Russert, Stephanopoulos, Matthews and Moyers--What Did Their Bosses Have In Mind? Not Good Journalism!

Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

OK.  I'll acknowledge this.  Tim Russert, the host of NBC's Meet the Press, has developed into a good journalist.  But just a few years ago, it would be easy to say Russert's roots were showing and I'm not talking about hair color.  You see, before suddenly becoming a journalist, Tim Russert worked as a political hack for the Democratic Party.  Russert was a former counselor to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and New York Governor Mario Cuomo after that, before being hired by NBC in 1984.  It's clear to anyone who watches Russert today he has come a long way.  But I remember watching Russert interview a Republican, while I gritted my teeth, wondering why he was so soft on a Democratic counterpart just moments before.  The more important question is:  Why did Russert's employers think he had the qualifications to be a journalist--and an objective one at that--just after working for the Democratic Party? 

In fact, I'll be discussing topics like this and others Monday night on Laurie Roth's syndicated radio show (USA Radio Network www.therothshow.com) at 8 P.M. Pacific Time.  Roth broke the story about Barack Obama's relationship with convicted terrorist William Ayers.  Her show is broadcast across the country and is available over the Internet worldwide. 

Granted, the subject of media bias isn't exactly new.  It has become a fait accompli that the dominant media in America is liberally driven.  Yet many of the media executives I talk to deny there is a vast left wing conspiracy when it comes to the press, until I ask them about Russert, Chris Matthews, George Stephanopoulos and Bill Moyers.  What follows is a shrug of the shoulders and a sheepish look, accompanied by this statement, "I don't know."  The question I had asked was how each of these men went from being employees of the Democratic Party to certified journalists, all with the swipe of a very expensive pen.

Need more proof?  Let's look at Chris Matthews for a moment because, quite frankly, a moment is all I can stand.  Matthews  sheds a tear and all kinds of bodily fluids, when he watches a Barack Obama speech.  He said it, not me.  Well, not quite in the same words.  However, we all got the idea.  Matthews worked for Democratic legend, "Tip" O'Neill before someone, again, decided he would make an objective journalist.  Matthews couldn't pour coffee for Tim Russert, but Matthews was the lead political commentator for MSNBC's rarely watched primary coverage.  Well, perhaps that isn't so crazy when we consider Keith Olbermann anchored both the Democratic and Republican primaries.  Remember, Olbermann is the man who called President George Bush "the idiot in chief."  Talk about journalistic objectivity.

Want more?  Well, you're going to get it, whether you want it or not.  George Stephanopoulos was practically Bill Clinton's right hand man during the 1990's.  I'm sure Georgie-boy knows where all the bodies are buried and for you conspiracy buffs, I'm talking about political intrigue, so please don't take me literally.  Yes, I know we're talking about the Clinton's, but...

Someone in ABC News management decided Stephanopoulos also had the "right stuff" to be a journalist.  Indeed, within a short time, old stalwarts like Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson were treated like last week's newspaper to make room for the charming former Clinton aide.  In fact, the program is now called "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".  Again, what gave ABC executives the idea Stephanopoulos was journalistically ready for primetime?  Could it be the men I mentioned above hold a worldview which corresponds with the management of these networks?  Maybe that's why they call them "correspondents"?  I digress because it is so inappropriate, it has to be funny.  The problem is those who suffer the most are the American people who get a picture of the world through a left-leaning perspective.

Yes, I know, trained journalists have been taught to put their personal views aside.  Just look at Dan Rather.  That was a joke.  But how can these men be expected to look at politics and the world in general from a balanced viewpoint when their whole lives have been dedicated to "the spin"?

You aren't convinced yet?  Then, there's the old man of liberal journalism himself...Bill Moyers.  It was many years ago, but Moyers also cut his teeth in Democratic politics.  Was it the Roosevelt administration?  Moyers is so old, it could have been Teddy, but he was a Republican.  To be serious, I believe Moyers worked for Lyndon Johnson.  However, I could be wrong because records going back that far are on microfilm.  I'm blind and my wife's eyes aren't what they used to be.  Yet take my word, Moyers was a card-carrying Democrat and, according to his most recent work for PBS, he probably still is.  To be fair, let's count the number of Republicans who suddenly became journalists for one of the major networks.  I can't think of any.  Can you?  There is Karl Rove, but he doesn't call himself a journalist.  He gives commentary on the world of politics where he comes from.  Could you see Rove anchoring FOX News' coverage of the Democratic Convention?  It will never happen and it shouldn't.

There have been many books written about the rise and fall of journalism in America.  I've given you just a few reasons why the Fourth Estate has lost its credibility with over 70% of the American people. 

There is a place for commentary and there is a place for hard news.  Unfortunately, many of those in news management do not know the difference between the two or they don't care.  If the Constitution of the United States didn't give these individuals special consideration, I suppose it wouldn't matter.  But it did and it does.

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact Dan@rffm.org 
 
Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed. 

Comments

[K.E. Griffin]

Superb article. I really enjoyed it. I couldn't have said it better myself. I wonder how long it's going to take the geniuses in the media to realize that the American people don't believe them any more?

By the way, they love to use the Galileo canard against the Catholic Church specifically and Christians in general. However, they have a real problem with projection (a psychological condition that means they project their own faults on others). They excel at being inquisitors of the worst sort whenever a dogma from their secular humanist religion is threatened, i.e. the risks of abortion and using hormonal contraceptives, experiments on embryonic human beings, evolution, sodomy and global warming.

Last night, in a show on Howard Hughes and his medical research foundation, 60 Minutes used the Galileo canard to justify experiments on embryonic human beings in the search for a cure for juvenile diabetes, even though no cures have ever come from this research, but many have come from adult and umbilical cord stem cell research. See:

www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml

60 Minutes demonized Bush for being opposed to this type of research, but neglected to mention that the official position of the U.S. National Institutes for Environmental Health Sciences (an agency within the NIH) is to expand the number of scientists doing this kind of research.

It's truly laughable that they perceive themselves as watchdogs of government. Liberal journalists have shirked their role as watchdogs of government and become propagandists for the government and its most egregious violations of human dignity.