On November 12, 2006, the first Sunday after an election in which Democrats rode anti-war sentiment to take control of both houses of Congress in a landslide, NBC's Meet the Press hosted two guests, John McCain and Joe Lieberman -- neither of whom had been elected as a Democrat, and both of whom are among the most prominent supporters of the Iraq war.

This Week:

For coverage of Democrats' historic day in Congress, NBC interviews ... John McCain

Mistakes at CNN, Yahoo! undermine defense that comments about Obama's name are only jokes

Memo to the media: People don't like Iraq war

Bush approval reaches new lows, but journalists continue to toe White House line

For coverage of Democrats' historic day in Congress, NBC interviews ... John McCain

On November 12, 2006, the first Sunday after an election in which Democrats rode anti-war sentiment to take control of both houses of Congress in a landslide, NBC's Meet the Press hosted two guests, John McCain and Joe Lieberman -- neither of whom had been elected as a Democrat, and both of whom are among the most prominent supporters of the Iraq war.

NBC's Tim Russert began the broadcast by announcing: “What now for the Republicans? We'll ask a man who is positioned to seek the GOP nomination for president in 2008: Senator John McCain of Arizona. What now for the Democrats? We'll ask a man who lost a Democratic primary, but was just re-elected as an independent: Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.”

Democrats had just won control of both Houses of Congress, and to discuss "[w]hat now for the Democrats," Russert hosted not a Democrat, but someone who had run for election against a Democrat! By contrast, the Republicans -- the losers of the previous week's elections -- were represented by one of their own.

As we wrote at the time, the Meet the Press guest list was “a slap in the face to the American electorate, which resoundingly rejected the war.”

Yesterday, NBC proved it wasn't a one-time mistake. As the weblog Crooks and Liars first noted, on the day the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress, NBC's Today interviewed John McCain. In fact, McCain was the only political figure Today interviewed. In case the finger-in-the-eye nature of their decision to interview only a Republican senator on the day when Democrats took control of both houses of Congress was too subtle, the transcript of the segment available on Nexis is headlined “Senator John McCain talks about new Democratic Congress and the war in Iraq.”

Did Today co-host Matt Lauer ask McCain if he and his party have learned from the beating they took last fall? Did he ask if McCain and his party would take to heart the American public's resounding rejection of the Iraq war, and of ... basically everything the Republicans have been doing?

He did not.

Instead, Lauer began by asking McCain hard-hitting questions like, “How're you feeling about” the Democratic takeover? Then Lauer set McCain up to criticize the Democrats, asking, “How do you think this new Congress, under the control of Democrats, will change the lives of the average American in this country? How will they notice it?” Getting down to business, Lauer's next question suggested -- twice -- that Democrats are sending a “mixed message”:

LAUER: Do you think the Democrats, senator, are sending a mixed message of sorts? On the one side, they're saying, “We want to reach out. We want to work in a bipartisan way.” On the other side, they're going to, in the very early hours of this session, work on the minimum wage, they're going to work on stem -- funding for stem cell research. Is that a mixed message?

Raising the minimum wage and funding stem cell research have broad bipartisan support in America, if not among Republican members of Congress. And yet, Lauer, in a question to a Republican senator, suggested that it is the Democrats who are not being bipartisan because they are pursuing policies that enjoy broad public support.

NBC hosted a Republican senator -- and only a Republican senator -- to discuss the first day of Democratic control of Congress ... and preceded to ask him loaded questions critical of the Democrats.

This is through-the-looking-glass strange; a deeply perverse mockery of fair and honest discourse. It's the sort of deck-stacking that we've come to expect from Fox News -- but that we get from NBC as well.

Not that NBC is the only news outlet that treats McCain this way.

Let's look at McCain's appearance on CNN on September 14, 2006, when he was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer, which appears to be his most recent appearance on “the most trusted name in news.” Here are, in order, the questions Blitzer asked McCain:

• "[Y]ou have a very different stance than the president has right now on several issues involving the war on terror. Let's go through ... them and explain to our viewers why you believe the president is wrong. Why you believe, for example, that evidence that the U.S. government wants to use in a military tribunal against suspected detainees, even if it is classified, should be allowed -- the detainees and their lawyers should be allowed to review it."
• “So you think the president ... is going to be flexible on this specific issue?”
• “What about on the issue of torture, as it's called? Right now the U.S. military has specific guidelines, it's been made public. There seems to be a separate standard for civilians like those in the CIA. You're not happy about that.”
• “Colin Powell, among other U.S. retired military personnel, agreeing with you that if this doesn't change, if the president's position stands ... it could endanger U.S. troops serving around the world. You speak with a little authority on this as a former POW yourself in Vietnam. But go into a little bit more specific details, why you think the fighting men and women of the United States could be endangered if the president gets his way.”
• “Well, it makes sense to me, but the question is, on the issue of evidence, do you think there's a compromise potentially in the works with the president on this issue of the Geneva Conventions? Are you getting close to a deal with the administration, or are you still pretty far apart?”
• “As you know, you and Senator Warner and Senator Lindsey Graham, your version prevailed in the Senate Armed Services Committee. But you've got a long way to go in this process, a very different perspective in the House of Representatives. How much of a battle is there going to be?”
• “And just to be historically correct, when you were a POW in Vietnam, you weren't accorded the Geneva Conventions. You were brutally treated and tortured.”
• “One final question, Senator, before I let you go. How concerned are you that three powerful Republican senators, you, being John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John Warner, that some Republicans might say you're giving aid and comfort to Democrats during this very, very bitter political season less than eight weeks before an election?”

The closest Blitzer came to asking McCain a tough or challenging question was when he asked McCain about criticism from members of his own party. The other questions range from broad, easy tell-us-what-you-think questions to a “question” that consisted of Blitzer telling McCain that Colin Powell agrees with McCain, and that McCain speaks on the issue “with a little authority.”

We can only be grateful that Blitzer stopped short of offering to peel McCain a grape.

Later, in the same broadcast, Blitzer hosted Democratic Sen. Barack Obama. Blitzer's first question to Obama?

• "[W]hat about this Republican effort right now to paint not only you, but almost all Democrats as weak on terror? In the words of one House Republican leader, “more interested in protecting terrorists than the American public”? How are you going to fight back on that?"

Blitzer's first question to Obama, right off the bat, was the type of question he never once asked McCain: Here's how the other party criticizes your party; how are you going to combat that?

Indeed, Blitzer's first four questions to Obama were markedly different in style and tone from his questions to McCain. Recall that Blitzer's questions to McCain were all of the straightforward “tell us what you think” variety -- except for those questions that first established McCain's credibility then asked what he thought. The questions to Obama, by contrast, were of the “but here's what the other side says” variety:

• “But the president says that may be true but right now Iraq has become the centerpiece in the war on terrorism and it's better for the U.S. to be fighting terrorists there than to let them come to the United States.”
• “How do you explain, senator, how do you explain the point that the president and others keep hammering that it's been five years since 9/11 and there's been no terror attack here in the United States and that this administration deserves some credit for that.”
• “The president insists, and this is an issue under way right now, as you know, in the House and Senate that he needs legislation authorizing these warrantless wiretaps because they are so critical in preventing terror attacks like 9/11 in the United States and as far as the military tribunals for suspected terrorists are concerned there has to be some guidelines there so that they, the suspects and their lawyers, don't get the evidence that could be classified and could endanger what are called sources and methods in the intelligence community. You want to resist him on both of those issues, don't you?”

Same day. Same network. Same broadcast. Same interviewer. And the questions to McCain were softballs (Colin Powell agrees with you, and of course you have some authority on this topic!) while the questions to Obama were inside fastballs (Republicans say you're more interested in helping terrorists than Americans.) Blitzer wore kid gloves for McCain; boxing gloves for Obama.

But that was way back in September; maybe things have improved? Well, it was Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards' recent appearance on CNN that got us thinking about the cable channel's disparate treatment of Democratic and Republican guests in the first place. Edwards appeared on the December 29 edition of The Situation Room, where he was interviewed by Ed Henry and Suzanne Malveaux.

We knew the interview would be trouble when we saw how Malveaux teased it: “Is Democrat John Edwards ready to give up on Iraq?” and “Also ahead, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards. Is his personal wealth at odds with his political message? Edwards talks with us at length about his campaign and the criticism of him.”

Sure enough, Malveaux and Henry proceeded to conduct an interview that can only be described as abusive.

Questions like “You want to pull 40,000 to 50,000 U.S. troops out of Iraq. Do you just want to give up?”

What's so bad about that? Well, it adopts the Republicans frame for what Edwards wants to do -- “giving up.” Imagine a CNN host asking John McCain, “You want to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq. Do you just want more American kids to die?” You'll have to imagine it, because you'll never see it.

Malveaux and Henry continued, badgering and interrupting Edwards -- several times with questions or interjections beginning, “But, Senator...” or “No, Senator.”

Questions like, “Why shouldn't the American people believe that this is simply just a convenient message, a flip- flop, on your part, if you will, to win the vote?” And “Why do you think that this message of two Americas is going to resonate any more so with the American people, than it did when you first presented it? It's no longer a fresh or new idea.”

Most telling, though, is the fact that in interviewing Edwards, who, in the past two years, has made combating poverty a central focus of his life, as well as of his campaign announcement, Henry and Malveaux failed to ask him a single question about the topic. Here's the closest they came:

HENRY: Senator, as a last question, you've talked about ending poverty, but you know the attacks are out there already: in 2004, Republicans said you were a wealthy trial lawyer, and they used that as a negative. Now, already, the New York Post -- the headline was, “A State of Denial,” talking about your anti-poverty campaign, at the time -- same time, you're buying a $3.1 million beach house. Do you have an image problem?

John McCain and Rudy Giuliani have money, too -- McCain left his first wife for a wealthy heiress; Giuliani's most recent divorce reportedly featured a nearly $7 million settlement.

Imagine if CNN treated McCain and Giuliani the way they treated Edwards. When Henry next interviews them, he'd ask if their staggering wealth, coupled with their lack of focus on issues like poverty, means they are out-of-touch elites who are unable or unwilling to understand Americans of more modest means.

The improbability of Henry asking such a question speaks volumes.

Progressives, led by Bill Clinton and Barney Frank, are fighting back against obviously slanted and hostile questioning by Fox News hosts. That's an encouraging development, but one that shouldn't be limited to Fox hosts.

Mistakes at CNN, Yahoo! undermine defense that comments about Obama's name are only jokes

During the recent wave of media obsession over Barack Obama's middle name (Hussein), the similarity of his last name to Osama bin Laden's first name, and the purported similarity between his style of dress and that of the president of Iran, Media Matters included CNN's Jeff Greenfield and Jeanne Moos among those media figures who have focused on these ridiculous matters. Greenfield protested that he didn't deserve criticism; he was only joking, he explained, while chastising those who had been critical of his comments. The “defense,” such as it is, surely applies to Moos as well; her segments are basically all intended to be jokes.

Late last month, we explained why the “I'm only joking” defense doesn't hold water:

These narratives spread because journalists like Jeff Greenfield and Jeanne Moos (presumably unintentionally) legitimize right-wing efforts to equate Barack Obama with Saddam Hussein by treating it all as a big joke. Were Greenfield and Moos really suggesting that Obama's name is a reason to dislike him? We assume they were not. But their focus on the topic only encourages others to continue their focus on the topic.

By “joking” about Obama's name, Greenfield and Moos help perpetuate the narrative. They help ensure that people subconsciously connect Barack Obama with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. We think that this is as close to self-evident as you can get, but for those who don't want to take our word for it, recent weeks have brought some supporting evidence.

First, CNN -- Greenfield and Moos' network -- was forced to apologize to Obama after it ran a graphic consisting of a picture of Osama bin Laden and the text “Where's Obama?” As Wolf Blitzer later told viewers: “Unfortunately, there was a graphic, instead of saying where is Osama, it said where is Obama. We want to apologize for that bad typo.”

Blitzer described the mistake as a “typo,” but a quick glance at a keyboard makes clear that this typo wasn't a physical mistake, but a mental one -- the “s” and “b” keys are not next to each other. But “Osama” and “Obama” are apparently next to each other in the minds of CNN staffers, who have come to equate the two.

Then, a few days later, Yahoo! News captioned a photo of Obama with the words “Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.”

Again: that's not a mistake that results from the physical proximity of two keys on a keyboard. That's a mistake that arises because people have come to associate “Obama” and “Osama.” And if professional staffers of news organizations have come to do so, isn't it obvious that the link has been made in the subconscious of some voters as well?

That's why we don't think Greenfield and Moos get a pass for “joking” about Obama's name. Their comments may not have been meant to be taken seriously, but they have serious consequences.

Memo to the media: People don't like Iraq war

During a June 2006 appearance on Meet the Press, New York Times reporter Anne Kornblut claimed that the Democrats were “bracing incredibly for the Karl Rove cut-and-run accusation.”

Of course, that “cut-and-run accusation” came and failed spectacularly, as the American people overwhelmingly disapprove of the Iraq war and the Republicans' handling of it.

Yet Kornblut continues to insist that Democrats must be wary of being given the “cut-and-run” label. During a January 4 appearance on MSNBC's Scarborough Country, she declared, “I think the biggest nightmare for some of the Democrats in the Senate would be a Democratic Party that looks as though it just wants to, from -- the words from 2004 -- 'cut and run.' ”

Kornblut describes “cut and run” as “words from 2004” -- never mind that those words were prominent in 2006 and that they didn't work. Never mind that Kornblut herself spoke of the attack in 2006. Kornblut simply disappears that inconvenient truth, focusing instead on 2004. We've said it before, we'll say it again: This isn't 2004 any more. This isn't 2002.

People. Don't. Like. This. War.

How hard is that to comprehend? It's been the truth for a long time. A very long time. President Bush and John McCain are pushing an Iraq policy -- escalation -- that has the support of only about 11 percent of Americans. Eleven percent! That's in “would you like to be kicked in the head” range. People overwhelmingly oppose this war; they want to end it; and leading Republicans are talking about escalating it.

Surveying these facts, pundits declare that Democrats better watch out, lest they be branded “cut-and-run[ners].” And these people get paid to utter this nonsense!

Bush approval reaches new lows, but journalists continue to toe White House line

With Bush's approval rating reaching yet another new low -- 30 percent in the latest CBS poll -- you might think that the media would finally stop parroting the White House's rhetoric. Wrong.

Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz wrote in an online discussion this week that the media have “fallen into the trap of using 'surge,' ” that that journalists should be “more careful” about adopting White House rhetoric.

What's striking, though, isn't simply that journalists use the White House's rhetoric rather than impartial language; it's that so many seem to do so almost exclusively.

For example, as of 3 p.m. ET today, CNN transcripts for January 5 available on Nexis contain more than two dozen uses of the phrase “surge” by CNN anchors, reporters, and analysts to describe sending more troops to Iraq. The word “escalation” doesn't appear a single time in such a context.

Jamison Foser is Executive Vice President at Media Matters for America.