September 13, 2006

Like, they have to ask??

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid sent a letter to the major networks the other day requesting -- get this -- fairness in their coverage of national security issues (my emphasis):

Until now, there has been a complete absence of balance in the news coverage of national security issues. Over the last month as campaign efforts have begun in earnest, according to Media Matters (!!), there have been 64 percent more conservatives appearing on the Sunday news shows than Democrats. In a speech that was supposed to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the September 11 tragedy, last night President Bush was given almost 20 minutes of primetime coverage on all major networks for a speech that continued to inaccurately link 9/11 to the war in Iraq.

Congressional Democrats have a wealth of experience, authority, and the ideas as to how we could better secure our nation, combat terrorism, and ensure a significant transition in Iraq. House and Senate leaders hold frequent press conferences and briefings on a wide variety of national security issues ranging from Iraq to border security to the state of our military readiness. Most of these receive scant coverage, even when offering specific alternatives to Administration policies.

In order to provide the American people with complete information to make the best choices come Election Day, we ask that you commit your network to providing fair and equitable coverage to the viewpoints of both Republicans and Democrats on these crucial national security debates.

Boy, either Democrats have really lost it or they really think they're in trouble come November. To think that Democrats don't get a fair shake ... in the mainstream media? This has to be the laugher of the new millenium! And quoting Media Matters?? Can you imagine the heaps of scorn Keith Olbermann and co. would be tossing on Republican Congressional leaders if they quoted the Media Research Center in a letter requesting that the MSM be fair to Republicans?

The Democrats have a great chance to win back Congress this Novermber. Why do they continually engage in actions which damage their chances?

Posted by Rhodey at September 13, 2006 04:09 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)


Dan Rather is gone. The GOP owns a whole TV network but the media is liberal because Matt Lauer asked one tough question?

I don't get it.

Posted by: jason at September 13, 2006 04:30 PM

I think I posted on something like this a while ago.

Media matters did a "study" of Sunday morning talk to see if it was conservative or progressive. They found it conservative because they used all of Bush's term to date, and only half of the Clinton Administration. Who would have thought that would be the case?

That, and I would love to find out who they considered "neutral" and if that would skew their results somewhat.

Posted by: AnonymousOpinion at September 14, 2006 08:24 AM

What is the Democratic plan for national security and thwarting terrorists anyway? Is it consistent with Bill Maher's plan to all convert to Islam so the terrorists will leave us alone? ;)

Posted by: Anna Venger at September 14, 2006 09:32 AM

Anna, just remember it's a law enforcement issue. You can't do anything to terrorists until after they blow something up.

As for equal time, let's bring back the fairness doctrine so al Jazeera and al Manar can be required content for all US cable carriers. The viewpoint of the Islamic extremists just isn't getting enough exposure. Adam Gadan (sp?) needs his own show on CNN, already! And think of the reality shows; Who Wants to be a Suicide Bomber, or the Real Jihad on MTV. Lets see what happens when Islamic militants stop being polite and start killing people.

Posted by: G Rex at September 14, 2006 09:43 AM

Is it consistent with Bill Maher's plan to all convert to Islam so the terrorists will leave us alone? ;)

Anna, I suppose your smiley face is the way of acknowledging that Maher's hilarious bit was a joke... while still snarkily implying it was serious? ;)

And as for the anti-Bush crowd's plans for terrorism: If you don't understand it, then you simply don't listen, or don't want to acknowledge it. I want our ports secured. I want our food and water supply secured. I want our giant sitting duck nuclear plants guarded adequately. And yes, G, I want our law enforcement to continue to tackle this in ways that Bush has in fact begun. Treating it as a military-only situation is a fool's errand and you all know it.

I want to think ahead to the next type of attack. I want all the PORK terrorism money to stop being funneled to f***ing Montana and other red states, where it's being used for all sorts of ridiculous things, while the blue state terrorist targets get far less than their proportional share. I wanted the things to be blown up, militarily, and I did not want a new terrorist haven in Iraq.

So either let's talk seriously about the issue of protecting this nation, or go join that despicable scumbag of a Congressman who accused Democrats like me of wanting to protect terrorists.

Posted by: dan at September 14, 2006 01:11 PM

Um, that should be "I wanted the right things to be blown up militarily." Not "the things!"

Posted by: dan at September 14, 2006 01:13 PM

Oh, That Right Wing Media!

Come on, ya'll know it's true. I mean look at those Reuters phake fotos. They set it up so they would caught so they could be discredited so that would make Bush, and conservatives who've for years been accusing the media of lying, look good. It's so obvious.


Just whose side are they on, anyway?

(sarcasm, for those concrete leftists who couldn't spot it if they stubbed their brains on it.)

Posted by: ytba at September 14, 2006 11:15 PM