On Monday, NBC’s Today gave some free publicity to Hillary Clinton by copying a recent New York Times article profiling Kristina Schake, the woman whose “job is to recast Hillary Clinton’s image.” Matt Lauer introduced the network’s promotion of Hillary's rebranding by proclaiming that “[a] lot of people think that Hillary Clinton has hopes of becoming the next host of one of those Easter egg rolls at the White House. And her campaign team is now starting to take shape ahead of an expected announcement.”
Peter Alexander
By Curtis Houck | April 3, 2015 | 12:39 PM EDT
The favorable coverage of the agreed framework for future talks over Iran’s nuclear program continued on Friday morning as the network newscasts hailed the “legacy defining moment now within reach” for President Obama and compared Iranian “hardliners” to deal skeptics in the U.S. and Israel. Today co-host Savannah Guthrie began the program’s coverage by hailing the “landmark deal” with NBC's Peter Alexander fretting that “Republicans and the Israeli prime minister” are “clearly not on board” as “a legacy-defining moment” appeared “now within reach” for the President.
By Jeffrey Meyer | March 29, 2015 | 11:15 AM EDT
On Saturday and Sunday, the “big three” (ABC, CBS, and NBC) networks vigorously condemned a new Indiana law that would protect private businesses from government infringement on their religious freedom. Rather than provide balanced coverage of the Indiana bill, the networks eagerly trashed the legislation as opening “the door to discrimination against gays and lesbians.”
By Kyle Drennen | March 27, 2015 | 11:01 AM EDT
Introducing a White House puff piece on Friday's NBC Today, co-host Matt Lauer proclaimed: "Now to a young woman who might just be one of the most impressive figures in Washington. We're talking about the President's newly-appointed receptionist."
By Kyle Drennen | March 20, 2015 | 5:09 PM EDT
- See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2015/03/20/palestinian-activist-blasts-israel-and-racist-gop-nbc-reporter-asks-if#sthash.usFfBtez.dpuf
- See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2015/03/20/palestinian-activist-blasts-israel-and-racist-gop-nbc-reporter-asks-if#sthash.usFfBtez.dpuf
Filling in as host of MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports on Friday, NBC national correspondent Peter Alexander brought on radical Palestinian activist and executive director of the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation Yousef Munayyer to condemn Israel and the Republican Party. Alexander lobbed this softball: "What is your take on the back and forth right now between the President and Democrats and congressional Republicans vis-a-vis Israel and ultimately the Israeli-Palestinian situation?"
Alexander lobbed this softball: "What is your take on the back and forth right now between the President and Democrats and congressional Republicans vis-a-vis Israel and ultimately the Israeli-Palestinian situation?"
Munayyer seized the opportunity to praise Democrats while denouncing Israel and its Republican allies in the United States:
Well, there's clearly a partisan divide here. And I think it's much deeper than just the people at the top of the U.S.-Israel relationship....What we have today at the base of the Democratic Party are younger demographics and minority demographics, all of which are turning away from the values that Israel is presenting to the world, which is this exclusivist, status-quo, very conservative perspective on their situation and their world view. And this is something that jives very much with the narrative at the base of the Republican Party, which is very much xenophobic and nativist and at many times racist.
Rather than challenge such defamatory accusations, Alexander responded with this question: "Is Hillary Clinton a better answer for you guys going forward?"
Munayyer replied: "Again, I think it's not so much about the politicians at the top, but the movements at the bases which are gonna change the way American public opinion and the people that represent them eventually relate to this issue altogether."
Earlier in the exchange, Alexander helped Munayyer make his anti-Israel case: "Let me put up on the screen right now some of what you wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times this week, where you say, among other things, 'The biggest losers in this election were those who made the argument that change could come from within Israel. It can't and it won't.'"
Munayyer began to respond: "And that's exactly what I believe. It won't come from the inside. And it's precisely because-" Alexander actually interrupted his guest in order to finish the man's sentence: "Because you think there's the need for real pressure from the outside now because Israel clearly isn't going to do it on its own and not with the help of the U.S."
Munayyer proclaimed: "Absolutely. And the help of the U.S. will be needed, but in a way that is to introduce that pressure."
Here is a full transcript of the March 20 interview:
12:29 PM ET
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: I don't want a one-state solution, I want a sustainable, peaceful two-state solution. But for that, circumstances have to change.
ANDREA MITCHELL: But you were reelected on a mandate. Certainly Israeli voters, your supporters, believe you were reelected on a mandate against a two-state solution, that is the way the White House is interpreting. They're strongly considering not blocking a vote for statehood for Palestinians.
NETANYAHU: Well, first of all, that state would become a terrorist state. So we need the conditions of recognition of the Jewish state and real security in order to have a realistic two-state solution.
PETER ALEXANDER: Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu there walking back a promise he made to reject the establishment of a Palestinian state, appeasing hardliners just before divisive elections in Israel. But has too much diplomatic and political damage already been done or is there hope for a two-state solution? We're joined by Yousef Munayyer. Is that right – Munayyer?
YOUSEF MUNAYYER: Munayyer.
ALEXANDER: We practiced it and I got it right. I wanted to make sure I got it right when you were sitting here. You're the executive director of the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Competition – the Israeli Occupation, excuse me. You're a Palestinian-American, you're an activist on behalf of Palestine, and you write that Netanyahu's win is the best thing to happen for your cause. Why's that?
MUNAYYER: Well, let me be clear, I certainly don't support any of Mr. Netanyahu's policies, but of the plausible outcomes of this election, I think his election, his victory, was actually the best plausible outcome, precisely because the mask has fallen very clearly off of the intentions of the Israeli government and the Israeli state, which not really interested in peace. You know, we heard the interview with Andrea yesterday and the comments that Mr. Netanyahu made and it's clear that this is a man who never misses an opportunity to make excuses not to make peace.
ALEXANDER: Let me put up on the screen right now some of what you wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times this week, where you say, among other things, "The biggest losers in this election were those who made the argument that change could come from within Israel. It can't and it won't."
MUNAYYER: And that's exactly what I believe. It won't come from the inside. And it's precisely because-
ALEXANDER: Because you think there's the need for real pressure from the outside now because Israel clearly isn't going to do it on its own and not with the help of the U.S.
MUNAYYER: Absolutely. And the help of the U.S. will be needed, but in a way that is to introduce that pressure. Look, think about it this way, the Israeli state controls territory in where 12.5 million people live. Four and a half million of them have no right to vote within the Israeli system. If you put that in an American context, that's as if you had 120 million Americans in the United States unable to vote because of their, basically because of their ethnic and religious background. That's unconscionable, that does not – you know, that's not what American values are about.
And yet, this is the only answer we get from the Israeli Prime Minister that's supported by an Israeli public. So this is not going to change from within. This is only going to change when the Israeli public is forced to decide between maintaining this occupation forever or ending it and becoming a real member of the international community in the 21st century.
ALEXANDER: I want to ask you about domestic politics, if I can. Speaker John Boehner today saying that he will be heading off to Israel a little bit later this month. What is your take on the back and forth right now between the President and Democrats and congressional Republicans vis-a-vis Israel and ultimately the Israeli-Palestinian situation?
MUNAYYER: Well, there's clearly a partisan divide here. And I think it's much deeper than just the people at the top of the U.S.-Israel relationship. This is not just about Barack Obama and President Netanyahu [sic], this is about a direct clash between the values that Americans hold dear and the values that Benjamin Netanyahu represents.
What we have today at the base of the Democratic Party are younger demographics and minority demographics, all of which are turning away from the values that Israel is presenting to the world, which is this exclusivist, status-quo, very conservative perspective on their situation and their world view. And this is something that jives very much with the narrative at the base of the Republican Party, which is very much xenophobic and nativist and at many times racist.
ALEXANDER: Is Hillary Clinton a better answer for you guys going forward?
MUNAYYER: Again, I think it's not so much about the politicians at the top, but the movements at the bases which are gonna change the way American public opinion and the people that represent them eventually relate to this issue altogether.
ALEXANDER: Yousef Munayyer, nice to see you again. I appreciate your time, thank you.
MUNAYYER: Thanks for having me.
Alexander lobbed this softball: "What is your take on the back and forth right now between the President and Democrats and congressional Republicans vis-a-vis Israel and ultimately the Israeli-Palestinian situation?"
Munayyer seized the opportunity to praise Democrats while denouncing Israel and its Republican allies in the United States:
Well, there's clearly a partisan divide here. And I think it's much deeper than just the people at the top of the U.S.-Israel relationship....What we have today at the base of the Democratic Party are younger demographics and minority demographics, all of which are turning away from the values that Israel is presenting to the world, which is this exclusivist, status-quo, very conservative perspective on their situation and their world view. And this is something that jives very much with the narrative at the base of the Republican Party, which is very much xenophobic and nativist and at many times racist.
Rather than challenge such defamatory accusations, Alexander responded with this question: "Is Hillary Clinton a better answer for you guys going forward?"
Munayyer replied: "Again, I think it's not so much about the politicians at the top, but the movements at the bases which are gonna change the way American public opinion and the people that represent them eventually relate to this issue altogether."
Earlier in the exchange, Alexander helped Munayyer make his anti-Israel case: "Let me put up on the screen right now some of what you wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times this week, where you say, among other things, 'The biggest losers in this election were those who made the argument that change could come from within Israel. It can't and it won't.'"
Munayyer began to respond: "And that's exactly what I believe. It won't come from the inside. And it's precisely because-" Alexander actually interrupted his guest in order to finish the man's sentence: "Because you think there's the need for real pressure from the outside now because Israel clearly isn't going to do it on its own and not with the help of the U.S."
Munayyer proclaimed: "Absolutely. And the help of the U.S. will be needed, but in a way that is to introduce that pressure."
Here is a full transcript of the March 20 interview:
12:29 PM ET
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: I don't want a one-state solution, I want a sustainable, peaceful two-state solution. But for that, circumstances have to change.
ANDREA MITCHELL: But you were reelected on a mandate. Certainly Israeli voters, your supporters, believe you were reelected on a mandate against a two-state solution, that is the way the White House is interpreting. They're strongly considering not blocking a vote for statehood for Palestinians.
NETANYAHU: Well, first of all, that state would become a terrorist state. So we need the conditions of recognition of the Jewish state and real security in order to have a realistic two-state solution.
YOUSEF MUNAYYER: Munayyer.
ALEXANDER: We practiced it and I got it right. I wanted to make sure I got it right when you were sitting here. You're the executive director of the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Competition – the Israeli Occupation, excuse me. You're a Palestinian-American, you're an activist on behalf of Palestine, and you write that Netanyahu's win is the best thing to happen for your cause. Why's that?
MUNAYYER: Well, let me be clear, I certainly don't support any of Mr. Netanyahu's policies, but of the plausible outcomes of this election, I think his election, his victory, was actually the best plausible outcome, precisely because the mask has fallen very clearly off of the intentions of the Israeli government and the Israeli state, which not really interested in peace. You know, we heard the interview with Andrea yesterday and the comments that Mr. Netanyahu made and it's clear that this is a man who never misses an opportunity to make excuses not to make peace.
ALEXANDER: Let me put up on the screen right now some of what you wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times this week, where you say, among other things, "The biggest losers in this election were those who made the argument that change could come from within Israel. It can't and it won't."
MUNAYYER: And that's exactly what I believe. It won't come from the inside. And it's precisely because-
ALEXANDER: Because you think there's the need for real pressure from the outside now because Israel clearly isn't going to do it on its own and not with the help of the U.S.
MUNAYYER: Absolutely. And the help of the U.S. will be needed, but in a way that is to introduce that pressure. Look, think about it this way, the Israeli state controls territory in where 12.5 million people live. Four and a half million of them have no right to vote within the Israeli system. If you put that in an American context, that's as if you had 120 million Americans in the United States unable to vote because of their, basically because of their ethnic and religious background. That's unconscionable, that does not – you know, that's not what American values are about.
And yet, this is the only answer we get from the Israeli Prime Minister that's supported by an Israeli public. So this is not going to change from within. This is only going to change when the Israeli public is forced to decide between maintaining this occupation forever or ending it and becoming a real member of the international community in the 21st century.
ALEXANDER: I want to ask you about domestic politics, if I can. Speaker John Boehner today saying that he will be heading off to Israel a little bit later this month. What is your take on the back and forth right now between the President and Democrats and congressional Republicans vis-a-vis Israel and ultimately the Israeli-Palestinian situation?
MUNAYYER: Well, there's clearly a partisan divide here. And I think it's much deeper than just the people at the top of the U.S.-Israel relationship. This is not just about Barack Obama and President Netanyahu [sic], this is about a direct clash between the values that Americans hold dear and the values that Benjamin Netanyahu represents.
What we have today at the base of the Democratic Party are younger demographics and minority demographics, all of which are turning away from the values that Israel is presenting to the world, which is this exclusivist, status-quo, very conservative perspective on their situation and their world view. And this is something that jives very much with the narrative at the base of the Republican Party, which is very much xenophobic and nativist and at many times racist.
ALEXANDER: Is Hillary Clinton a better answer for you guys going forward?
MUNAYYER: Again, I think it's not so much about the politicians at the top, but the movements at the bases which are gonna change the way American public opinion and the people that represent them eventually relate to this issue altogether.
ALEXANDER: Yousef Munayyer, nice to see you again. I appreciate your time, thank you.
MUNAYYER: Thanks for having me.
By Geoffrey Dickens | March 18, 2015 | 10:05 AM EDT
The Clinton Foundation scandals have gone largely ignored by the three broadcast networks in 2015, as the swirling controversies have garnered a total of 11 minutes and 13 seconds of airtime on their evening and morning news shows. And the Spanish-language newscasts on Univision and Telemundo have completely ignored the Clinton Foundation 2015 controversies.
By Curtis Houck | March 18, 2015 | 12:19 AM EDT
All three of the major broadcast networks covered during their Tuesday night newscasts the story of unruly passenger abroad a United Airlines flight from the day before, but the CBS Evening News left out the key detail that the man was screaming about jihad and a bomb abroad the plane.
By Scott Whitlock | March 17, 2015 | 11:56 AM EDT
So, just how slanted were the Big Three broadcast networks in their coverage of the letter sent by 47 Senate Republicans to the Iranian government? A new study by the Media Research Center has found ABC, CBS and NBC gave three times more coverage to critics of the GOP letter than to supporters, and more than eight times as much airtime fretting about the letter than about the substance of the Obama administration's dealings with Iran.
By Kyle Drennen | March 12, 2015 | 11:37 AM EDT
Keeping up the pressure on Hillary Clinton on Thursday, NBC's Today was the only network morning show to provide a full report on the latest developments in the e-mail scandal still swirling around the 2016 Democratic contender. ABC's Good Morning America and CBS This Morning had already moved on, each offering only seconds-long news briefs on the controversy.
By Curtis Houck | March 12, 2015 | 12:31 AM EDT
Unlike ABC and CBS, the NBC Nightly News dedicated a full segment on its Wednesday show to the continued reaction concerning the letter signed by 47 Republican Senators and sent to Iranian leaders. Predictably, the segment took to scolding the GOP by promoting a tweet from Hillary Clinton on the matter as well as a petition which calls for charges to be brought against the signers under the Logan Act.
By Curtis Houck | March 9, 2015 | 10:04 PM EDT
On Monday, NBC Nightly News featured a full report on the letter signed by 47 Republican Senators to the leaders of Iran concerning its negotiations with the Obama administration over its nuclear program, but took the step of describing the letter as one that “patronizes Iranian leaders.” In addition, the report by NBC's Peter Alexander gave three times the airtime to Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and President Obama than Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton (who authored the letter).
By Curtis Houck | February 18, 2015 | 9:39 PM EST
The “big three” of ABC, CBS, and NBC each devoted full segments on their Wednesday evening newscasts to a speech given by possible 2016 Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush in Chicago and how the former Florida Governor would be the latest member of the Bush family dynasty to run for president. In focusing on the dynasty angle, however, ABC and NBC failed to even note that Hillary Clinton’s possible Democratic presidential run would make her the second Clinton to occupy the Oval Office.