 |
| left to right: Priebus, Clinton, and Brock |
Priebus' letter to CNN
Priebus' letter to NBC
Surprisingly, Media Matters founder David Brock wrote letters to NBC and CNN the next day also requesting they cancel their planned Clinton programs. In addition to the story on Brock's pleas to NBC and CNN, the link below also includes the letters he sent to both networks.
David Brock call on NBC and CNN to cancel their Hillary Clinton specials
Although Priebus and Brock want the same result, their motives differ. Priebus feels that NBC and CNN are in the business of promoting Democrats and the Clinton specials would be a boost to Hillary's bid for the 2016 presidency (assuming she runs). Brock believes that the specials could tarnish the reputations of the news divisions of each network (they are being produced by NBC Entertainment and CNN Films, respectively). Brock's other concerns are the potential criticism the networks could face for failing to provide equal time to all potential candidates and for not adopting the right-wing noise machine's ideological view of Hillary.
I disagree with both Priebus and Brock, although I do think the latter's intentions are sincere. Priebus' criticism of NBC and CNN comes off as whiny, especially since it's no secret that the Republican party has its own network. It also makes the GOP look desperate and scared of a potential presidential run by Hillary Clinton. As for Brock, he shouldn't be aiding the GOP and their accusations of liberal bias. I was glad to see that CNN shows no signs of caving to the demands of Priebus.
Priebus' appearance on the CNN program OutFront with Erin Burnett:
Although Ms. Burnett did a good job overall, she let Priebus off the hook by not asking him about the numerous Fox News hosts and contributors who campaigned for the GOP in 2011-2012. At approx. the 6:20 mark, Ms. Burnett gets ready to ask Priebus a Fox-related question. However, he seemed to anticipate a tough question and cut her off in what appeared to be an effort to run out the clock. Although it's not the one I would have asked, the question about Fox that Ms. Burnett asked near the end was a good one.
Priebus' appearance on Hannity:
Both Priebus and Hannity were in typical form. In their eyes, if you're a member of the news media and not demonizing liberals or giving every break to the GOP, it makes you liberal by definition. Also, they're still blaming the so-called liberal media for the damage the debates did to the GOP brand. So much for the conservative's belief in personal responsibility. Towards the end, Priebus discusses plans for the GOP to select the debate moderators themselves. Priebus' stance against the so-called liberal media no doubt plays well with the GOP base. However, in addition to the aforementioned "whiny" and "desperate", I think Priebus' latest moves make him and the GOP look weak as well.
13 comments:
When Darrell Issa failed miserably to find any deliberate wrong-doing in the Benghazi tragedy, he and the rest of the GOP blamed the "enemedia."
It's ALWAYS the media's fault when a majority of Americans ignore the GOP's relentless campaign to besmirch Obama's presidency.
Bunch of whining crybabies and self-victimizers.
I read a lot of conservative blogs and the majority always, ALWAYS complain about the media ignoring stories that THEY believe will destroy the Obama administration.
It never occurs to their besotted brains that there's no there there in most of the sensational tripe the GOP tries to sell to the American people.
It's fun to watch, however, how utterly terrified the GOP is of Hillary. LOL!
Yuck
Definitely whiny for Republicans to complain about "fairness," because A) we're talking about a private business, and B) they're the side claiming not to be for social justice.
One can't expect a private business to give equal thought and airtime to different ideologies if they don't want to.
It's the marketplace. So don't whine about it. If the majority of America's entertainment media wants to fondle the genitals of Democrats, that's their business. It gets silly sometimes and compels me to watch Music Choice more often than television, but don't pack up your lunch and go home.
But NBC in particular, you don't have to be tapped in on the level of Einstein to know that they're totally about effecting social change as a network. Let's be real about it. Hillary Clinton miniseries? lol With Diane Lane? $*#%$@&%!!
CNN makes more sense. And they'll probably be fairer. But my guess is NBC is gonna paint Clinton in a brilliant, soft, shining light. The new Anointed. The new love affair.
But it won't be any worse than the past few years. So whatever.
And if Republicans don't like it, put out a movie showing the earlier parts of Clinton's life, like the slew of scandals and Bill's misadventures.
I strongly disagree with Priebus. If NBC wants to do this, fine with me. It is disturbing when major political figures want to meddle in the expression of our open media like this.
If he doesn't like a Hillary show, he doesn't have to watch it.
Shaw said: "Priebus feels that NBC and CNN are in the business of promoting Democrats "
If he feels this way, he is right. The leftist bias of these two major media outlets is well known. And so what? But the people in NBC and CNN have every right to promote views and politicians as they feel fit.
As someone who strongly supports the First Amendment and the freedom of the people to speak out at any time, anywhere on important and controversial political issues and people, I am also, as Malcolm B. is, "glad to see that CNN shows no signs of caving to the demands of Priebus."
----------
Shaw said: " read a lot of conservative blogs and the majority always, ALWAYS complain about the media ignoring stories that THEY believe will destroy the Obama administration."
Those views are full of baloney. Every one of the stories they say are "ignored" are typically covered in most major media outlets. This is identical to the views of "Project Censored", in which typically every single story they say is "censored" has gotten coverage in the very largest mass-media outlets.
---------------
Josh: Great comments. The more discussion, the better. And in this post-"Citizens United" world, people can now make movies critical of a politician without being harassed by the government. That is how it should be.
I wonder if they will show the part where Hillary and her Daughter DODGED the bullets in Bosnia?
They should, because that was one of her unique accomplishments!
Way: Or when Hillary recently criticized the rights of filmmakers to make movies about major controversial figures (her immediate public response to Benghazi). Major irony potential there.
dmarks: That is how it should be.
Of course dmarks believes the plutocrats should be able to spend large sums of money to influence (buy) our elections. But this movie isn't going to be aired anytime near the date of the next presidential election, unlike the Hillary hit piece that gave us the anti-first amendment Citizens United decision.
Of course I don't, Dervish. I have always been opposed to anyone buying elections. This includes any and all plutocrats (a group which you, Dervish, have again recently claimed includes mom-and-pop store operators).
The part of Citizens United which ruled that making a movie critical of Hillary wasn't a crime is as pro-First Amendment as anything can be. The right to criticize those in power, including making a "hit piece" movie, is at the very heart of our civil liberties. Your wish to censor such is a very North Korean idea.
It doesn't matter if a movie is anywhere near the time of an election, Dervish. In fact, the right to speak out on political issues is more important than then ever at this point: a time when it is important.
So go ahead, NBC, make a slavishly pro Hillary "hit piece" and air it two days before the election Nov. 2016. The Constitution says you can, and that is a great thing. Preibus and those with North Korean views on civil liberties can stuff it.
dmarks: a group which you, Dervish, have again recently claimed includes mom-and-pop store operators.
We're on a Progressive site. Will and RN like your lies, no matter how illogical, but why do you think they'll be believed everywhere?
dmarks: The Constitution says you can, and that is a great thing.
It doesn't. I'm not going to debate you yet again on the topic... it's an old argument and my position is laid out on my blog. I stand by my assertion that the CU decision is anti-first. Making the buying of our elections easier for the plutocrats is why the SCOTUS Cons ruled the way they did.
dmarks wrote:
"Shaw said: 'Priebus feels that NBC and CNN are in the business of promoting Democrats' "
Could you show me where I wrote that? Because I don't remember having done that.
Thanks.
Shaw: I hadn't heard the phrase "enemedia" until now. If they aren't blaming the media, the righties will find some target (other than themselves) at which to point their collective fingers. If Hillary does run, it's going to feel like the 90s because the righties will trot out every negative story they can (Whitewater, Vince Foster, etc.)
I believe dmarks mistakenly attributed what I said in this post (Priebus feels that NBC and CNN are in the business of promoting Democrats) to you.
Josh: I think Priebus is laying the groundwork for a ready-made excuse if the GOP loses the 2016 presidential election. It's kinda silly, esp. since there's no guarantee Hillary is going to run. Even if she doesn't, I don't see the GOP being able to get their act together in time to beat the Democratic candidate.
I'm intrigued to see both the CNN and NBC projects. Even if NBC's Hillary miniseries paints a balanced picture, a lot of the righties won't be satisfied.
I think I know where you're going with your comment about NBC being "totally about effecting social change as a network." However, since I'm not a mind reader (yet), can you elaborate?
dmarks said in regards to CNN and NBC: "The leftist bias of these two major media outlets is well known."
They are about as corporatist and middle-of-the-road as you can get.
I suppose effecting change would be a subjective standard. But I say that because I do not believe, for one single millisecond, that there's any separation between the NBC that puts out the shows, NBC News, and the Holy Babble for Progressivists, MSNBC.
I hear words like "firewall" and "separate," and comparisons like "just like Fox Simpsons and Fox News are separate!" but I really don't buy it. Haven't had a reason to buy it.
Post a Comment