Hosting Bennett to discuss Mideast conflict, NBC's Today continued trend of imbalanced morning-show coverage
SUMMARY: NBC's Today hosted Bill Bennett on its July 26 edition to discuss the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, continuing the major morning shows' pattern of allowing Republicans and conservatives to dominate the shows' analysis of the topic.
Five days after Media Matters for America noted that Republicans and conservatives have been dominating the major networks' morning-show coverage of the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, the July 26 edition of NBC's Today continued that trend, hosting conservative radio talk-show host and former Reagan Education Secretary Bill Bennett for his views on the conflict and U.S. policy in the Middle East. Bennett is also a CNN contributor and chairman of the Claremont Institute's Americans for Victory Over Terrorism, an organization prescribing a set of principles for the United States to "prevail" in "the first war of the 21st century." Today has now featured four Republicans (including one Bush administration official), but only one progressive -- on its Saturday-morning edition -- to discuss the conflict since the opening of hostilities on July 12.
As Media Matters noted, between July 12 and July 21, Today and Weekend Today hosted* three Republicans and one progressive to discuss the 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.
Other than the Bennett interview, NBC's morning programs have not featured any interviews with Republicans, conservatives, Democrats, or progressives regarding the conflict since July 21.
During his July 26 interview with Today co-host Matt Lauer, Bennett echoed the characterization, popular among conservative media figures, of recent hostilities in the Middle East as part of a new "world war." When asked by Lauer why he thinks the administration's handling of the "Axis of Evil" has been going "quite well," Bennett responded: "Because I think we're in World War III," adding that "[w]e're going to have this fight somewhere, and again, as you've heard before, it's better to have it there than elsewhere." Bennett later asserted that "the test with Iran ... is ... coming up, perhaps pretty soon, depending on how much Israel pushes Hezbollah."
From the July 26 edition of NBC's Today:
LAUER: Going back to the speech after 9-11 and the Axis of Evil --
BENNETT: Yeah -- yeah --
LAUER: -- and the president said we've got to deal with the Axis of Evil, so we're talking about Iraq, Saddam's gone, but it's become a magnet for terrorists. We have North Korea, we know what they're doing in terms of their nuclear ambitions and now testing missiles to deliver nuclear weapons. We know what Iran is doing: nuclear ambitions, funneling money to Hezbollah. How would you rate this administration's handling of the Axis of Evil?
BENNETT: I had my criticisms, but I think actually quite well, pretty consistent --
LAUER: How can you say that?
BENNETT: Because I think we're in World War III, Matt. I think it depends on your framework for looking at this thing. I think we're in World War III, and I think the United States is clearly supporting the right people, supporting Israel and pushing back the terrorists. We're going to have this fight somewhere, and again, as you've heard before, it's better to have it there than elsewhere.
LAUER: If we're going to have this fight somewhere, has the administration been aggressive enough in dealing with countries like Syria and Iran?
BENNETT: No. No, it has not. Again, you know, all of us have our criticisms. I think the fact that you've got an Iranian gunboat thumbing its nose at the U.S. Navy destroyer as it passes by is not a good sign. But the test with Iran, I expect, Matt, is coming up, coming up perhaps pretty soon, depending on how much Israel pushes Hezbollah. But be sure of the stakes. This is about the existence of the state of Israel, and we are in a worldwide war on terror.
*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))
"....quite well, pretty consistent....."
If consistency is the measure of "wellness", I can't argue there. The administration has consistently bungled this country's foriegn policy.
And of course, at number one with a bullet(literally and figuratively), replacing "cut and run" on the hit parade...
"......we're in World War III......"
Bill, that's not for you to decide.
My final point - I wish I could've been Matt Lauer during this interview. My first question would have been......
"Mr. Bennett, if you were a betting man, what odds would you place on the Republicans losing majority control of Congress in the November elections?"
{ vacant stare returned }
"Oops. Sorry. My bad."
"Marching Christian Soldier Marching As To War."
Neo-Cons same old formula: (War+Hate+Fear)TV= Power.
Americans do not want to be Conquering Occupiers of The Middle East. Neo-Cons see this as a strategy for winning elections, and grabbing power at home, and seem oblivous to the consequences to our military, securtiy, and standing with the rest of the world.
If you love America, if you love Democracy, if you love the freedoms and liberties they afford us, than we have but one immediate solution, one sane choice.
If you want your democracy to be there for your children, and grand children, you have one thing you can do to save us all, vote for a Democrat.
Without oversight in the Congress our democracy is over, a thing of the past.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
What exactly did Bennett say that was so over the top? Or that isn't echoed by many on the right and the left. Many Democrats support Israel in this conflict.
As for this whole WWIII or WWIV thing? Why the fuss over it anyway? It's just a label. And if it wakes people up to see the worldwide struggle we are in against Islamo fascists and Muslim fanatical extremists, then it can be called anything that raises that awareness.
I am all for it.
"Hosting Bennett to discuss Mideast conflict, NBC's Today continued trend of imbalanced morning-show coverage
Summary: NBC's Today hosted Bill Bennett on its July 26 edition to discuss the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, continuing the major morning shows' pattern of allowing Republicans and conservatives to dominate the shows' analysis of the topic."
weren't we told that if we invaded iraq, democracy would flower all over the middle east and all the bad guys would melt away like snow in spring. i know tommy knows that's what was said. cause he was one of them. instead now we've got ww3. doesn't sound like what we were promised.
i'm still waiting for the flowers the liberated Iraqis were going to throw to us...oh wait now its WWIII ... no, its WWIV? ...wait, its Armageddon...whew thank God its all over, do I get my virgins now?
---"I am all for it."----
Tommy is "all for" conservatives dominating the morning shows; doesn't know what all the fuss is about.
This is a recording.
Why not follow scoundrels to war?
Why not believe draft dodgers when they cry out for war?
Why not believe that they arn't just starting conflict for the sake of consolidating power?
Why not follow incompetants into the obyss??
Tommy, do you love your family, your country, your democracy. Why would you welcome the concept of instigating and participating in perpetual war for Neo-Con's pursuit of power.
Do you invision your heritage as an American Democracy's transformation to a Fascism ??
I say over your dead body before my own.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
MMFA posted a similar post 5 days ago, so I'll post a similar reply again. The Democrats have the same one-sided dead-end war mongering policy as the Republicans on this issue. What are we missing by not hearing the Democrats? Nothing. For the Democrats, they are only missing getting as much credit for our failed Middle East policies. If MMFA is going to bring up the Israel/Lebanon crisis, why not report on the misreporting going on related to this issue by most of mainstream media, rather than just complain the Republicans are getting to much of the political time on the same failed policy the Democrats support?
MMFA has completely failed to address the merits of this issue, for the obvious reason that the Democratic Party is in essential agreement with the Bush administration (and with Fox News) in supporting Israel to the hilt. Nothing of value will be gained by including more Democrats in this discussion.
that this is just part of a continuing pattern. and i think the democrats might have something a little more critical of bush than all these conservatives. some might note that the bush administration's hands off policy in this area didn't help. it's a deliberate attempt to exclude one side.
----"Nothing of value will be gained by including more Democrats in this discussion."----
Both sides are the same, so the default choice is to exclude --guess who?-- the Democrats! Partisanship towards Republicans is driving your point of view, not fairness.
---"What are we missing by not hearing the Democrats? "----
In a word, Democrats. Even if the positions are the same.
If a DEMOCRAT had been there:
LAUER: Going back to the speech after 9-11 and the Axis of Evil --
BENNETT: Yeah -- yeah --
DEM: Great point. What did the president promise the American people?
LAUER: -- and the president said we've got to deal with the Axis of Evil, so we're talking about Iraq, Saddam's gone, but it's become a magnet for terrorists.
DEM: He got that one exactly WRONG, just like the "greeted with flowers" bit, the WMDs, the "mushroom clouds", and the ties to Al Queda. This president has FAILED UTTERLY at foreign policy. So what's today's word from the White House, which we can be sure is WRONG?
BENNETT: Yeah, yeah ...
LAUER: We have North Korea, we know what they're doing in terms of their nuclear ambitions and now testing missiles to deliver nuclear weapons.
DEM: Yes. North Korea, which Bush decided to simply IGNORE, cutting off any and all efforts at diplomacy or negotiation. We'll never know if HAVING some sort of policy would have made a difference for the better, but we know for sure that Bush's "plan", such as it is, has failed utterly.
LAUER: We know what Iran is doing: nuclear ambitions, funneling money to Hezbollah. How would you rate this administration's handling of the Axis of Evil?
BENNETT: I had my criticisms, but I think actually quite well, pretty consistent --
DEM: The criticism is UTTER FAILURE. And Bennett is RIGHT ... it's been VERY consistent.
LAUER: How can you say that, Bennett?
DEM: I think this is Bennett's cue to issue some hysterical talking points, aimed at escalating American's FEARS while smoothing over the fact that Bush's policies have been a UTTER FAILURE ...
BENNETT: Because I think we're in World War III, Matt. I think it depends on your framework for looking at this thing. I think we're in World War III, and I think the United States is clearly supporting the right people, supporting Israel and pushing back the terrorists. We're going to have this fight somewhere, and again, as you've heard before, it's better to have it there than elsewhere.
DEM: Ha! Registered Trademark: Republican National Committee ...
LAUER: If we're going to have this fight somewhere, has the administration been aggressive enough in dealing with countries like Syria and Iran?
DEM: Aggressive ENOUGH? Bush has completely IGNORED Syria, Iran, as well as Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and other potential terrorist sponsors. Bush HAS no "aggression" against terrorists, he has only a quagmire in Iraq. And OF COURSE his failures have made the world LESS SAFE, and hostilities are breaking out in other places. That's what FAILURE does: It FAILS.
BENNETT: No. No, it has not. Again, you know, all of us have our criticisms. I think the fact that you've got an Iranian gunboat thumbing its nose at the U.S. Navy destroyer as it passes by is not a good sign.
DEM: Good. There is agreement that Bush's way, IGNORING nations until the blow up, is a FAILURE. Democrats would ENGAGE in world affairs, and that is a HUGE difference for the voters to realize. Democrats would actually FIGHT the war on terror, instead of saying Bin Laden isn't worth thinking about. And Democrats call for MEASURED responses, instead of having full-scale WAR as the ONLY reaction to hostility by a SMALL NUMBER of terrorists. Democrats call for SANITY, while Bush's decisions continue to play out as Utter Failures.
BENNETT: But the test with Iran, I expect, Matt, is coming up, coming up perhaps pretty soon, depending on how much Israel pushes Hezbollah. But be sure of the stakes.
DEM: Listen up, Matt. Bennett may not know diddly about foreign policy, but he certainly knows the "stakes" ... after all, he's lost MILLIONS betting on his great good sense in such matters.
BENNETT: This is about the existence of the state of Israel, and we are in a worldwide war on terror.
DEM: There are indeed terrorists world wide. But they need to be taken out with an actual PLAN, rather than getting bogged down in a WAR in a country that had NOTHING TO DO with terrorism, and then IGNORING the rest of the world. Bush has INFLAMED violence, and this is the result. America needs a drastic change, and SOON. The Democrats will return SANITY to our nation's foreign policy.
---------
No WONDER the Rightwing Media does not want Democrat messages heard, and prefer to present the Rightwing "view" as the only one.
That sums it up nicely.
I think this is WWIII?????.....I think?....one dose not assume we are engaged in this kind of campaign unless "said" campaign has been declared....there has been no formal declaration of war so this is just another spin technique to keep the fear factor alive & kicking on Bennett's part....
...and networks like NBC should dispute anyone saying otherwise.
Whoa, whoa, let's everyone take a deep breath on this one. I think all MMFA is trying to point out here is the fact that the "liberal media" has been consistently putting conservative messengers on the air to discuss the horrible crisis in the Middle East. (side point; isn't it strange that the "liberal media" would do such a thing?). It's easy to assume that liberals would have the same things to say, but how can you KNOW that without putting them on.
I will give Bennett credit for one thing - when he's on a network, he is smart enough to tone down the rhetoric a little bit. He at least pretends to acknowledge that there are times when he's been critical of this administration.
Of the many clips I've seen on this site, from a content standpoint, this was certainly towards the lower end of the offensive-meter. I don't agree with everything he said, but Bennett did come across as sane. It's not like the had Coulter back on spouting complete and total nonsense.
I appreciate that MMFA continues to point out when serious issues affecting our country are being given just one-sided coverage.