Republicans, conservatives dominate network morning-show coverage of Israeli-Hezbollah conflict
SUMMARY: The three major broadcast networks' morning programs have hosted far more commentary on the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict from Republicans and conservatives than from Democrats and progressives. The shows have hosted nine solo interviews of Republicans and conservatives, but only two of progressives.
Since the opening of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah on July 12, the morning news programs on all three major broadcast networks have hosted far more commentary on the conflict from Republicans and conservatives than from Democrats and progressives. In their combined coverage of the conflict, NBC's Today, ABC's Good Morning America, and CBS' The Early Show have hosted nine solo interviews of Republicans and conservatives, but only two of Democrats and progressives. Even excluding Bush administration officials from the count, interviews of Republicans and conservatives still outnumbered interviews of Democrats and progressives, 3-2, with Sen. John McCain -- a presumptive Republican presidential candidate in 2008 with no Senate leadership position or Senate chairmanship that is directly relevant to the conflict -- himself receiving the same number of interviews as all Democrats and progressives combined.
NBC's Today has hosted* three Republicans (including one Bush administration official), but only one progressive, to discuss the current Israeli-Hezbollah conflict:
-
July 15: Juliette Kayyem, a lecturer at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government (progressive). Kayyem served as an adviser to Clinton administration Attorney General Janet Reno. Kayyem was also appointed by former House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt's (D-MO) to the National Commission on Terrorism from 1999 to 2001. (Appeared on an edition of Weekend Today.)
-
July 17: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).
-
July 19: Former House Speaker and Fox News consultant Newt Gingrich (R-GA).
-
July 21: White House press secretary Tony Snow.
ABC's Good Morning America has hosted** two Bush administration officials, but no Democrats or progressives, to discuss the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict:
-
July 15: White House communications director Dan Bartlett. (Appeared on an edition of Good Morning America's Weekend Edition.)
-
July 21: White House press secretary Tony Snow.
CBS' The Early Show has hosted*** four Republicans and conservatives (including three Bush administration officials), but only one progressive, to discuss the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict:
-
July 15: White House communication director Dan Bartlett. (Appeared on an edition of The Saturday Early Show.)
-
July 17: Brookings Institution senior fellow Michael O'Hanlon (progressive).
-
July 18: R. Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs.
-
July 20: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).
-
July 21: White House press secretary Tony Snow.
*Nexis search of NBC News transcripts: show (today) and (israel! or leban! or hezbollah or hizbollah or hezbullah or hizbullah) and date(geq (7/12/06) and leq (7/21/06))
**Nexis search of ABC News transcripts: show (good morning america) and (israel! or leban! or hezbollah or hizbollah or hezbullah or hizbullah) and date(geq (7/12/06) and leq (7/21/06))
***Nexis search of CBS News transcripts: show (the early show) and (israel! or leban! or hezbollah or hizbollah or hezbullah or hizbullah) and date(geq (7/12/06) and leq (7/21/06))
Unfortunately, by not airing the Democrats, we are not missing out on hearing a different opinion of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. The combined votes in the House and Senate on this conflict was nearly unanimous with both major parties supporting the destruction of Lebanon.
For the Democrats, what this MMFA post means is that they don't get as much visibility in once again continuing to support the neo-con war-mongering policies.
I am in complete agreement - history is destgined to repeat indefinitely.
Yes, both parties are even more pro-Israeli agression than the Israelis themselves. What would the Democrats have said if they were on the shows?
"I agree with Republican X, except I don't think X went far enough. Israel not only has a right to defend itself, but has a right to kill all Lebaonese. After all, can Israel be certain that a Lebonese is not or will not become or will not give birth to a terrorist?"
Then the next Dem comes on and says "I agree with what my Democratic Colleague just said, but I would even go further. I think Israel has a right to kill every single Arab because we can't be certain that one of them might not have a dream wishing for the end of Israel's existence. And further, I think Israel has the right to blow up the UN because the UN is anti-Israel."
"Self-defense is what Israel has the right to do. Did I mention that Israel has the right of self-defense? Self-defense, self-defense, self-defense."
The following is a Link to a report about the Destruction in Lebanon
..to see a Noam Chomsky or Normal Finkelstein on to discuss these things for a change. Or a more mainstream name, Ralph Nader.
sasami, here you go: ee Chomsky discussing Lebanon Israel Facts the Media Isn't Telling You
Noam Chomsky reveals facts like the abduction of the two Gaza civilians June 24, BEFORE the Israeli soldiers were captured. Watch this video and learn the background that the mainstream media doesn't report.
It's nothing to laugh at, but I can't help but to be amused.
Look at how they stacked the deck on NBC's Today Show:
"Here to provide us with in-depth analysis on the latest events on the Israeli-Lebanese border, we have...
..."Maverick" Senator John McCain (R-AZ, but as this item points out, holds no Senate leadership position or committee chair pertaining to the matter)
...and "The People's Contractor" Newt Gingrich (REPUB HACK-EVERYWHERE and ALLTHETIME)
...and Tony "The FOX is in the Chicken Coop" Snow (FNC)
...and also Juliette Kayyem."
Now, I'm not making fun of anybody (just everything "media"), and maybe I just don't know enough of the players (for want of a more comprehensive scorecard), but while I've heard of the "Maverick", and the "People's Contractor", and the "FOX in the Chicken Coop", I don't know Juliette.
But I'm sure Juliette has all the qualifications to make an in-depth analysis of the events on the Israel-Lebanese border (greater qualifications than the others perhaps; less vested interests to sway one's insights, I'm sure).
But my ignorance of Juliette was not what I found amusing (I never find my own ignorance amusing; it's everybody else's ignorance that tickles me so)...
No, what I found amusing was the way I'm sure Juliette was introduced to the Today Show's viewers (the only proper way she could have been introduced), by mingling in the two words...
HARVARD
and
KENNEDY
...in introducing her.
Don't misunderstand me; I know it's a good school (that's not my point), it's just the way they stack the deck is what I find amusing.
Maverick-Senator, Newt-Hack, Snow-FOX, and (drumroll please)...
HARVARD-KENNEDY!
Maybe it's because many Democrats would say "we need dialogue", or "Israel needs to show restaint"!
Sadly, however, the other commentators on this thread are correct: if more Democrats were featured on talk shows on Israel and Lebanon, they would simply echo (or perhaps try to outdo) the simplistic, one-sided, and hawkish sentiments of their Republican counterparts.
Them's the kinda pansy words you use when you have to fight your own fights.
As long as poor people can be talked into having lotsa kids, and the military promises adventure and college credit to survivors, we'll have the luxury of tuff-talkin and not fighting.
full disclosure: I never served in the military, am older than even THEY want now.
Unless I misunderstood Shannon he/she was mocking the (imagined) Democrats because they might approach a complex military/social/political problem using tactics not available to a dog.
Zing! I wonder if he/she did that exagerrated effeminate whiny voice that Rushbo does when he's doing his impression of someone much smarter than himself.
----"Maybe it's because many Democrats would say ..."----
The keyword here is "maybe". Because Democrats aren't represented, you do not know what their positions might be, and you're reduced to "maybe-this and maybe-that". Therein lies the whole point of this MM item.
We know exactly where the Democrat party stands when it comes to Israel....they're bent over backwards kissing it's arse. 40% of the funding for the Dem Party comes from the Israel Lobby. I never saw Gore more animated when he adressed an AIPAC conference...he was gushing on how we Americans have to protect Israel. He was also a good freind of Netanyahu's and was seen in Jerusalem wearing a yamulka during Israel's 50th anniversary celebrations. John Kerry's campaign website stated that "Israel's security is America's concern"...his own words. Hillary Clinton gets invited to speak to AIPAC and tells them how she stands behind Israel 100%. The Dems voted overwhelmingly to support Israel's agression against Lebanon in the recent Congressional resolutions.
The Democrat Party are traitors who put Israel before the USA. They prove it over and over again, with their words and their actions. Putting them on tv to tell us the same pro-Israel b.s. we've heard over and over again would be pointless.
"Maybe this, maybe that..." If you don't know what the Democrats position on this is, you need to either change your news sources and start being honest with yourself. Personally, I "bookmark/favorite" link to both the Senate and House governmental websites so I can see for myself the roll call votes on legislation. It usually takes about one business day for the legislative votes of the preceding day to be posted.
I agree, it would be pointless for more Democrats to be on talking about Israel, we would just hear the same pro-Israel b.s. we've heard before. They sure as hell won't be teling us the news that has been surpressed like about "the first time the Israeli army had re-entered the Gaza Strip, directly violating Palestinian control of the territory, since it supposedly left in August last year." Israel crossed the border into Gaza and kidnapped two civilians. That was June 24th, the day before the Israeli soldier was captured.
Yes, that's right, it was Israel's first incursion into Gaza since the implementation of the Israeli Disengagement Plan in September 2005 and almost the entire mainstream media ignored it (brief mention in the Baltimore Sun and LA Times, dismissing it as quite normal) It was Israel infiltrating the Gaza border in a brazen raid, abducting two civilians on June 24th (much worse than abducting a soldier) and nearly entire US mainstream media remained silent yet talked endlessly about the abducting of the Israeli soldier the very next day.
---"Putting [Democrats] on tv to tell us the same pro-Israel b.s. we've heard over and over again would be pointless."---
For the media to show a favoritism for any one side is wrong. Even if all sides of the great ice cream flavor debate prefer vanilla, the viewers should hear the reasons first hand, from all sides. Consider that not everyone is as extremely well-versed on our representatives' Middle East policies as "we" are.
Ensuring that we get both Republican vanilla and Democratic vanilla? That's the problem with the whole Media Matters paradigm: the utter inability (especially when it come to this issue) to object to the fact that all we ever get is vanilla, or to question why that might be the case. (Vanilla Lobby, anyone?)
----"Ensuring that we get both Republican vanilla and Democratic vanilla?"----
No. It's about ensuring we get ALL sides' points of view, no matter what those views are. When a show has ONLY conservatives, the public is misinformed.
the public is equally misinformed.
Dialogue or War. The Israeli's have been at it my entire life. I'm a grandfather now.
For the US to stand by as we slide into the abyss is insane. I'd much rather someone who represented me, start some kind of dialogue or start advocating restraint, before my children and grandchildren are thrown into a war that could have been prevented.
It's easy to talk tough, it's easy to say you support the troops, it's easy to go with the status quo. Believe me, if you had to serve yourself, you'd have an entirely different perspective on war.
Chomsky is good. Did you see the debate between Normal Finkelstein and Josh Block of AIPAC? It's on www.NormanFinkelstein.com
Also, this is a video I've been trying to get people to watch lately..
Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land
Sasami ,
Thank you for telling me about the debate between Normal Finkelstein and Josh Block of AIPAC, I had not seen it. Finkelstein was great. I agree with the peole who wrote into him that the representative from AIPAC was very rude, interrupting him.
Block resorted to claiming that Finkelstein was "lying". As people who wrote Finkelstein point out, a 20 second search establishes who is the "liar" (Josh Block told Finkelstein that saying that "Ariel Sharon hailed the bombing of Gaza City" was a lie.) As the links provided at Finkelstein' show, it was Block who was the liar. Standard practice for those that make excuses for Israel's actions. Form one of the articles: "the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, hailed his killing as a "great success". But many voices from the international community have been aghast at the killing of the children and apparent disregard for the lives of civilians." "This operation was in my view one of our biggest successes," Ariel Sharon told Cabinet ministers. "This heavy-handed action does not contribute to peace," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Tuesday
it would be interesting to know who owns such networks and what the politics of their owners are. otherwise, it is no wonder why republicans and neocons dominate the airwaves just like the invasion of iraq where the most inteviewed in all the networks including cnn and fox were from the military, the bush administration, the neocons, and the warmongers.
As much as I fault Israel for overreacting and going off the deep end in this situation in addition to their usual heavy-handedness when dealing with this issue, one simply can't escape the fact that Hezbollah, Hamas and many in the Muslim world simply deny Israel's right to exist. If they were commited to a two-state solution this could have been resolved at Wye River. The deal was there to be had. Barak held up his end. Arafat spit the bit.
However, the fact remains that Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish fanatic just as Sadat was killed by an Arab fanatic. The militant lunatic fringe on both sides must be addressed. Like shrub's base, they're a liability to the cause of peace and prosperity.
That said, this administration has been an abject failure on this issue when they weren't totally MIA. Their actions and inactions can't help but be interpreted as unconditional support for Israel in their current actions by the Muslim world. This will simply inflame the Arab Street. Positions will harden and the level of violence will only get ratcheted up.
Shrubco has simply made the world a more dangerous place, foreign and domestic terrorism more likely and the US less safe than it was before. They've been an abject failure on every conceivable level and cheney's still pumpin' his "vote republican or you'll die," shtick. They're pure scum.
>>one simply can't escape the fact that Hezbollah, Hamas and many in the Muslim world simply deny Israel's right to exist.
This statement is true on its face, but it implies that Israel believes in the rights of the Palestinians to exist. It does not. It continues to build settlements in the occupied territories, making an independent Palestinian state impossible. It refused to abide by UN security council resolutions such as 242 and 338, which tell Israel not to try to change the character of Jerasulem and the Occupied territories by creating settlements.
Recently Olmert has stated he will began a new phase of settlements in the Jordan Valley so he can annex that territory for "security purposes."
>>If they were commited to a two-state solution this could have been resolved at Wye River. The deal was there to be had. Barak held up his end. Arafat spit the bit.
This is a myth. Malloy, who was an envoy for American during these talks, has pointed this out. There are a number of ways this statement is false:
1. Arafat did not reject the plan, because there was no written plan. It was a serires of suggestions.
2. Arafat did not reject the plan, because he continued to negotiate with Israel for several more months. The negotiations went into Taba, Egypt, where both sides were close to agreements. Sharon took power, however, and refused to negotiate.
3. The Wye River agreement did not offer a two-state solution. After the Olso Peace accords were agreed upon in the early 90s, Israel was supposed to stop building settlements in the occupied territories. Instead, it *doubled* the number of settlers. By the time it came time to make a final agreement, Israel told Arafat he would have to accept all of these settlements. That meant that the country of Palestine would have had no contiguousness and would have looked like Swiss cheese. To go from the north to the south a Palestinian would have had to go through Israeli checkpoints.
Morover, Palesine would have had not control over its own airspace, borders or water. In fact, what was offered was apartheid, not a real state.
redking75687 / Saturday July 22, 2006 01:41:42 PM EST
Ya better hurry derek. This putz is about to pass you and take your nitwit nonsense title away.
The Democrat Party are traitors who put Israel before the USA. They prove it over and over again, with their words and their actions. Putting them on tv to tell us the same pro-Israel b.s. we've heard over and over again would be pointless.
- redking75687 / Saturday July 22, 2006 01:41:42 PM EST - Reply to this comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gee, and all this time I thought the repos controlled all three branches of Government. How'd the Democratic Party come to prevail on this issue, sport? Did all the repos abstain?
Nice try. The repos control everything. That's why it's totally FUBAR.
It's Israel-Lebanon that are at war. It was Lebanon that attacked Israel. Soldiers from Lebanon crossed the border into Israel and initiated hostilities. Israel struck back and Lebanon escalated to rocket attacks.
OK, if that's wrong then Pearl Harbor was attacked by Buddahists extremeists. The attack is done by the country of origin of the attackers and not some third party. That's why it's unlawful for Americans to raise private armies to attack a foreign countries. Governments are responsible to see to it that their residents don't attack foreign countries, not the reverse with foreign countries responsible for policing potential attackers.
What's bottom line? No one seems to understand what's going on. Israel is doing what has to be done in cases like this that are now the norm in the mid east. It's necessary to do damage until the country involved decides it's a good idea to police it's residents. Otherwise governments are impotent which is exactly what the Islamic radicals want.
>>It's Israel-Lebanon that are at war. It was Lebanon that attacked Israel.
The Lebanon gov't has no power over Hizbollah. That is why it is an attack by Hizbollah and not the Lebanon gov't. I didn't know that Pearl Harbor was attacked by Bhuddist. Are you sure here, or just being faceitious? At any rate, whoever attacked Pearl Harbor had the absolute and complete backing of the attack.
>>It's necessary to do damage until the country involved decides it's a good idea to police it's residents.
That's called collective punishment and is a war crime. If you believe this, then you should also believe that Israel should be visciously attacked. All human rights groups that have looked at the Palestinian conflict have found Israel guilty of "deliberate killing" and "torture." Morever, Israel has killed 3 times as many Palestinians in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the other way around. Irael is guilty of breaking over 70 United Nations Resolutions and is stealing land and pushing off Native Palestinians in almost exactly the same way as the American gov't did to the Indians.
MrKite Posted:
"one simply can't escape the fact that Hezbollah, Hamas and many in the Muslim world simply deny Israel's right to exist. If they were commited to a two-state solution this could have been resolved at Wye River. The deal was there to be had. Barak held up his end. Arafat spit the bit. " ______________________________________________
Where is the outrage for the targeting of civilians by these terrorists? How many military targets have these terrorist groups targeted? Other than the kidnapping of the soldier all the rocket attacks have been directed against civilian targets. The message is loud and clear. Push Israel into the Med.
As has been mentioned above, I have seen politicians of both stripes behind Israel. Not sure how this conveys a political bias as the article suggests.
>>Where is the outrage for the targeting of civilians by these terrorists?
Whenever there is a terrorist bombing against Israel, there is massive outrage expressed in all US media. For example, for one terrorist bombing, our local newspaper, considered liberal, had a front-page photo of the damage; an article; and editorial condemning the attack; an biased analysis of the mentality of the terrorists; and a poltical cartoon condemning the bombing.
Ok maybe i am a little out of it but Sean Hannity and Bill O Riley defending Isreal? The only liberal out there on TV is Alam Combs . If im not mistaken he has defended the other side? What is going on!! I am a jew and democrat who believes if you do not learn from the misdeads of others you will repeat them. Sadley none of the dems believe this!!They have become just as closed minded as the necons. Neither side can tell us why for over fifty-years we are at war in the middle east. They know why but both sides see that admitting the truth is political suicide. The sad reason for the blood shed was a poorley thought out plan to displace a population and move in refugees from all over Europe.As a jew I feel pride as an American Jew I feel shame . Both sides have decided the declare all out war on Arabs and Muslims. This will be bad for them but much worse for us.
Keep trying to influence other Jews to get them to see the situation more clearly. Write letters into the paper. Your status as Jew will give you more voice than we goyem!
Gosh.. why no Schumer, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Clinton, or Kerry?
Did the press suddenly forget their whereabouts? Or as is more likely, they are hiding in their bunkers waiting for the controversy to blow over before bloviating?
My take is that it's not because the media will not interviewing them. It is that they don't want to be interviewed.
>>My take is that it's not because the media will not interviewing them. It is that they don't want to be interviewed.
Do you have any reason to state this other than just wanting to defend the biased coverage and attack Democrats?