Newsman as Political Activist

[Accountable]

O'Reilley makes no bones about his political views and makes judgments accordingly. One always knows that when he says "I'll give you the last word," he really means he's going to interrupt his guest mid-sentence to go into a rant. If you want fair and balanced. Watch the news, not O'Reilly.







But Tim Russert has always been a reporter I admired for hammering politicians from both alleged sides of our current political fiasco. ... until today. Obviously, ol' Tim is pro-abortion and thinks it is important enough to use his show as a platform to propagandize his views.







He had one Democrat & one Republican from the Senate judicial committee to talk about Sam Alito's possible appointment to the Supreme Court. He allowed Chuck Schumer to drone on with a list of reasons Alito would make a bad justice, until he hit on the issue of abortion. Tim then turned to John Cornyn for a response. When Cornyn tried to address Schumer's list, Tim told him to stay on the subject, meaning abortion. He never allowed the senators to talk about anything else for the rest of the interview.



The next guests, two women who had written books on opposing views, were ostensibly there to debate feminism. They only talked about abortion. Fully 45 minutes of the show went this way.



Shame on Tim Russert for abdicating his responsibility as a newsman to promote his own views.

[ChiptBeef]

I view Bill O'Reilly as an independent commentator. I have seen him go after Democrats and Republicans in the past. I believe he, himself, often says on the air that if you are looking for news, go someplace else. To try and put him in the same box as Tim Russert is apples and oranges, as they say. It seems that Bill O'Reilly is doing something right. From an AOL news article;

"Stepping Into Ring With Bill O'Reilly Is Getting Crowded"

"His average nightly audience increased from 2.42 million in 2004 to 2.49 million last year... It's worth noting that nearly 2.7 million people - about 200,000 above last year's average - tuned in to watch "The O'Reilly Factor" that night after he went toe-to-toe with Letterman, according to Nielsen Media Research. O'Reilly's younger viewership was up 20 percent over his December numbers."

I've always viewed Tim Russert as an even-handed "newsman", despite his liberal background. While I missed his show today, your report is very disturbing, as it sets a new precedent for Russert, in my opinion. I think "Queen" sang about "Another one bites the dust."

[Lon]

I find it interesting that some of the O' Riley viewers find him biased in favor of libs and others biased in favor of conservatives. It's all a matter of perspective isn't it, and our own pariticular biases on an issue. That's the real problem with political labels

[Accountable]

Here's a portion of the interview talking about Alito (full transcript here):



MR. RUSSERT: Now, he will say that was the debate over the Commerce Clause. It was not only the possession but also the transport, and said if Congress changed the law to specifically include a reference to that, he would have no problem.



SEN. SCHUMER: Well, I’ve talked to him about this, and let me say he did not”I asked him would he change his position, particularly there’s a new case, Raiche, which even affirms even further the right to do this, and he wouldn’t give me an answer. We’ll see what he says at the hearings. That’s why the hearings are important.

Here are a few others. He said, for instance, that a 10-year-old girl could be strip-searched even though the warrant did not call for her to be strip-searched. Chertoff”Michael Chertoff, then a justice, conservative Republican justice, said that that was wrong and wrote the majority opinion.

He has said, for instance, in the past, that one man, one vote; something that’s accepted as a tenet of our democracy that you shouldn’t have one legislative district or congressional district with 20,000 people and one with 300,000 people. He said that was OK. And, of course, he’s the only nominee, other than Robert Bork, to say that he thought his own view was that the right to choose was not protected by the Constitution.

So he has said a whole number of extreme things, and then, you know, one final thing, very relevant to the times right now, in a speech before The Federalist Society in 2000, he said he believed in the unitary executive. That means the executive has all the power. It would mean you couldn’t have an FTC. It would mean you couldn’t have a 9-11 Commission. It might mean in a time of war, relevant to today, that you could have warrants issued so you could go into someone’s home without going to a judge.

These are things that edge on the extreme. And that’s why the hearings are so important, and that’s why, Tim, questioning Judge Alito is going to be really, really important. I haven’t made up my mind about how to vote and certainly whether to block him or not, whether to urge my colleagues in the caucus to filibuster. But he’s got to answer a lot of questions.



MR. RUSSERT: But you haven’t ruled out a filibuster?



SEN. SCHUMER: Have not ruled it out, no.



MR. RUSSERT: Senator Cornyn, let me pick up on the point that Senator Schumer raised about the right of abortion in the Constitution. As you well know when Samuel Alito applied for a position to be deputy assistant attorney general”and here is his job application. Here you see it, Alito, Samuel A., he wrote this: “...it has been an honor and source of personal satisfaction for me to serve in the office of the Solicitor General during President Reagan’s administration and to help to advance legal positions in which personally believe very strongly. I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued ...that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.”

That seems very clear, his personal view and his legal view, arguing that the Constitution does not provide a right to an abortion. Why can’t Judge Alito come forward and say, “This is my view. I don’t find the right of abortion in the Constitution”? Why doesn’t he just say it?



SEN. CORNYN: Well, Tim, the”obviously Judge Alito joins other groups of distinguished legal scholars and jurists who have questioned the decision in Roe v. Wade. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Laurence Tribe and others have said it’s a poorly reasoned decision. But the important issue is not what his opinion was when he applied for a job in 1985 but whether he is going to substitute his personal views for the law. In other words what judges do is not”they don’t have a roving commission to go out and impose their views for what the legislature passes as the law, and overrule precedents of the court. If you’ll let me go back to the ABA...



MR. RUSSERT: But stay on this, because the Supreme Court has overruled precedent, as we know in Brown v. Board of Education.



SEN. CORNYN: Of course.



MR. RUSSERT: If he became a Supreme Court justice he could very well say, “I don’t see a right in the Constitution to an abortion. I don’t think Roe v. Wade was not decided appropriately and I’m overruling it.” He has that right, and he very well could do it based on what he has said in 1985.

SEN. CORNYN: Everything we know about Sam Alito is that he is not an ideologue. He’s not a judicial revolutionary. There’ve been 33 years pass since Roe v. Wade decided, notably the Casey decision, which sort of created additional precedent for that decision. But here again, this is a man of integrity as”one thing Chuck left out when he talked about the ABA gold standard in terms of finding him highly qualified, they also look at integrity. And some of the left-leaning critics, the outside groups, have tried to undermine this judge’s reputation for integrity by bringing up bogus claims that he somehow failed to recuse when he should have, despite the fact that legal ethicists across a political spectrum, Democrat and Republican alike, have said there was no requirement that he recuse. Despite that, he went above and beyond what the law and ethics required and ultimately had the case re-argued, had another panel replace him and then they ended up with the same decision. The problem is”and Chuck went through the litany, the laundry list of accusations, which I hope I get a chance to respond to here”that have a good answer and that represent these charges, represent a mischaracterization of this good man’s reputation and record. [Cornyn was never given that chance]



MR. RUSSERT: But shouldn’t the American people have the right to hear Judge Alito say, “I believe that there is no right to abortion in the Constitution, but I will respect the 30-some-year precedent of Roe v. Wade and not overrule it,” or “I believe the right does not exist, and I therefore am honor-bound to overrule it”?

[Benjamin]

I watched it last night. The program seemed to be centered around the abortion debate and whether or not Alito will try to overturn Roe Vs. Wade. There doesn't seem to be any question about Alito's qualifications, but the there is concern that Alito will be an activist judge who will legislate from the bench. I don't think there's any question that Russert is a democrat and he may be a little vindictive towards republicans after being drug into "Plamegate."

I don't know how O'Reilly fits into this. He's in a completely different category. His show isn't a news show; It's more for entertainment purposes than actual news, and he says things for the sole purpose of boosting his ratings. People watch him because they like to watch him trash his guests. I guess there's some entertainment value in that. I must admit, I enjoy a good neocon trashing. That was hillarious when David Letterman told O'Reilly that 60% of what he says is pure crap. :wah:

[Accountable]

I saw that Letterman episode. Did it seem to you that Letterman was forced to let O'Reilly on the show? He certainly didn't seem happy to have him on his stage.

[ChiptBeef]

I think that episode between O'Reilly and Letterman was good in this sense. Everyone knew, for the most part, where O'Reilly was coming from as a commentator, before he stepped on stage. By the time it was over, everyone also knew where Letterman was coming from, as an entertainer. O'Reilly hasn't served in the military or lost a child in combat. Neither has Letterman. That puts them on a level playing field as far Operation Iraqi Freedom. That seemed to be a focus of the show. I wonder if Letterman will have the courage to go on "The O'Reilly Factor?"

[Accountable]

Transcript

[Benjamin]

Accountable wrote: I saw that Letterman episode. Did it seem to you that Letterman was forced to let O'Reilly on the show? He certainly didn't seem happy to have him on his stage.
I don't think anybody forces Letterman to do anything, but he definitely had it in for O'Reilly. That whole "war on Christmas" whine was based on a bunch of lies. O'Reilly described a Christmas song where they changed the lyrics so it wouldn't mention Christ. It turns out, the school did that for a play the students put on about five years ago.

[greydeadhead]

First of all, neither Russert or O'Reilly are really newsmen.. they are pure entertainment. They are trying to stir up some controversy or get whoever they are interviewing to slip up and say something stupid. Honestly.. since all the the news media (newspapers and radio included) have developed such shows or columns.. I have found it harder and harder to find factual news that is not swayed in one direction or another.. a disturbing trend

[ChiptBeef]

greydeadhead wrote: First of all, neither Russert or O'Reilly are really newsmen.. they are pure entertainment.


Would you make the same argument about Tim Russert's predecessors? That argument against commentator Bill O'Reilly might hold water, but Tim Russert has been a recognized newsman for years. He is just following in other's footsteps. I'm sure if you could view his paycheck, it would show a tie to NBC News. Of course, Bill O'Reilly's might show a similar tie to Fox News, so you might be wrong on both counts.

:-6

[greydeadhead]

Well then.. as it pertains to this thread then, they are both just entertainers.. perhaps in the past they were real reporters, but IMHO they have both lost their way and have fallen into the pit of opinionated news... versus reporting the facts and allowing the public to make up their mind..

I do watch one of the major infonews channels in the morning, and find it amazing how they slant the report to reflect thier political bent..... very very amusing actually...

[Jives]

greydeadhead wrote: First of all, neither Russert or O'Reilly are really newsmen.. they are pure entertainment.


I guess I'm lost too, ACC. Didn't you state at the beginning of your post that you knew he was slanted?



I have found it harder and harder to find factual news that is not swayed in one direction or another.. a disturbing trend


CSPAN is currently the only channel that does not use camera angles and loaded questions to slant their news. They shoot only from the straight on view, and do not cut away for emotional expression shots.

It's really, really boring....but not slanted.

So Grey is right. If ratings determine whether or not you will get to stay on the air....

Why wouldn't you slant the conversation and the news?

[Accountable]

In my original post I mentioned O'Reilly only to show that I understans some of these yahoos host admittedly opinionated shows (O'Reilly), but Meet the Press has always waved the banner of 'just the facts.' Russert has always been pretty evenhanded and generally asks pointed questions of anybody that sits at his table. That's why I was so taken aback this time.

[ChiptBeef]

greydeadhead wrote: Well then.. as it pertains to this thread then, they are both just entertainers...
Bill O'Reilly is a commentator. Tim Russert is a newsman. That's factual, no matter what the context.