MSNBC called Robertson and Giuliani "both strong supporters of Israel," but omitted past relevant statements by Robertson
SUMMARY: Reporting on Pat
Robertson's endorsement of Republican presidential candidate Rudy
Giuliani, MSNBC anchor Peter Alexander asserted, "Giuliani and Robertson:
both prostate cancer survivors, both strong supporters of Israel."
MSNBC campaign reporter Matthew Berger stated, "They have traveled to Israel
together." And NBC News political director Chuck Todd said that "to
a lot of evangelicals, the war against Islamic fundamentalism, protecting Israel
is actually a bigger issue than some of these other issues." But at no
point in discussing Robertson and Israel did an MSNBC news anchor or
Todd note Robertson's past controversial comments regarding former
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke and former Israeli Prime
Minister Yitzhak Rabin's assassination.
During the 3 p.m. ET November 7 edition of MSNBC Live, while reporting that Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition and host of the Christian Broadcasting Network's 700 Club, had endorsed Rudy Giuliani (R) for president, anchor Peter Alexander asserted, "I was going through similarities between these guys, Giuliani and Robertson: both prostate cancer survivors, both strong supporters of Israel." Neither Alexander nor his guest, NBC News political director Chuck Todd, pointed out that Robertson, on the January 5, 2006, edition of The 700 Club, suggested that then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was the result of Sharon's policy, which Robertson claimed was "dividing God's land," as Media Matters for America documented. Robertson went on to say: "I would say woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the EU [European Union], the United Nations, or United States of America." Robertson further said the 1995 assassination of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was "the same thing." Robertson reportedly issued a subsequent apology to Sharon's son.
Robertson and Giuliani's support for Israel was discussed frequently in MSNBC's reporting of the endorsement. In addition to Alexander's report, during the 2 p.m. edition of MSNBC Live, anchor Monica Novotny asked MSNBC campaign reporter Matthew Berger, "[W]hat more can you tell us about the nature of the personal relationship between Pat Robertson and Rudy Giuliani?" Berger went on to assert that "they know each other. I'm not sure how well they know each other. They have traveled to Israel together." Further, during the 4 p.m. edition of MSNBC Live, Todd asserted, "So, you know, yes, abortion, yes, gay rights -- they are on the opposite side of things -- but to a lot of evangelicals, the war against Islamic fundamentalism, protecting Israel is actually a bigger issue than some of these other issues."
At no point in discussing Robertson and Israel did an MSNBC news anchor or Todd note Robertson's past comments regarding Sharon's stroke and Rabin's assassination.
From the November 7 edition of the 2 p.m. ET MSNBC Live:
NOVOTNY: Matt, what more can you tell us about the nature of the personal relationship between Pat Robertson and Rudy Giuliani?
BERGER: Well, they know each other. I'm not sure how well they know each other. They have traveled to Israel together. But Robertson has for several years really said good things about Giuliani's term as mayor and said that Giuliani would make a good president. So there is something to the support that Robertson has been giving him for a couple years now.
NOVOTNY: All right, Matt Berger. Thanks so much.
BERGER: Thank you.
From the November 7 edition of the 3 p.m. ET MSNBC Live:
ALEXANDER: Chuck Todd is NBC News political director. Chuck, nice to see you. Thanks.
TODD: Nice to see you, Peter.
ALEXANDER: So I was going through some of the similarities between these guys, Giuliani and Robertson: both prostate cancer survivors, both strong supporters of Israel. So I guess, though, they would seem like there are a lot of obvious differences, too, though. What's your reaction to this endorsement?
TODD: Well, it's interesting, you know the cliche, politics makes strange bedfellows. I mean, now I think we have a new definition with Giuliani and Robertson. But I do think what a lot of folks have been missing throughout this campaign and sort of trying to explain, why is Giuliani still resilient. Why is he still the national front-runner? Well on the issue of Islamic fundamentalism and whether you believe that this is basically a religious war of sorts against Islamic fundamentalism, Giuliani is on the side of social conservatives.
From the November 7 edition of the 4 p.m. ET MSNBC Live:
TAMRON HALL (anchor): So how do Pat Robertson and his followers reconcile this decision today in that many people might see this as hypocrisy.
TODD: Well, look, I think the one misconception about Giuliani's support in the social conservative movement has been on the issue of the war and on the issue, sort of this post-9/11 focus by some conservatives that we are in a religious war with Islamic fundamentalism. There is a part of the party that believes that. Giuliani is a part of that party. He has -- so on that issue, Giuliani and Robertson, there's no gap there. They very much are in agreement. So, you know, yes, abortion, yes, gay rights -- they are on the opposite side of things -- but to a lot of evangelicals, the war against Islamic fundamentalism, protecting Israel is actually a bigger issue than some of these other issues because, as Pat Robertson pointed out, they got what they want among Supreme Court justices. Would they like more? Yes. But they are actually winning on that front. So the thing that they're most worried about is the war. And the war is actually a bigger concern and Giuliani actually is closer to them than the other candidates.
matchmaking, he's a swell guy and so is he. They make such a nice couple. <sarcasm off>
Too much futher into it and hurling becomes more an urgent need than an option.
I can see I'm going to have to toughen up. Temper the urge to look away. Its gonna be a long election season.
Saint Mickey save me!
He made the comments about Sharon because he felt it was wrong for Israel to give up land to the Palestinians.
Whether you agree with his statements or not, they certainly were pro-Israel.
Perhaps in his MIND they were. I am sure Timothy McViegh thought he was blowing up the Murrah building for America too.
"Whether you agree with his statements or not, they certainly were pro-Israel. "You took the words right out of my mouth. One could question what the definition of "pro-Israel" or "Israel" is but most people do agree that supporting Israel's continued land theft is usually thought of as "pro-Israel"I am surprised Media Matters would even think this is something they should give attention to. Isn't the topic of Israel something that it was agreed upon would not be discussed? If we are going to get into omissions, then how about pointing out how the media refuses to report Israel's crimes? I was told by David Brock that it was agreed upon that the topic of Israel would not be discussed. IF we are going to discuss it, then why not be honest about it? How about Media Matters taking action about the mainstream media's continued non-reporting or extreme under-reporting of the fact that Israel is violating international law. Why don't we ask why across the board, mainstream media suppresses facts which reveal that Israel is violating international law and human rights.Media Matters continues to sit by silently while human rights activists continue to get marginalized by mainstream media."There's a deep schizophrenia in some of the Jewish community, and people who are at the forefront of every single rights issue, from racial justice in the United States to the ethnic cleansing in Darfur--on Israel, it crumbles, and there is all this hand-wringing," says Sarahleah Whitson of Human Rights Watch. "And everyone [who is critical] is successfully marginalized."
Israel Lobby Watch
Could you enlighten us a bit? You had a personal conversation with David Brock in which he stated that Media Matters would not publish any articles regarding Israel and the Palestinian situation?
pearlene_scott1602,
Yes,
At a Media Reform conference in St. Louis I asked David Brock why it was that Media Matters ignores the way the media is not reporting on Israel correctly. (for example, the mainstream media's continued non-reporting or extreme under-reporting of the fact that Israel is violating international law.) He replied that they, Media Matters, had decided to let other people report on the media's actions with regard to Israel.
Notice that even this article by Media Matters doesn't expose ANY of the wrong doing of Israel. You can see that this article is just another "pro-Israel" take, without a hint that the media is perpetrating an enormous wrong by the way they suppress the reality of what Israel has been doing.
He made the comments about Sharon because he felt it was wrong for Israel to give up land to the Palestinians.
Please....he made those comments cause he and his evangelical followers want to make sure there is enough space for all of them when the "rapture" comes. Can't be giving up land to the Palestinians, they might need it.
Whether you agree with his statements or not, they certainly were pro-Israel.
But they were definitely anti-Israeli - that Israeli being Arial Sharon....
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
At the height of Palestinian stability in Jerusalem, at the height of their cooperation, and at the beginning of their participation in the "Road Map," that is when Sharon decided to torpedo his own process by visiting a disputed religous sight and infuriate the Muslim World!
Copious Dissent?? If I have a grenade with the pin in it, and declare my good intentions of leaving the pin in while I pull that very pin, am I hoping for an explosion or not??
I would hope you would think of your family when they put you back in your padded room, and proceed with that desparately needed frontal labotomy!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Gracy
Why does MSNBC not discuss how Pat Robertson wants to take away a womens right too choose?
Would you, as succinctly as possible, lay out your justification for a woman's "right" to "choose"? If you say "Roe vs. Wade", then expound on why you think that decision is correct. Thanks.
I'm a Democrat who would never vote for a law or amendment completely banning abortion..but not because I think there's some natural right floating around out there to end human life, but because women will have abortions whether they're legal or not, so I think it best for them and society for medical doctors to legally do it.
I dont want to get into the abortion thing. I do want to point out that the 9th Amendment makes it clear there ARE natural rights floating around out there. In fact it says so directly.
Amendment 9: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
In real terms, our rights are what the existing government allows us to have. The Constitution doesn't do us much good if the Troglodytes in charge ignore it. That's why I can never vote for another Republican, at least until they extract their heads from Pat Robertson's butt.
Why does MSNBC not discuss how Pat Robertson wants to take away a womens right too choose?
Because if they took the time to discuss every wacko position this moron has taken over the years, they wouldn't have time for anything else.
And yes he is a wacko, I am suprised that Rudy is using his "endorsement" as some badge of honor.
Robertson's comments were pro-Zionist Israel. MMfA apparently didnt' feel too confident in their article, so they made sure the mentioned "relevant" in the title.
Yes but is pro zionist really pro Israel. I dont get what you mean about relevant. If they left out irrelevant information it wouldnt mean anything. THAT is why they put relevant in the title
Media Matters in discrediting Robertson is trying to ipso facto discredit Giuliani - picking up where they left off yesterday. The report is very clear on the differences between the two on several issues and where and why they agree on limited things.
Once again here is a story with no "conservative misinformation" or bias but another example of Media Matters political activism.
Leaving out relevant information to push a conservative storyline is considered by MMFA as misinformation. All your complaints will not change their mind. Pro Zionist is not necessarily pro Israel even though THAT is the conservative storyline. Would YOU accept that someone who said God gave George Bush a stroke because of the Iraq war was strongly pro American? No, it would be seen as ridiculous and yet that is pretty much what Robertson did and is still called strongly pro Israel. It IS misinformation by omission.
Let's be honest, here. Pat Robertson doesn't give a rat's ass about the Israeli People. His "support" of Israel is based on his belief in the fairy tales in Revelation, and he doesn't want to be caught on the wrong side when Armageddon comes around.
Saying Giuliani supports Israel is a figleaf for saying he wants to bomb Iran.
Giuliani's foreign policy advisor, Norm Podhoretz, is a prominent neocon. He's very open about what he thinks we should do about Iran:
Giuliani's own rhetoric on Iran has been a little more careful for public consumption, but he refuses to rule out a nuclear strike on Iran.
Giuliani doesn't give a flying f**k about a peaceful settlement of the Israel-Palestinian problem. But he is itching to start a few more wars in the Middle East.
Exactly. That's why Robertson supports him...he thinks Rudy is the most likely to start WWIII, which Pat believes will usher in Armageddon.
I can't add much to this one, but THIS is funny as hell...
http://www.236.com/news/2007/11/07/pat_robertson_gives_giuliani_t_1_2156.php