate - came Nov. 20, 2009, after someone leaked thousands of e-mails from a major climate science group: University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The e-mails were full of startling admissions like this one: "We can't account for the lack of warming at the moment."

Since then there has been an avalanche of admissions and disclosures spreading online through Web sites and foreign newspapers. The cumulative effect has impacted the truthworthiness of the climate science movement. Yet the networks haven't even adjusted their news coverage of the global warming issue to reflect the discoveries.

As President Obama readies his push for cap-and-trade at a potential cost of trillions of dollars, the news networks maintained warnings about the "precarious" state of the environment. They depicted the Earth as threatened by global warming and only discussed climate science errors in one-sixth of climate change stories.

The Media Research Center's Business & Media Institute examined every network report containing the terms "global warming" or "climate change" on morning and evening newscasts between Nov. 20, 2009, (the day the ClimateGate scandal broke) and April 1, 2010. These were some of BMI's findings:

• Broadcasts Silent about Scandal, Then Defend Alarmist Science: It took ABC, CBS and NBC 14 days to even mention the ClimateGate e-mail controversy. When they couldn't get away with it any longer they downplayed its threat to the credibility of the global warming movement. CBS's Wyatt Andrews defended alarmists against accusations of "fraud" and "deception" saying "if that's true, it's a fraud adopted by most of the world's leading scientists ..."
• Networks Bury Climate Science Revelations with Avalanche of Warming Stories: The networks aired more than six times as many global warming alarmism reports than they did stories mentioning any of the problems with climate science research (86 to 13). ABC and NBC both aired stories about Arctic photographers that indicated their pictures were proof of global warming, even though they were not part of any scientific analysis.
• Media ‘Disappointed' by Lack of Results in Copenhagen: There has been no media attempt at objectivity: all three networks supported the purpose of the Copenhagen climate conference. CBS's Sharyl Attkisson said, "Few would argue with the U.S. having a presence [there]." But by the end of the conference some reporters fretted about the lack of a binding agreement. NBC's Lester Holt said the conference "fell far short of what many hoped for." ABC's Charles Gibson said the non-binding nature of the agreement makes "you wonder if this really is worth the paper it's printed on."
• NBC the Worst: Seventy-five percent of stories on NBC (42 out of 56) promoted the global warming movement's perspective, compared to 48 percent on CBS (16 out of 33). During the Copenhagen summit, NBC described left-wing protests (demanding more action be taken to prevent climate change) in flattering terms, despite hundreds of arrests. "The protest has a bit of a feel of a street fair," NBC's Anne Thompson cheerfully claimed.
• CBS the Best: In addition to the lowest percentage of alarmist reports, CBS was also the only one of the three networks to mention climate science errors beyond ClimateGate. On Feb. 4, 2010, the "Evening News" reported the incorrect Himalayan glacier prediction as well as problems with Chinese weather station data.
  

To improve coverage, BMI recommends:

• Don't Ignore Problems with Alarmists' Data: All three networks avoided reporting on ClimateGate for 13 days; it wasn't until the 14^th day that NBC finally broke the silence. If the cover-up and potential manipulation had been done by scientists arguing against the threat of climate change, would the networks have ignored such a scandal?
• Report Both Sides of Climate Science Debate, Don't Advocate One Side: Reporters have a professional responsibility to remain objective and avoid inserting their own opinions into stories. Many network reporters have sorely missed that mark when it comes to reporting on global warming and climate change.
• Be Skeptical of Scientists and Politicians Pushing Threat of Warming, Not Just ‘Naysayers:' Journalists should always look for ulterior motives, possible biases and sources of funding on the part of their subjects rather than taking their word for it. A healthy dose of skepticism especially toward the politicians and scientific alarmists would have resulted in much better reporting on climate change.
• Find Other Scientific Viewpoints: There are many scientists who are not part of the global warming consensus. The media often unfairly lump them into one group with labels like "skeptic," "denier" and "naysayer." This is an injustice given the widely divergent views in the scientific community. Network reporters should reach out to such scientists and hear what they have to say instead of dismissing and disparaging them. They could begin by attending the 4^th International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago May 16-18.

Read the entire Business & Media Institute Special Report here

Brent Bozell joined "Fox & Friends" on the 40^th anniversary of Earth Day to discuss a new Business & Media Institute Special Report about the broadcast networks' distorted coverage of ClimateGate and other climate scandals.

Bozell highlighted the way the networks have barely reported ClimateGate and the other climate science scandals that have eroded the credibility of the global warming alarmism movement. Such stories were ignored because they didn't fit the "narrative" of the network news.

"What's been going on in the press; however, for a number of years is this systematic push to say that we can only have one point of view on this which is that it's settled science and it's over," Bozell told Fox News Channel.

Then ClimateGate and subsequent scandals happened. Bozell called it the "East Anglia eruption," referring to the e-mails and files showing "campaigns to manipulate the data in their favor," to destroy evidence, and to bully journalists to "not listen to critics of this."

But the networks downplayed those scandals and attempted to discredit critics of global warming alarmists as Bozell explained after "Fox & Friends" showed a clip from ABC News (video):

"Note the words Gretchen, ‘naysayers.' They might as well be calling them Flat Earth Society. ‘Stolen data.' Look at the pejorative. No evidence of this, of this -- they simply dismiss it at the end by saying it's settled science. And oh by the way, it took ABC 16 days before they did their first story on this."

BMI found that between Nov. 20, 2009, (the day the ClimateGate e-mails were leaked) and April 1, 2010, less than 10 percent of global warming stories mentioning any of the numerous scandals involving climate science. 

ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening newscasts also aired more than 6 times as many alarmist stories during the same time period.

It took the networks 14 days to even mention the ClimateGate e-mail controversy. When they couldn't get away with ignoring it any longer they downplayed its threat to the credibility of the global warming movement. CBS's Wyatt Andrews defended alarmists against accusations of "fraud" and "deception" saying "if that's true, it's a fraud adopted by most of the world's leading scientists ..."

Cheering some Republican support for Democratic financial reform legislation on Wednesday, CBS Early Show co-host Maggie Rodriguez declared: "encouraging news out of Washington, that after a week or so of attacking this financial bill that the Democrats are proposing to regulate Wall Street, Republicans are changing their tone and they seem to be wanting to come on board."

Rodriguez turned to business correspondent Rebecca Jarvis and wondered: "Does it look, this morning, as though a bipartisan bill will emerge?" Jarvis replied: "Well, Maggie, it looks this morning like Republicans are warming up to the idea of a bipartisan bill on financial reform." She added: "With Obama, the President, coming here to Wall Street tomorrow to push the agenda forward, it looks like there will be a political expediency to getting the deal done." An on-screen headline read: "Financial Reform Push; Obama & Senate Take on Wall Street."

On Tuesday, the Early Show had on disgraced ex-New York Governor Eliot Spitzer to discuss financial reform. Co-host Harry Smith introduced him as "the sheriff of Wall Street."

Smith asked Spitzer if a conveniently timed lawsuit against Goldman Sachs was "politically motivated." Unsurprisingly, Spitzer towed the Democratic Party line and dismissed the idea: "I don't want to say politically motivated. The SEC is trying very hard to say 'we're being tough, we're protecting the consumer'....I wouldn't say politics. I would say they're flexing their muscles."

Here is a full transcript of Smith's discussion with Spitzer:

HARRY SMITH: Joining us exclusively is former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, who was known as the sheriff of Wall Street when he was the state's attorney general. Good morning.

ELIOT SPITZER: Thank you, Harry.

SMITH: Is this case against Goldman, at least what we know of it so far, is it a clear case of a company trying to defraud its customers?

SPITZER: Well, the word 'clear' is the one people will fight over. They maintain, of course, that they disclosed everything they needed to disclose. The SEC is saying they kept material information from the marketplace. If I had to bet, I would say the SEC wins, at the end of the day, because materiality is determined after the fact and right now looking backwards, the fact that somebody other than Goldman made the choice about what mortgages to put into the CDO does look material.

SMITH: Because that decision was made outside of their company.

SPITZER: That's correct. It was made-

SMITH: By people who knew that these things were toxic.

SPITZER: By people who were intending that those lose money.

SMITH: Right.

SPITZER: That fact was not revealed.

SMITH: Here's what's interesting. Because you talk to guys downtown and they – well, they're not surprised, maybe, that a suit comes against Goldman, but not this suit. The sense is that this doesn't have the legs it needs to if it's really going to be prosecutable.

SPITZER: I think it's a reasonably strong case. Again, I don't like to bet on the outcome of cases like this, but I think it raises the much more important question, why are taxpayers bailing out Goldman Sachs if this is what they're doing? In other words, is this what investment banks should be doing, is this where we need our money to be going?

SMITH: The other question that becomes interesting is the SEC, the board, was split on this.

SPITZER: Correct.

SMITH: A lot of times – the last time they were talked to, they said we've got about 90% unanimity in terms of going forward with cases against – against banks. This – there was a decision on the board split 3-2 whether or not to even bring this.

SPITZER: Along partisan lines. Clearly this is a case that is closer to the edge, where Goldman is saying 'we were in conversations with the SEC, we thought we had addressed their concerns.' The investors in this product had all the information about the qualities of the mortgages. They just didn't know who chose them. And so that is where the legal dispute will come into play.

SMITH: And because it was split along political lines, people will suggest, as we talked about in the piece, was – from your sense, does this feel like it was politically motivated?

SPITZER: Well, I don't want to say politically motivated. The SEC is trying very hard to say 'we're being tough, we're protecting the consumer.' I happen to believe they wanted to bring a case – an important case – before the bill reached the floor of the Senate, that's a legitimate prosecutorial objection. So I think – I wouldn't say politics. I would say they're flexing their muscles.

SMITH: Okay. And last but not least, very quickly, financial regulatory reform legislation. Going to happen, going to not happen?

SPITZER: It will happen, but it's not fundamental enough. The critical issue is what should the investment banks do with all the money we've given them. They're not investing it where we need it to go, into the guts of our economy. They're playing games like this.

SMITH: Eliot Spitzer, we thank you for your time this morning.

SPITZER: Thank you.

SMITH: Do appreciate it.

At the top of Wednesday's CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez proclaimed: "the truth about salt, why a new report wants the government to take salt off the table." She later introduced a segment on the topic by explaining: "Americans eat about 1 ½ tablespoons of salt every day....there's a major new push this morning to curb that habit."

Rodriguez spoke with CBS medical correspondent Dr. Jennifer Ashton about the government intrusion and noted that there was "confusion" over "reports that the FDA might regulate salt." Ashton claimed: "there was a fair amount of misinterpretation of yesterday's news....the Institute of Medicine approached the FDA and asked for their assistance in working in conjunction with the food industry and other health services to help increase awareness about salt intake and hopefully, in the future, reduce the consumption of salt that Americans have."

However, near the end of the segment, after Ashton detailed the negative health effects of too much salt, Rodriguez observed: "So then there maybe is an argument for someone getting involved in making these companies put less sodium in their foods." Ashton agreed: "Exactly. And so we're going to be seeing more of that more aggressively from the government in the future."

Mid-way through the segment, Rodriguez asked if the Food and Drug Administration would actually regulate salt at some point, Ashton responded: "there is no plan to make salt a banned substance right now....this really was a shot across the bow from the Institute of Medicine....Now we need to bring in the big guns and really increase awareness and make this a priority."

Rodriguez followed up: "And why would the big guns, why would the FDA regulate salt?" Ashton explained: "the New England Journal of Medicine....by reducing the salt intake about one teaspoon a day for an average American, 150,000 lives can be saved a year."

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: And the truth about salt, why a new report wants the government to take salt off the table.

7:14AM SEGMENT:

RODRIGUEZ: There have been some conflicting reports about how much salt should be in your diet. Americans eat about 1 ½ tablespoons of salt every day. That's more than double what we need for good health. And there's a major new push this morning to curb that habit. Here to hopefully help us clear up the confusion is our own Dr. Jennifer Ashton. Good morning, doctor.

JENNIFER ASHTON: Good morning, Maggie.

RODRIGUEZ: This confusion stems from a report that came out yesterday about salt intake, and then reports that the FDA might regulate salt. What exactly is the FDA saying about salt?

ASHTON: So there was a fair amount of misinterpretation of yesterday's news, Maggie. What happened yesterday is that the Institute of Medicine approached the FDA and asked for their assistance in working in conjunction with the food industry and other health services to help increase awareness about salt intake and hopefully, in the future, reduce the consumption of salt that Americans have. Because, as you said, we're getting way too much and we're definitely seeing the health consequences.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Shake the Habit; Gov't Push to Curb Salt Intake]

RODRIGUEZ: So is the FDA planning, as of right now, to regulate salt?

ASHTON: No. At this time there is no plan to make salt a banned substance right now. But, again, I think this really was a shot across the bow from the Institute of Medicine to really say, look, we've been trying to do this ourselves for awhile. Now we need to bring in the big guns and really increase awareness and make this a priority.

RODRIGUEZ: And why would the big guns, why would the FDA regulate salt?

ASHTON: Well look, we've known for over 40 years that salt has been casually tied, or directly tied even, to things like heart attacks and strokes. But recently in the New England Journal of Medicine, they put some hard numbers to those estimates, and found that by reducing the salt intake about one teaspoon a day for an average American, 150,000 lives can be saved a year. And again, that's due to things like heart attacks and strokes. So when you see a number like that, you really have to sit up and take notice.

RODRIGUEZ: Why is our salt intake so high? Is it because we're just too heavy-handed with the salt shaker?

ASHTON: Well, you know, a lot of people say, 'I don't add salt to my food, so this doesn't apply to me.' And in reality, over 75% of our daily salt consumption comes in hidden forms. It comes in processed foods. It comes in things that you might not expect, like bread or cereal. Something like cottage cheese can have a lot of it. Only about 25% of our daily salt intake is with a salt shaker when we're eating or when we're preparing meals. So you have to read the labels, and everyone, but especially those people who have things like diabetes, high blood pressure, African-Americans, are at much higher risks for the consequences of hypertension.

RODRIGUEZ: So then there maybe is an argument for someone getting involved in making these companies put less sodium in their foods.

ASHTON: Exactly. And so we're going to be seeing more of that more aggressively from the government in the future.

RODRIGUEZ: Dr. Jennifer Ashton, thanks so much.

ASHTON: You bet.

I did two things Sunday night I usually don’t do: I tuned into CBS and watched an awards program. They were actually the same thing, as I watched the CMA Awards on CBS. While I was told repeatedly...

View Original Post