The War Inside NBC

The guest list for the funeral mass for “Meet the Press” anchor Tim Russert was an “A list” of politicians and media mentionables. Real reporters mixed with the television personalities and the network executives who control their lives. It was a black day for journalism in NBC: Russert’s death released one of the last brakes slowing NBC’s descent into political activism and journalistic irrelevance.

NBC was once the proud home of real journalists. People such as Chet Huntley and David Brinkley brought its standards to -- and above -- the level prevalent in most news organizations. But now, it’s an asylum for people such as Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann.

Matthews has made himself a caricature of the liberal news anchor. In one memorable moment of the primary season he said he felt, “…this thrill going up my leg…” while listening to an Obama speech.

Were that not bad enough, NBC’s leadership -- NBC-Universal CEO Jeffrey Zucker and NBC News President Steve Capus -- are pushing the network off into liberal la-la land. Russert, who tried hard to be fair to liberals and conservatives alike, was in a shrinking minority. Except for Russert, the moderates have been marginalized in favor of hyperventilating liberals such as MSNBC dolt-laureate Keith Olbermann.

The war within NBC is between the network suits and the real journalists who remain. They see what’s happening: the suits are using NBC to make MSNBC credible and to get their political jollies.

NBC’s news reporting has long been riddled with liberal bias. But over the past two years it’s divorced itself from the news business and gone into political activism. Its programming is so biased it could be confused with a broadcast arm of the New York Times.

Exhibit A is the May 19 letter written by Presidential Counselor Ed Gillespie to NBC News president Steve Capus. The letter was precipitated by the previous night’s Nightly News broadcast of an interview with President Bush. The interview was a setup, and the tape edited deceptively to make the President’s answers to questions from reporter Richard Engel appear to be something the clearly weren’t.

A perfect sin in journalism, the editing made it appear that the President accepted Engel’s premise that Bush’s speech to the Israeli Knesset equated negotiations with Iran to appeasement and was a calculated political attack on Barack Obama. In print journalism, this wouldn’t have made it past a rookie city desk editor. On NBC, it made the prime-time broadcast.

Gillespie’s letter went on to document a series of anti-war, anti-Bush positions NBC had taken in its reporting. What he didn’t document was the hyperbole MSNBC’s hosts engage in regularly.

Exhibit B is Olbermann’s relationship with the NBC’s leadership. Buoyed by some of the highest ratings among MSNBC’s shows, Olbermann regularly delivers himself of near-profane rants. In one last May, he advised the President to “shut the hell up.” Two years ago, he denounced then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as a “quack” pushing “fascism.” In a June 23 article in the New Yorker, Peter Boyer reports that the Rumsfeld rant earned Olbermann an attaboy from Capus.

Boyer wrote that Capus told him, “I think we’re onto something. That’s what we keep hearing from the audience, more and more, is that they appreciate that we have people who are actually speaking truth to power, or being transparent in their own personal viewpoints.”

Transparency in their personal liberal viewpoints, that is. That attitude -- and its leakage into NBC’s primary network news operation -- is the cause of the conflict within the network.

NBC’s corporate parent -- General Electric -- is feeling the heat generated by the Olbermann rants. Capus’ favorite screecher created a feud with Fox and its most popular host, Bill O’Reilly. Olbermann had falsely accused Fox Chairman Roger Ailes of providing campaign advice to Rudy Giuliani, and was regularly attacking O’Reilly in very personal terms.

As Washington Post media columnist Howard Kurtz reported on May 19, the feud triggered high-level conversations between Ailes and Zucker as well as between News Corporation owner Rupert Murdoch and Jeffrey Immelt, chairman of GE. The latter were apparently about O’Reilly’s criticism of GE for trading with Iran.

O’Reilly’s high-temperature criticism of GE and Immelt -- calling him a “despicable human being” responsible for the deaths of American troops in Iraq -- may even have contributed to GE’s stock slide. From a high of $42.15 on October 2, 2007, GE’s shares have lost 36% of shareholder value, closing last Friday at $26.83.

That fall is comparable to the New York Times’ loss in shareholder value under Pinch Sulzberger. Liberal bias and media political activism don’t benefit shareholders.

Russert’s death left NBC’s best news show without a host in the critical time of the presidential race. Zucker and Capus have brought back liberal elder statesman Tom Brokaw to host the show until the election.

Zuker reportedly believes the future of NBC is not the broadcast news of old, but MSNBC and its online presence. According to a report published in “Broadcasting and Cable” in February, Zucker told a Harvard Business School conference, “The definition of NBC News is really changing, and it’s becoming more MSNBC and MSNBC.com.” Zucker added, “I think [MSNBC has] found its identity. Politics is their calling card.”

As Boyer reports, politics -- going far beyond liberal bias and into political activism -- is behind the turmoil in the network. He wrote that Brokaw is uneasy about the conflict within the network: “Listen, it’s a strain,” says Tom Brokaw, the longtime anchor of ‘Nightly News,’ who remains an active and revered figure at NBC. ‘And it’s under constant examination. There’s dialogue going on behind the scenes all the time. It’s not perfectly sorted out.’”

Nor will it be before November. The professional journalists in NBC are more frustrated by it every day. They know they’re losing the battle. With Russert gone, there’s no one left to stand up for them in the fight against the suits.

NBC has chosen sides, and its reporting will continue to boost Obama, attack the President and paint Sen. John McCain’s candidacy as the promise of another Bush term. Republicans -- especially senate candidates -- will be targeted as often as McCain.

When the New York Times published its thinly-sourced smear of McCain in February, implying a non-platonic relationship with an attractive lady lobbyist, McCain’s top advisor Charlie Black told the Politico, “We’re going to war with them now.” So far, that war is entirely one-sided.

Sen. McCain needs to respond reflexively. If his campaign is to survive the media assault it will have to have its own truth squad, prepared to issue statements and make campaign commercials much faster than usual to go after the activist media.

It takes CBS, NBC or ABC -- and, of course, MSNBC -- only hours to prepare an attack ad to be passed off as news that night. If McCain’s crew cannot respond just as quickly, the war Charlie Black declared will be lost, and millions of votes with it.

Republican candidates need to do the same. There will be many close Senate races this year, and few Republicans will follow the model of John Thune’s campaign, taking on a big newspaper that was allied with his opponents. Americans know the media is riddled with bias, and they don’t respect candidates who don’t fight back.

And there’s one way for the journalists who remain at NBC: get yourselves together. Form a small committee and demand a meeting with Immelt. Make him listen and promise to restore NBC’s journalistic standards to what they should be. If he refuses, start circulating your resumes. There will be no future for you with the Olbermann Network.

Author Mr.Jed Babbin is the editor of Human Events. He served as a deputy undersecretary of defense in President George H.W. Bush's administration. He is the author of "In the Words of our Enemies"(Regnery,2007) and (with Edward Timperlake) of "Showdown: Why China Wants War with the United States" (Regnery, 2006) and "Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe are Worse than You Think" (Regnery, 2004). E-mail him at jbabbin@eaglepub.com.

A Star is Reborn

Ronald Reagan delivering a campaign speech in 1964 on behalf of Republican Barry Goldwater. Many say this speech marked the beginning of the "Reagan Revolution" which would eventually change America and the world. Three years later in 1967 Reagan won his bid for Gov. of California beginning his rise to the Presidency. From left leaning hollywood actor to conservative icon, the rebirth of Ronald Reagan is an epic chapter in America's history.

Gas Price Reduction Plan Revealed

In an attempt at a bipartisan solution to high gas prices, Senate Republicans Thursday unveiled The Gas Price Reduction Act (GPRA) of 2008, which would simultaneously open the way for production of more domestic oil and reduce energy consumption overall.
As gas prices creep toward $5/gallon in most states, Democrats have nixed tapping into America’s domestic oil reserves via offshore drilling and other accessible methods.
The GPRA considers environmental concerns by excluding the option to drill in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) -- also opposed by Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain -- and instead proposes what Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) called a “narrowly targeted proposal…to reach out to our Democrat friends.”
The four-step plan to “find more, use less” includes the promotion of offshore drilling, oil shale exploration, utilizing plug-in electric vehicles and improving the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) with increased funding, staff and regulation.

“This is not a partisan check-box exercise…[but] an actual accomplishment,” said McConnell, who later noted the plan actually proposes reducing oil demand by 4 million barrels a day.
The GPRA, co-sponsored by 42 Republican Senators who loudly pushed for support at a Capitol Hill press conference yesterday, allows leeway for a solutions compromise by Democrats. Republican Conference Chairman Sen. Lamar Alexander said he hopes for a “good, old-fashioned Senate debate” where Democrats present their own good ideas and join Republicans in finding more domestic oil instead of solely using less.
The Democrats’ tendency to ignore Republican support of renewable resources and reducing carbon footprints hedges with the GPRA, which purports significantly decreasing consumption as equally important as domestic oil production in the battle to lower gas prices in the long run.
One component of the Act, according to a press summary, advocates for better batteries, increased R&D for advanced batteries, Direct Loans for advanced battery manufacturing facilities and a Sense of Senate that the Federal Government should increase its purchases of plug-in electric cars and trucks.
With certifiably hundreds of billions of barrels of oil sitting tight on American coastlines and within the oil shale of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, the Act would gratify the national interest to reduce dependence on foreign oil. By tapping into oil shale resources -- currently banned due to a federal moratorium -- America could produce more than three times the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.
Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Ut) highlighted a pilot project with oil shale in his state – allowed only because the shale is located on state land and is not under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
“[The oil] is there for the taking -- we need to take it,” Bennett said.
Alexander said speculation could also be driving up oil prices and hopes the Act will make it easier for Democrats to say “yes, we can” to real action for long term stability in the energy crisis.
Deep sea exploration in the form of offshore drilling – another main component of the Act -- could yield up to 14 billion barrels on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The GPRA proposes federalizing regulation on offshore drilling, allowing states to decide if they want to pursue it. Such drilling must be at least 50 miles from the coast and states would receive a 37.5% revenue sharing profit as well.
Louisiana residents have seen first hand the benefits grounded in environmentally friendly methods that come from the drilling option. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said it’s been done in the gulf “for decades” but the current moratorium on drilling means “85% of our offshore resources are off the table.”
Vitter emphasized the “powerful incentive and reward” from the revenue shares and said there was “no silver bullet” to fix gas prices but this is a step in the right direction.
As the senators took turns speaking for GPRA, Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) made one of the most powerful cases. After 36 years in government, he said he has “never felt so frightened about America’s economic future” and warned of America’s destruction if dependence of foreign oil continued.
Domenici urged the Senate to stall their August recess until the Act hits the floor for a vote and said that “passing the GPRA will send a strong message to the world’s oil markets and the unfriendly nations that we buy oil from that America has had enough.”
A diminished dependence on other oil-rich nations will also help increase the integrity of our markets, according to Sen. Saxby Chambliss, who also noted the “impact of spectators on commodity.”
Chambliss stressed the importance of increased staff for CFTC so that they have the ability to moderate and regulate effectively.
The Senators agree with McCain’s idea for a new generation of nuclear power plants, as well as converting coal to liquids for the military.
This is the first Act of its kind to materialize from Capitol Hill since gas prices skyrocketed the past year. It is yet to be seen if Democrats will compromise their position on drilling and sign on.

Author Ms.Ericka Andersen is a news producer and reporter for HUMAN EVENTS. She previously interned for The Washington Examiner newspaper. She has appeared on MSNBC and Fox News. She has also been a guest on the Lars Larson radio show and the Jim Bohannon radio show. E-mail her at eandersen@eaglepub.com.

Boumediene: A Supremely Problematic Court Decision

Monday, June 23, 2008
Boumediene: A Supremely Problematic Court Decision
Author;Fred Thompson
To read more click here http://www.fredthompson.townhall.com

As I pointed out last week, and as legal scholar John Yoo did earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal, the “Boumediene Five” have done our nation and our Constitution no great service. But beyond the rhetoric, we really need to understand the real world impact of this ruling on the war we are waging against our enemies.

In Boumediene v Bush, besides, for the first time in history conferring habeas corpus rights on alien enemies detained abroad by our military during a war, the Court struck down as inadequate what Chief Justice John Roberts called “the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded enemy combatants.” Consider the rights that our country provided to the enemy prisoners in question before Boumediene:

The right to hear the bases of the charges against them including a summary of any classified evidence.

The ability to challenge the bases of their detention before military tribunals modeled after Geneva Convention procedures. As Robert’s pointed out, some 38 detainees have been released as result of this process.

The right, before the tribunal, to testify, introduce evidence, including exculpatory evidence, call witnesses, cross examine the government witnesses and secure release if and when appropriate.

The right to the aid of a personal representative in arranging and presenting their cases before the tribunal.

The right to have the government search for and disclose to the detainee any evidence reasonably available to it tending to show that the detainee is not an enemy combatant.

The right to appeal an adverse decision from the tribunal to the Federal DC Circuit Court along with the right to employ counsel and secure release if entitled to it.

The right to petition the DC Circuit to remand a detainee’s case for new tribunal consideration if the petitioner comes up with newly discovered evidence.

The right to require the Department of Defense (DOD) to conduct a yearly review of the status of each prisoner including the right to have the Secretary of Defense review any new evidence that may become available relating to the enemy combatant status of a detainee.

As a part of that yearly review, the opportunity for the detainee to explain why he is no longer a threat to the United States, which could lead to his release.

The DC Circuit can order release of the prisoner, and the head of the DOD Administrative Review Boards can, at the recommendation of those panels, order release upon an appropriate showing.

Again, these are the rights terrorists and battlefield combatants had before Boumediene was decided. These provisions provide more process than any that has ever been afforded prisoners of war in history. They go substantially past the rights afforded by the Geneva Convention. These are the rights that the majority decided were insufficient — and the result?

Their decision granting them the right to habeas corpus relief in federal courts.


Look, this issue isn’t going to go away, so consider these things the next time you hear someone defend the Supreme Court’s majority opinion as an attempt at “basic fairness” and to help prevent an innocent sheepherder from being improperly detained:


First, the Court left total confusion and uncertainty as to what rights these habeas petitions will vindicate. What will be the nature of the review under these new habeas rights? Will the Court review the constitutionality of the detention hearing procedures? What will be the burden of proof in these new proceedings? Will they have a factual hearing in order to try to recreate the circumstances in the field at the time of the detainee’s apprehension?

The answer is no one knows. It will all be dumped into the laps of some federal district judge and his or her law clerks. These are unprecedented circumstances and there is no way to predict what some judge might see as his or her new mandate under the constitution.

Again, it will be a federal judge — not the President or the Congress or a military tribunal — who will decide the appropriate extent to which the detainee will have access to classified military information, as just one of the more troubling examples. In other words, the branch of our government least qualified to make determinations on national security and foreign policy will now do just that. One other thing is certain. Whatever comes out of this new habeas corpus mish mash will generate a new round of appeals and our avowed enemies will work their way deeper and deeper into our court system.

Second, the majority opinion throws into question whether the tens of thousands of detainees in Iraq and the more than 1000 in Afghanistan are now entitled to habeas. Is the Court going to extend habeas protection to all foreign detainees held in foreign territory over which the United States is not sovereign, but has de facto control? We could be looking at tens of thousands of military detainee habeas cases in federal court.

Third, the Court’s decision encourages al Qaeda to continue in violation of the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions are designed to protect civilians and to reward combatants with certain protections if they abide by the Conventions. Al Qaeda specifically targets civilians and wears no uniform to distinguish themselves from the civilian population. Our policy now is to give al Qaeda combatants privileges that exceed the Conventions in terms of access to our court system without requiring al Qaeda to abide by these conventions themselves. This, of course, is an incentive for them to violate the law of war. They receive no penalty for not doing so, and by not wearing uniforms, makes any standard of proof requirement with regard to enemy combatant status more difficult for the United States. We are literally giving the enemy the means by which they can do us great harm.

Unfortunately it is not uncommon for a majority of the Supreme Court to make new law based not upon precedent but upon policy preferences of members of the Court. But this time it’s part of a much bigger picture. It is about power, and who gets to exercise it in an area that is vital to the security of this nation. This time it’s not only wrong, it’s dangerous.

It should also be noted that Senator Obama thinks that the decision in Boumediene v Bush is an excellent one. I don’t know what’s worse: that he doesn’t understand what the Court has done … or that he actually does and still thinks this was a sound ruling. Good luck to all of us.

Second Amendment Upheld

Instead of rambling on about the Supreme Courts decision on the DC gun ban, or sharing my personal opinion I thought a few historical quotes would do a fine job of answering any questions about the intent of the second amendment:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself.
They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone
under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie
wagon and citizens firearms are indelibly related."

- George Washington

"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize congress
to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable
citizens .... from keeping their own arms."

- Samuel Adams

"Only an armed people can be truly free.
Only an unarmed people can ever be enslaved."

- Aristotle

"You cannot invade the mainland United States.
There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
(Japanese Navy)

"No free man shall be debarred the use of arms."

- Thomas Jefferson

This should clear it up for anyone who doubts the right of individuals to own firearms.

Ronald Reagans finest hour

President Ronald Reagan, in his famous June 1982 speech to the British Parliament, described the outlines of "a plan and a hope for the long term—the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people."

continue reading below



Five years later, Reagan delivered an address at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin, near the infamous Wall. A new Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, had recently been making noises about a fundamental change in the communist system. "The Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom," Reagan observed. "We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness." Still, the West was right to ask whether this marked the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state or merely token gestures, intended to raise false hopes and to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it. But, Reagan noted, "there is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.

"General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall"!
Communism (at least the Soviet variety) has indeed been since left on the ash-heap of history. In 1989 the wall was torn down. Decades of oppression ended, and the world was a better place due in large part to the vision of Ronald Reagan.

The Obamessiah

The economy, high oil prices, and the mortgage mess understandably have people concerned. Whats not so understandable is what seems to be a new found faith in government. Led by chants of hope, change, and yes we can this misplaced faith might be gaining strength. With major news media outlets clearly in the tank for Obama, the good sense of the American people is all that stands in the way of the Obamessiah.

If you read that last line and immediately felt your eyes narrow and began gritting your teeth read on Im talking to you.

Without even getting into the specifics of Obamas plans, consider the following;

social security is on the verge of bankruptcy

medicare is $53 trillion in debt. yeah thats trillion with a T and twelve zeros

over 4000 pork projects in the last transportation bill

These are just a few examples of what our government has done for us. Thanks guys! Heres more;

UPS/FedEx deliver 23 million packages world wide everyday and their customers can track those packages from any computer in the world. Our government cant track a social security number that has been used illegally 42 times. FEMA could not explain why a truckload of bottled water destined for New Orleans after Katrina, ended up in Maine. The government almost never completes any project, be it a road, a bridge, a dam, or housing project either on time or on budget.

Now why would anyone trust our government with something as important as healthcare? Why do people all of a sudden believe the government can fix global warming? Who in their right mind would put these responsibilities in the hands of a man whos biggest accomplishment is being in the senate for 18 months? To many people have let their desire for change blind them to the reality of Obama. Lets "hope" if elected his "change" wont end with... oops I guess we cant.

Cowboys in the Whitehouse?

From time to time we hear on the news some foreign leader whining that he didnt get his way and that Americans have a "cowboy" mentality. Really? Does George Bush remind anyone of Clint Eastwood? Does Dick Cheney have the presence of John Wayne? I think not. Furthermore if we had characters like those played by Clint and John meeting with foreign leaders who would come out on top?

What would ol Kim Jongs reaction be if instead of the usual niceties our president just walked up to the negotiating table and said "if ya tell me its a fine day ill shoot ya"? Talk about setting the tone! Imagine if the next time the North Koreans tested a few missiles the president flew over to Kim Jongs pad and said "well pilgrim ya started a lotta trouble this mornin coulda got a lotta people killed" and then slugged him right in the piehole.

Oreily, Hannity and the boys would abandon fair and balanced and start jumping for joy proudly proclaiming "finally we have a foreign policy that works" and even hardcore Lefties like Olbermann would giggle a little, if only off camera.

Now obviously i dont support this kind of behavior but admit it its fun to think about.

Now the next time ahmadinejad starts spouting off about wiping Isreal off the map the president should just say; do what you need to do Mahmoud but remember "dyin aint much of a livin boy." If brother Mahmoud wants to keep enriching uranium, building centerfuges, and interfereing in Iraq I say we should negotiate. Send in the airforce to blast a clear landing site in Tehran and land the president with marine 1. The presidents first statement in the negotiation should be; ok Mahmoud I told the VP if Im not back in 10 minutes "get three coffins ready" and continue, while he wonders who the other two coffins are for.

If mayhem and death are what these people want lets show em that we understand their language. Screw it! lets just challenge Chavez to a showdown at high noon. Id bet money that Hugo would pipe down real fast if he thought the American president was going to show up drinkin shots of whiskey and weilding a pair of six shooters.

Poutin could use some of the cowboy treatment to. Invite him to a poker game, sit him with his back to the door, deal him aces and eights and see if he figures it out before the bullets start flying! simple right? The cowboy may not operate like a former KGB agent but thats why he is effective no one expects him.

I think what foreign leaders forget is that real cowboys have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to bullshit and they dont really care who disagrees with them. Politicians have to at least pretend to give a crap and take other peoples "feelings" into account. Indeed cowboys should be seen as our last line of defense when suits and fancy words dont cut it