Ignoring ABC statement, Kudlow alleges ABC will devote programming to "help sell" Obama's health care plan
SUMMARY: CNBC's Larry Kudlow claimed that "ABC is going to give up all their programming" to President Obama "to help sell health care reform," but ABC says it will "giv[e] voice to questions and criticisms" of Obama's plan.
On the June 16 edition of CNBC's The Kudlow Report, host Larry Kudlow claimed that "ABC is going to give up all their programming" to President Obama "to help sell health care reform," and later asserted: "This is so troublesome. June 24, the whole night, programming on ABC is going to be given over to Obama, and it's going to be in favor of Obama's health care plan. ... The media is too easy on him." Kudlow did not acknowledge that ABC News disputes this charge. In a letter posted on ABCNews.com earlier on June 16, ABC News senior vice president Kerry Smith responded to the Republican National Committee's criticism of ABC's planned broadcast, writing that ABC will give "voice to questions and criticisms" of Obama's plan and that "ABC News is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue."
From Smith's June 16 letter:
ABC News announced plans to broadcast a primetime hour from the White House devoted to exploring and probing the President's position and giving voice to questions and criticisms of that position. We hope that any American concerned about health care will find our efforts to be informative, fair and civil.
Second, ABC News prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers -- of all political persuasions -- even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABC News is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue. ABC News alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience.
Third, there already has been extensive coverage of the upcoming health care debates, on ABC and elsewhere, and there will be much, much more. Indeed, we've already had many critics of the President's health care proposals on the air - and that's before a real plan has even been put before the country.
In the end, no one watching, listening to, or reading ABC News will lack for an understanding of all sides of these important questions.
Smith's statement was in response to a letter RNC chief of staff Ken McKay reportedly sent to ABC News president David Westin, asserting that "the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. ... In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda."
From the June 16 edition of CNBC's The Kudlow Report:
KUDLOW: We're also going to hear a little bit about the kind of media Mr. Obama is getting. He lashes out at Fox, but he fails to mention that ABC is going to give up all their programming to help sell health care reform with no Republican rebuttal. I find that rather interesting and somewhat unbelievable.
[...]
KUDLOW: John, I just want to say something. I thought you asked some really great questions in this interview, including that last one, and I'm going to back-step to the risk reward one in a minute. But, look, John, one of the things that disturbed me.
OK, Obama dodges your question by attacking Fox. OK, fine. But he doesn't mention ABC. This is so troublesome. June 24, the whole night, programming on ABC is going to be given over to Obama, and it's going to be in favor of Obama's health care plan. And the Republican National Committee has asked for equal time. They've been rejected. Groups opposed to Obama's health care plan have asked for equal time and have been rejected. I think you're right. The media is too easy on him, John.
JOHN HARWOOD (CNBC chief Washington correspondent): Well, look, this is a discussion that's going to go on. And one of the questions is, is the president simply more skillful than past presidents in using the access that the White House can provide to get the kind of coverage he wants, or is it a press problem? And, you know, it could be a little bit of both; it could be neither.
He might...if anyone was actually watching his show. Last Friday nite he was once again shellacked in the cable ratings...dead last in the MSNBC lineup.
He drew a whopping 101k in the 25-54 demo...which is an improvement from some of his nightly ratings.
Last Friday Schultz was waxed by Brett Baer - 1,627,000, Wolf Blitzer - 568,000, Ed Shultz - 397,000...in total viewers.
In the 18-54 demo...Brett Baer - 381,000, Wolf Blitzer 104,000, Ed Schultz - 101,000.
-- In May, according to Nielsen data, The Ed Show, finished well behind CNN and Fox News at 6 p.m., averaging 510,000 total viewers and 126,000 in the 25-54 demographic--numbers, which were down 13% and 35% respectively compared with May of 2008 when David Gregory was anchoring the hour. -- New York Observer
Hertz donut!
wake up. front line and nova steer so far left its nauseating...there is more than jim lehrer
Nova is liberal? Why? Because it presents science, which we all know gives cons the willies?
But when ABC announces that they're going to broadcast from inside the White House, devote primetime airtime to one of Obama's major issues, and reject a request from the RNC to air their opposing opinion, what else are people to think?
After Brian Williams' ridiculous infomercial for Obama a couple weeks ago, it's hard not to be skeptical.
That the whole problem is that the health care insurance market isn't "free" enough, and this is why so many millions are uninsured?
They simply want the opportunity to sell the same old supply-side B.S. that spiraled health care into the inefficient mess that it is today. They're looking out for the profits of health insurance companies and the exorbitant salaries of insurance CEO's, nothing more.
how about you give up ad hominem attacks?
who is the simpleton here? you are pretending that the buildings, computers paper and salaries are insignificant. THEY ARE NOT!!
Government doesn't have to skim 1 billion plus just to pay the CEO for one year (see United HealthCare).
medicare 3 percent overhead is because they are part of the federal government and get rent paid off a different budget and dont even try to stop fraud.
30% profit? care to name the company? the industry average moves between 6 and 13 percent
what do you propose to do to cut the wages of the people making 20 k running mail? What about the adjusters making 35k...wait we pay them minimum wage and then act shocked as performance suffers!
umm...scholarships for more doctors is increasing supply. preventive care is cutting demand.
forcing drug companies to forgo net profit encourages them for find another field of endeavor. forcing drug companies to forgo recovering their true costs dries up the flow of new drugs and encourages cessation of production of low volume/high cost drugs...that is a helpful idea!
which country pays less, has better care and no queues? britain and canada have queues. Switzerland subsidizes private insurance.
you are dead wrong on competition. they are in fierce competition for market share and of profits get too high 51 departments of insurance and medicare start digging.
health coverage premium goes up because medical prices go up. medical prices go up because there is greater profit to be made and more technology to treat more things. if we all went to the doctor only when injured prices would plummet....not my first choice
many people do not want more efficient sharing. one man was foreclosed on because his bank found out he was a heart patient.
pharmaceutical companies are not bloated. Eli Lilly uses a complex of century old auto plants to save money. the prices are high because of research. ever wonder why generics are cheap? no research.
of course pbs reports nationalized medicine works. did they look at confounding factors such as culturally mandated lifestyle differences?
like most people in the us you complain about high price without looking at all the cost. cars could be cheaper without excess safety devices (side curtain airbags, and really airbags) emission nonsense and required fuel economy. then we would pay another cost, no?
Here's a thought, if the Republicans would stop "opposing" and saying "NO" for every issue that President Obama and the Democrats have worked on, they could have more time to "work" on completing their plans before appearing at their pre-arranged press conferences appearing so disorganized and incomplete. Too funny.
people blame pharmaceutical companies. what if you actually ahd to look at your drug costs? I have a medication i take that is less effective precisely because i pay lees for it...and if someone else paid i would get the best!!!!.
I love how the guy who wants everyone to PRETEND to listen to opposing viewpoints goes on to attack the far left for a show that has not even aired yet.
O'Reilly's ridiculous infomerical for Bush
Hannity's ridiculous infomercial for Bush's legacy
O'Reilly and Hannity are rightwing commentators.
So what about Bret Baier? Which category does he fall into?
"news anchors vs. commentators" is cast aside in favor of "network vs. cable".
And I'm not so much complaining as I am simply calling attention to a movement of the goal posts.
Amazing how short memories are.
'They' are the talking heads. As they talk more, people will begin to understand the scam that health coverage is and begin to think.
Thanks for the concern but I make it a policy to stand at least 20 feet from any mule...even your party cant kick that far.
I'm glad to see that you've discovered capitalization and paragraphs after all these years. I guess and old dog can learn new tricks. Now if you can only work on your coherence, you might make a worthy adversary.
its not my coherence you and solon disapprove of. its my unwillingness to be cowed.
If that's what you want to called obstinacy in the face of your own inanity, then I guess we agree. You, Tommy (right ON), and George W. Bush share this insipid trait.
Part D Drug Benefit that made Big Pharma rich and raised the cost of the drugs I received under my previous provider? They were all for that one because it was a big present for the drug companies and at the same time it would drive Medicare closer to extinction.
Why doesn't anybody talk about this?
That's the big takeaway here. When push comes to shove, the private insurance companies are afraid to compete with the government because they know the government can do it better and cheaper.