PBS’s Judy Woodruff Gives White House Communications Director a Free Pass
The PBS NewsHour led off its Thursday evening telecast with a story about the three scandals that currently envelop the Obama administration: the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups, the Justice Department’s subpoena of AP phone records, and the Benghazi attack. Rather than following the package with analysis from a journalist, as PBS often does with stories like this, the taxpayer-subsidized network brought on White House Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri to provide the White House's spin on these scandals.
Even worse, anchor Judy Woodruff did not rise to the occasion with any tough questioning, allowing Palmieri to spin her way right out of trouble. All of Woodruff’s questions dealt with President Obama’s reaction to the scandals; she never grilled Palmieri on whether the White House was involved in any of this. The assumption seemed to be that the president was an innocent bystander in all of these scandals. [Video below. MP3 audio here.]
Tax-Funded NPR and PBS Bored at IRS Scandal; Instead, Mark Shields Trashes Sanford as Unforgivable ‘Jerk’
Both NPR and PBS skipped over the Obama-IRS scandal on Friday night’s “week in review” segments. Both led instead by wondering about whether conservatives would ruin immigration “reform” and then briefly touched on Benghazi.
On the PBS Newshour, all the outrage was saved for the end, as Mark Shields railed against Congressman-elect Mark Sanford as an unforgivable “jerk” for having his mistress with him at his special-election victory party next to his sons, and then trashed the GOP voters who elected him:
PBS Finally Covers Gosnell Trial, But Denies There Has Been Insufficient Media Coverage
After more than a month of silence, PBS finally covered the murder trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell on Monday’s NewsHour. Considering that all other major news outlets have barely given Gosnell a mention, if they mentioned him at all, it was refreshing to see PBS devote a full seven-minute story to the gruesome abortionist (even if that story came at the very end of the broadcast). However, there was still a stench of disingenuousness in the air as the PBS journalists subtly dismissed the notion that the trial has not received sufficient media coverage up until now.
Anchor Jeffrey Brown introduced the story as “the murder trial of an abortion provider that has captured national attention.” But if the trial has captured national attention, why has PBS waited until now to mention it? Why have we seen nothing more than a trickle of coverage from other major national news outlets? The story might have rightfully captured national attention from the pro-life crowd, but the liberal commercial broadcast media, which favors abortion, has been unwilling to give it national attention. [Video below. MP3 audio here.]
PBS Anchor Woodruff Blames Republicans for Congressional Gridlock
On Tuesday’s PBS NewsHour, anchor Judy Woodruff brought on former Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) to discuss the problem of gridlock in Washington. The conversation started off well, but Woodruff soon made it clear who she believes is more responsible for a lack of legislative progress in the nation’s capital.
Snowe presented the problem as being caused by members of both parties. She cited the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street as examples of ideologically rigid groups on the right and left respectively. But Woodruff couldn’t let this even-handed approach fly on her program. She jumped in with a slanted question: [Video below. MP3 audio here.]
Shields and Brooks Split With Progressives, Urge Caution on Same-Sex Marriage During PBS NewsHour
The PBS NewsHour went into everyone’s favorite subjects last Friday, gays and guns, and discussed the overwhelming cultural shift concerning gay marriage. New York Times columnist David Brooks and syndicated columnist Mark Shields both commented on how this shift could be irreversible, but noted that the Supreme Court could “Roe v. Wade” the decision. That is, the faux conservative and the liberal pundit both agreed that a court decision could just breath new life and fresh controversy into the same-sex marriage fight.
Yes, this is NOT an April Fools' joke. Brooks and Shields were actually saying that sweeping decisions, if not taken responsibly, could create more problems in the long run. It's a refreshing moment hearing shields, unlike others among his liberal colleagues, acknowledging how social change is best achieved through the political process rather than the courts. It is, however, a shame that Brooks failed to give a conservative constitutional case for why DOMA and Prop 8 should stand, aside from the deleterious effects of a court ruling:
Shields and Brooks Split With Progressives, Urge Caution on Same-Sex Marriage During PBS NewsHour
The PBS NewsHour went into everyone’s favorite subjects last Friday, gays and guns, and discussed the overwhelming cultural shift concerning gay marriage. New York Times columnist David Brooks and syndicated columnist Mark Shields both commented on how this shift could be irreversible, but noted that the Supreme Court could “Roe v. Wade” the decision. That is, the faux conservative and the liberal pundit both agreed that a court decision could just breath new life and fresh controversy into the same-sex marriage fight.
Yes, this is NOT an April Fools' joke. Brooks and Shields were actually saying that sweeping decisions, if not taken responsibly, could create more problems in the long run. It's a refreshing moment hearing shields, unlike others among his liberal colleagues, acknowledging how social change is best achieved through the political process rather than the courts. It is, however, a shame that Brooks failed to give a conservative constitutional case for why DOMA and Prop 8 should stand, aside from the deleterious effects of a court ruling:
PBS’s Judy Woodruff Helps Pelosi Blame Republicans for Sequester
The PBS NewsHour invited Nancy Pelosi on for an interview Thursday night, and the sparks were flying. Sparks of love, that is, between anchor Judy Woodruff and the House minority leader. Woodruff conducted a 10-minute interview of mostly softballs about the salient topics of the day. But one of today’s hottest topics, the sequester, only merited one question from Woodruff - and it wasn’t a query a serious journalist would ask. [Video below. MP3 audio here.]
Woodruff began, “Quick question about the sequester. The White House spent a lot of time, the president did, talking about the dire consequences once the sequester kicked in.” Okay. So far, so good. Now, surely Woodruff is going to ask why the president did an about-face and is now downplaying the sequester’s effects. Or maybe she’ll ask if Mr. Obama’s fearmongering was overblown. Or maybe she’ll even ask Pelosi if the president did everything he could to reach a compromise with Republicans to avert the sequester.
PBS Glossed Over Pro-Life March, But Hyped ‘Biggest Climate Rally in U.S. History’
On January 25, the PBS NewsHour gave the annual “March for Life” a perfunctory 56-word news brief. But on Monday night, the leftist protests against the proposed Keystone XL pipeline from Canada drew a full story about nine times that long.
Anchor Judy Woodruff somehow ignored the large crowds of Earth Day 1970, Earth Day 1990 (stood there myself), and Earth Day 2000 to echo the Left: “Thousands of people marched on the National Mall in Washington yesterday, braving a cold winter wind to take part in what organizers called the biggest climate rally in U.S. history.” If that wasn’t weird enough, protest organizer Bill McKibben announced the Arctic melted last year:
Angry PBS Anchor Judy Woodruff on Hagel Delay: ‘Does Someone Pay the Price for All This?’
PBS NewsHour anchor Judy Woodruff had a rough night on Friday, putting her outrage at Republicans ahead of the facts. In her "Shields and Brooks" segment with liberal Mark Shields and former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson (subbing for David Brooks), she guessed "The Republicans, I gather, we're told, it is unprecedented, blocking the nomination -- or the confirmation so far of the man President Obama wants to be his defense secretary."
Did Woodruff completely forget Sen. John Tower's nomination for defense secretary, voted down by Democrats in 1989? The name never came up. Hagel's confirmation is only delayed, not defeated. But Woodruff expressed the need for GOP suffering: "Does somebody pay the price, though, for all this?" Naturally, the liberal expert agreed:
PBS NewsHour Finally Interviews Norquist On Fiscal Cliff; Anchor Woodruff Hits Grover from Left
Finally, Grover Norquist was the featured guest on the PBS NewsHour’s segment on the fiscal cliff. After previous editions of the program featured softball interviews with Paul Krugman and Max Richtman -- two members of the far left who oppose entitlement reform -- as well as moderate conservative Republican Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the NewsHour saw it fit to give time to the anti-tax activist who heads Americans for Tax Reform.
Of course the December 12 interview proved to be an occasion for liberal anchor Judy Woodruff to push back hard against Norquist on taxes, firing every possible liberal talking point at him she could. Norquist was adamant that the problem in Washington is spending, not taxation -- giving the president all the tax hikes he wants would generate about only two weeks worth of revenue, after all. But it didn’t take long for Woodruff to argue that the Clinton era tax cuts were the basis for strong economic growth. Norquist stood his ground and noted the role a conservative Republican Congress played in policies that helped fuel economic growth in the 1990s:
NewsHour Pundits Both Denounce ‘Black Helicopter’ Republicans on UN Treaty
As Colonel Kurtz said at the end of Apocalypse Now: “the horror, the horror.” That sentiment encapsulated New York Times Republican David Brooks and syndicated columnist Mark Shields’ reactions to the rejection of the UN treaty on the rights of the disabled in the Senate last week. Brooks called it “embarrassment for the country” – while Shields called it “a profile in cowardice.” Regardless, it seems that both men forget that we have a similar bill called The Americans with Disabilities Act, which was passed under George H.W. Bush.
During the segment, which aired on December 7, NewsHour anchor Judy Woodruff decided to end her interview with Brooks and Shields on this point:
On PBS and NPR, Liberals Agree With David Brooks: They’ll Jump Off Fiscal Cliff
Last Friday, in his first post-election remarks on PBS and NPR, New York Times columnist David Brooks downplayed his usual bash- conservatives narrative, and actually castigated liberals for wanting to go over the looming fiscal cliff. He said that liberals are more organized, they’ve won the election, and will get most of what they yearn for if we do go over the waterfall: increased revenue, tax hikes, and cuts to defense spending.
Strangely, his liberal colleagues, Mark Shields on PBS and E.J. Dionne on NPR, seemed to agree with this claim – undercutting the notion that this "cliff" is dangerous to both parties.
PBS NewsHour Omits Obama’s Support for Blasphemy Law
During the September 25 broadcast of the PBS Newshour, anchor Gwen Ifill invited Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haas and former U.S. Ambassador Nicholas Burns to discuss President Barack Obama’s foreign policy and his recent address to the UN. Reporter Judy Woodruff also had a segment on the president speech. Yet none of the segments dealing with the address mentioned the fact that the Obama administration has expressed support for anti-blasphemy measures that are completely incongruous with the freedom of speech as protected by the U.S. Constitution.
On PBS, Bob Woodward Demands Romney Apologize to Americans for Unpresidential Remarks on Tape
Bob Woodward continued his lecture circuit on how he’s the source of “the best obtainable version of the truth” in politics by demanding Republican nominee Mitt Romney to apologize for his “off the cuff” remarks captured in a leaked video at a private fundraiser in Florida. During his typically soporific interview with Judy Woodruff on the PBS Newshour, which will air later this week – Woodruff claimed such antics “doesn’t work in journalism, life, or politics.”
On PBS, Bob Woodward Demands Romney Apologize to Americans for Unpresidential Remarks on Tape
Bob Woodward continued his lecture circuit on how he’s the source of “the best obtainable version of the truth” in politics by demanding Republican nominee Mitt Romney to apologize for his “off the cuff” remarks captured in a leaked video at a private fundraiser in Florida. During his typically soporific interview with Judy Woodruff on the PBS Newshour, which will air later this week – Woodruff claimed such antics “doesn’t work in journalism, life, or politics.”
PBS Attacked for Allowing Global Warming Skeptic to Speak
If you had any doubts about the level of zealotry involved in today's global warming movement, they likely will be erased by the goings on at PBS the past few days.
Since allowing well-known climate realist Anthony Watts on NewsHour Monday to voice his views on this controversial issue, PBS has been under attack for doing so (videos follows with transcripts and commentary).
PBS Pushes Shoddy Study Blaming Motorcycle Deaths on Removal of Helmet Requirements
A story that aired on PBS NewsHour Monday showcases the innate pro-bigger-government bias of that program, embedded in a discussion of mandatory motorcycle helmet laws and an increase in motorcycle accident fatalities.
Host Gwen Ifill introduced the segment as a look at "the correlation between motorcycle casualties and helmet laws," featuring a Judy Woodruff interview with Rick Schmidt, who was billed as a reporter for FairWarning.org.
FairWarning describes itself as a non-profit and non-partisan online publication "that seeks to provide robust, public interest journalism on issues of health, safety and corporate conduct." Those descriptors may well be true but the organization's story is advocacy journalism -- blaming rising motorcycle fatalities on many states doing away with mandatory helmet laws for adult riders.
Woodruff's PBS segment followed that same path:
Fatalities on the nation's roads may be declining, but motorcycle deaths are not. Those deaths have increased from about 3,200 in 2002 to 4,500 in 2010. And yet state laws requiring helmets have been weakened. In the 1970s, 47 states shown here in gray required all motorcycle drives to wear helmets. Today, just 19 of them, all in dark blue, require them. Most of the rest in light blue still require helmets of younger riders. That's the finding of a new report released earlier this month by the investigative group FairWarning.org. Days later, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control issued its own report, finding that five times as many cyclists who don't wear helmets die in accidents compared to those who do wear one.
Only late in the story does Woodruff raise the statistical possibility that the rise in fatalities isn't because of states getting rid of helmet laws, but because -- wait for it -- there are a lot more motorcyclists now than in the 1970s.
JUDY WOODRUFF: I have to ask you about one of the statistics, or a major statistics that the motorcycle groups put out there. And they say, yes, the number of fatalities has more than doubled, as you point out, but they also say the number of motorcycles out there, the number of motorcycles registered has more than doubled.
RICK SCHMITT: Sure.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And when you compare that with the percentage of fatalities, they say the percentage of fatalities has actually slightly decreased.
RICK SCHMITT: Well, it's definitely true that a lot more people are riding motorcycles and enjoying riding motorcycles on the roads.
It's also true that there are lot more people driving cars these days since the 1940s, maybe five or six times number of folks. And yet the number of people who die in car accidents is actually the same as it was. So I think we need to ask ourselves, why is one about the same and why is one continuing to climb rapidly?
Woodruff doesn't continue this line of conversation, but then shifts to the libertarian argument that, essentially, the government ought not to be in the business of telling people to wear helmets.
This allows Schmitt to shift to the "social costs that kind of redound to the public" from motorcycle accidents as a justification for making helmets mandatory.
Schmitt's original story at FairWarning.org doesn't explore the question of whether the increase in deaths might be due to the increase in the number of motorcycle riders, and barely even hints at the possibility, saying only, "As more riders have gotten on the road and the number of states with mandatory helmet laws has declined, biker deaths have soared."
And while Schmitt's story is long and filled with data and multiple points of view, essentially the story makes the mistake of assuming the correlation of data is the same as causation.
A real study of the data would look at motorcycle accident fatality data in each state were mandatory helmet laws have been repealed, and would adjust the data for such factors as the rise in the number of motorcyclists on the road, the overall rise in vehicle traffic on the roads, and the vehicle miles traveled.
Rather than go there, Woodruff ends her segment by asking Schmitt, "Is there a prospect of pushing back against it?" - implying that the data clearly shows a need for more mandatory helmet laws.
Schmitt's answer indicates where he and FairWarning.org come down on the need for such laws. No, he doesn't see more states making helmets mandatory. "There seems to be more and more disdain for these -- for helmet requirements. And I think for -- and I think public safety people are both sort of confounded and very frustrated at the state of events right now. They're seeing more people die, and there's nothing that they can go do about it."
It may well be that such laws are a good idea but the evidence presented by Woodruff and Schmitt really is insufficient. Is it too much to ask that journalists actually demand proof from those demanding more government regulations?
PBS NewsHour Arrives on Eric Holder Story: Why Are Republicans ‘Coming Down So Hard’?
After failing for the entire calendar year of 2012 to cover the Fast and Furious scandal, the PBS NewsHour suddenly showed up on the beat Tuesday night -- not to question Holder, but to wonder why Holder was being punished by Republicans. Online, the segment title was "Why Eric Holder Is a 'Lightning Rod to Conservatives'." Why on Earth does "lightning rod" have to be in quotes? Because it's just so implausible?
Woodruff invited on two liberal journalists -- NPR legal correspondent Carrie Johnson and Daniel Klaidman of Newsweek -- to discuss how Holder is being punished because he's liberal, not whether he's stonewalled and lied to Congress.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Carrie Johnson, to you first. Why were Republicans today again coming down so hard on the attorney general?
CARRIE JOHNSON: Well, almost from Eric Holder's nomination and even before his confirmation in 2009, leading Senate Republicans had insisted that they were going to target Eric Holder as vulnerable to political attack. That pattern has continued up until today, although I would say today what had been a simmer turned into a boil in many regards.
Does Woodruff or anyone else on the NewsHour remember the Democrat treatment of John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales in the last administration? Did they prepare sympathetic segments on how they were "targeted for political attack"? At least Klaidman announced the general principle that Attorneys General are common political targets, but he insisted that somehow Holder was more persecuted.
WOODRUFF: Daniel Klaidman, is there a central thread running through all of this? As Carrie Johnson just said, there has been criticism of the attorney general almost going back to day one of this administration.
DANIEL KLAIDMAN, Managing Editor, Newsweek: Yes, Carrie is right about that. It really did begin at -- start at the very beginning. You know, I think if there is one central thread, it is that this attorney general perhaps more than any other members of the Obama Cabinet is associated with some of the more progressive policies of the Obama administration. And so he's become a lightning rod for conservatives.
It begins with his involvement in counterterrorism policies, you know, contentious, hot-button issues, closing down Guantanamo Bay [as if they ever did?], his decision to investigate Bush-era torture, and then the decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in federal court in Manhattan, which was extremely controversial.
Beyond that, attorneys general are always at the center of very divisive social issues. In the case of Holder, it's gay marriage, it's immigration, and it's civil rights issues. And so all of these issues have made him a kind of a vulnerable target in some ways for partisan attack.
WOODRUFF: So, staying with you, is it -- should we just consider this more of the same, that attorneys general always face this kind of scrutiny, that they get swept up in some of the more -- the bigger controversies of every administration? Or has this reached a different level?
KLAIDMAN: Well, if it's reached a different level, it's only because I think Washington has reached a higher level of recrimination and political partisanship.
<<<Help us in the never-ending fight to combat the liberal media's bias and distortions. Click here to give your tax-deductible donation to NewsBusters.>>>
Klaidman even tried to claim that Eric Holder really wasn't much of a liberal. He wants to make illegal aliens welcome, repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, denounce the country as racists, and pooh-pooh concerns over Black Panthers scaring voters at the polls, but really, he's in the mainstream:
Early on, he did make some political stumbles that I think reinforced this idea that he was a liberal. He gave a speech on race in which he used the infelicitous phrase the "nation of cowards." He talked about some gun control issues which were controversial.
The irony, I would say, is that Holder actually is a fairly mainstream Democrat. He's not a kind of unreconstructed liberal. This is a guy who spent most of his career as a federal prosecutor and then as a judge, where he had a reputation as a very tough sentencer. They called him Hold 'Em Holder.
The other maddening section of this segment is how Carrie Johnson elides the Justice Department's false testimony as just a few un-calculated misunderstandings:
WOODRUFF: Carrie Johnson, how has the Justice Department dealt with all this over the past three or so years? And how has the attorney general himself dealt with it?
JOHNSON: I think that's changed over time, too, Judy. At first, this administration seemed to not pay much attention to attacks, especially on the Fast and Furious operation. They told members of Congress a year-and-a-half ago there was really nothing to see. And then, as they investigated further, they realized maybe there were some mistakes and they needed to get to the bottom of who made them.
But because their response initially to Congress was, move along, there's really nothing going on, they have had to spend some time cleaning up that position.