Nets Excited Over Hillary’s Audio Book: ‘Making Choices With Her Head and Her Heart’

By Scott Whitlock

Although the journalists at Good Morning America on Tuesday found no time to discuss what NBC called a “potentially dangerous mistake” by the White House, reporter Jon Karl devoted a report to promoting Michelle Obama’s latest efforts on healthy lunches. Co-anchor George Stephanopoulos touted it as a “a rare political move now from First Lady Michelle Obama.” [MP3 audio here.]

Stephanopoulos hyped the First Lady’s “full-scale campaign against the food industry and members of Congress who are trying to roll back the healthy school lunch standard she fought so hard to pass.” Karl insisted, “Well, the First Lady believes passionately that school lunches simply have to be healthier and she is prepared to wage a big political fight over this issue.” He added, “She is going to be speaking out against this effort for Republicans to roll back standards that were put in place in 2010.”

View video on MRCTV

Karl did not explain why Mrs. Obama’s efforts qualify as a “rare political move” if she’s already politically pushed for altering school lunches.

In contrast, in 2007, GMA co-host Robin Roberts needled Laura Bush on “exporting” generosity, “instead of our bombs.”

On Tuesday, GMA’s anchorsskipped the accidental leak of a CIA station chief in Afghanistan. Instead of reporting on that, the show’s co-hosts featured segments on an inappropriate picture taken of Kate Middleton and a story on the new X-Men movie.

A transcript of the May 27 segment is below:

7:12

CBS GRAPHIC: First Lady’s School Lunch Battle: Set to Make Unusual High Profile Push

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s move to a rare political move now from First Lady Michelle Obama, launching a full-scale campaign against the food industry and members of Congress who are trying to roll back the healthy school lunch standard she fought so hard to pass. It begins at the white house today and ABC’s Jon Karl is there. Good morning, Jon.

JON KARL: Good morning, George. Well, the First Lady believes passionately that school lunches simply have to be healthier and she is prepared to wage a big political fight over this issue. She will start today. It’s a meeting with school officials and health nutrition experts. She is going to be speaking out against this effort for Republicans to roll back standards that were put in place in 2010. She says that these standards would gut her– gut this bill. And, George, school officials here are part of the problem – are part of the issue. The people that administer those school lunch programs say the kids don’t eat the food and it’s costing too much, as one told the Washington Post: “The White House needs to hear from the majority of school cafeteria professionals who are struggling to make the new standards work.” Of course, she says they are working and already resulting in a decline in childhood obesity.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So, is the First Lady likely to succeed here?

KARL: Well, this is going to be a big fight. She has, of course, Democrats in the Senate are probably going to be standing with her. But this is going to be a big battle.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay, Jon Karl. Thanks very much.

By Geoffrey Dickens

At the time when the country is remembering the ultimate sacrifice veterans have given this country, ABC’s (World News) evening and (Good Morning America) morning shows didn’t devote a second to the VA scandal over this Memorial Day weekend. However, those shows did spend time on President Barack Obama receiving “cheers” during his surprise visit to Afghanistan.

While ABC didn’t offer a second on its newscasts (from Friday evening through Monday night) on the VA scandal CBS devoted a total of 8 minutes, 39 seconds on its (Evening News) evening and (CBS This Morning) morning shows during that same time period. NBC spent 3 minutes, 34 seconds on its (Nightly News) evening and (Today) morning shows over the long weekend.

However ABC did find a story it wanted to trumpet. On Sunday’s World News ABC’s David Muir reported on “that surprise this Sunday from President Obama, his visit to Afghanistan and our troops this Memorial Day weekend.” Muir, teasing a Muhammad Lila report, continued: “The commander-in-chief received with cheers in that hangar at Bagram Airfield. And while there, he talked about how grateful Americans are back home for their service and about what should happen when those vets come home.”

Receiving top-notch medical care was not mentioned as something that “should happen when those vets come home” in the ensuing Lila piece. The Lila piece did offer soundbites of Obama urging Americans to send more cookies and to “hire a vet” when they come home. Lila then concluded the piece this way:

LILA: And the president, known to take a selfie from time to time, ending in a way that only he could.

BARACK OBAMA: Now I’m going to shake every single hand in here. Although I may not be able to take a selfie with everybody. But I’ll shake every hand.

LILA: Now, we don’t know if he did shake every hand in that room, but he spent nearly an hour in there with the soldiers, once the speech was finished. David?

Through Monday evening ABC devoted a total of 4 minutes to the Obama trip on its newscasts.

It should be noted that the while VA scandal wasn’t mentioned on ABC’s evening and morning newscasts it did get time on the its political roundtable show on Sunday. ABC’s This Week spent a total of 7 minutes, 53 seconds on the VA scandal. There was also a brief 4-second mention, as part of a teaser, on Friday night’s Nightline.

The following segment was aired on the May 25 edition of ABC’s World News with David Muir:

DAVID MUIR: But we do move on tonight, and to that surprise this Sunday from President Obama, his visit to Afghanistan and our troops this Memorial Day weekend. The commander-in- chief received with cheers in that hangar at Bagram Airfield.. And while there, he talked about how grateful Americans are back home for their service and about what should happen when those vets come home. ABC’s Muhammad Lila reports from Kabul tonight.

[On screen headline: “Show of Support, Surprise Visit to Afghanistan”]

MUHAMMAD LILA: Landing under the cover of darkness, a secret trip and a chance to say an early Memorial Day thank you.

BARACK OBAMA: For many of you, this will be your last tour in Afghanistan.

LILA: Even offering this reminder of a grateful and generous nation.

OBAMA: You see it in the kids across America, who send you all the care packages and the girl scout cookies. Those were pretty popular, huh? You like those cookies, huh? All right. I’ll bet you’ll get some more now.

LILA: It’s Obama’s first trip here in nearly two years. So secret, it was announced only after he landed. This room packed with soldiers, erupting in applause with this.

OBAMA: And I keep on saying to every company back home, if you want somebody who knows how to get the job done, hire a vet. Hire a vet. Hire a vet.

LILA: And the president, known to take a selfie from time to time, ending in a way that only he could.

OBAMA: Now I’m going to shake every single hand in here. Although I may not be able to take a selfie with everybody. But I’ll shake every hand.

LILA: Now, we don’t know if he did shake every hand in that room, but he spent nearly an hour in there with the soldiers, once the speech was finished. David?

MUIR: All right, Muhammad Lila tonight. Muhammad thanks.

By Kyle Drennen

At the top of Saturday’s NBC Nightly News, anchor Lester Holt proclaimed: “Abortion battleground. The newest state to impose tougher requirements on doctors who perform the procedure. Protecting women or denying them access?” In another tease of the upcoming story minutes later, Holt warned: “…the battle over abortion and a controversial new law about to take effect.” [Listen to the audio]

In the report that followed, correspondent Kristen Welker revealed the supposed threat to the abortion agenda: “The legislation requires doctors who perform abortions have admitting privileges to a hospital within thirty miles of where the procedure takes place. That change could force three of the state’s five abortion clinics to close.”

View video on MRCTV

Welker then introduced the political force behind the plan: “Democratic state representative Katrina Jackson co-authored the legislation, which passed with broad bipartisan support and Republican Governor Bobby Jindal has vowed to sign.” Jackson explained: “This legislation is about the health and safety of women….Women deserve to be safe in whatever choice they make and this legislation ensures that.”

Despite the “broad bipartisan support” for the legislation evidenced by it being co-authored by a Democratic lawmaker, Welker still touted arguments from the abortion industry: “Ellie Schilling, who advises the state’s clinics, argues in the rare case that a woman experiences complications, hospitals are required to admit that patient regardless of her doctor’s admitting status.”

Soundbites ran of Schilling declaring: “We’re seeing a lot of laws pass that are thinly-disguised attempts to limit access….It’s intent is simply to close clinics and to restrict, if not eliminate, a constitutional right to access.”

Welker used Schilling’s talking points to go after Jackson: “Is this really about the safety of women or is it about rolling back Roe v. Wade?”

At no point did Welker cite women’s health and safety concerns to challenge Schilling’s claims.

As Jackson defended the measure against left-wing conspiracy theories, Welker announced: “In a statement, Planned Parenthood urges Governor Jindal to veto the bill, writing, ‘Women in a vast stretch of this country are in real danger of losing the ability to access legal abortion safely.'”

Another soundbite ran of Schilling: “When access is so limited, then the reality is that it forces women back into a pre-Roe vs. Wade state, where basically they will be forced to seek illegal, unsafe methods.”

Jackson countered: “I would rather see a female drive five hours to Shreveport to have the care and treatment that she deserves.”

Welker wrapped up the report by previewing legal fights ahead: “Opponents of the law say they’re planning legal challenges, which could mean a hearing here at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court.”

While popular legislation regulating abortion in Louisiana is a controversy worthy of national attention, NBC has failed to provide similar coverage to a proposed law in New York to expand late-term abortions that has failed to even get out of a state senate committee due to its controversial nature.

Here is a full transcript of Welker’s May 24 report:

6:30 PM ET TEASE:

LESTER HOLT: Abortion battleground. The newest state to impose tougher requirements on doctors who perform the procedure. Protecting women or denying them access?

6:45 PM ET TEASE:

HOLT: When NBC Nightly News continues on this Saturday night, the battle over abortion and a controversial new law about to take effect.

6:47 PM ET SEGMENT:

HOLT: We’re back with a new chapter in the battle over abortion. This week, the Louisiana state legislature passed a bill that would place new restrictions on doctors who perform abortions and could force some of the state’s clinics that perform abortions to close. It’s similar to a law that took effect in Texas last year and caused more than a dozen clinics to close there. We get more on this tonight from NBC’s Kristen Welker.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: It feels like we’re taking steps back as opposed to progressing.

KRISTEN WELKER: Five years ago this woman had a legal abortion at a Louisiana clinic. She wants to remain anonymous but is now speaking out against a law passed this week by the state legislature.

WOMAN: I was angry. I was, “How dare you take that decision or make that decision for me.”

WELKER: The legislation requires doctors who perform abortions have admitting privileges to a hospital within thirty miles of where the procedure takes place. That change could force three of the state’s five abortion clinics to close.

KATRINA JACKSON: This legislation is about the health and safety of women.

WELKER: Democratic state representative Katrina Jackson co-authored the legislation, which passed with broad bipartisan support and Republican Governor Bobby Jindal has vowed to sign.

JACKSON: Women deserve to be safe in whatever choice they make and this legislation ensures that.

ELLIE SCHILLING: We’re seeing a lot of laws pass that are thinly-disguised attempts to limit access.

WELKER: Ellie Schilling, who advises the state’s clinics, argues in the rare case that a woman experiences complications, hospitals are required to admit that patient regardless of her doctor’s admitting status.

SCHILLING: It’s intent is simply to close clinics and to restrict, if not eliminate, a constitutional right to access.

WELKER: Is this really about the safety of women or is it about rolling back Roe v. Wade?

JACKSON: It’s definitely about the safety of women. It’s very important for continuity of care that woman that experience complications from abortion procedures, physicians are able to see them.

WELKER: Similar laws have already passed in Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama. In a statement, Planned Parenthood urges Governor Jindal to veto the bill, writing, “Women in a vast stretch of this country are in real danger of losing the ability to access legal abortion safely.”

SCHILLING: When access is so limited, then the reality is that it forces women back into a pre-Roe vs. Wade state, where basically they will be forced to seek illegal, unsafe methods.

JACKSON: I would rather see a female drive five hours to Shreveport to have the care and treatment that she deserves.

WELKER: Opponents of the law say they’re planning legal challenges, which could mean a hearing here at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court. Kristen Welker, NBC News, New Orleans.

By Matthew Balan

Carol Costello surprisingly raised pro-gun rights points during an interview of Senator Richard Blumenthal on Tuesday’s CNN Newsroom. Costello noted the “renewed calls for stricter gun control laws” after Friday’s murder spree in California, and pointed out that the Golden State “has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. The shooter in this case abided by a background check….How would any gun control law prevent this particular shooter from buying a gun?”

The anchor, who has forwarded gun control in the past, also zeroed on the fact that the deceased murderer began his rampage by stabbing three people to death: [MP3 audio available here; video below]

CAROL COSTELLO: …The shooter, [Elliot] Rodger – he used a knife, too. He used a knife to kill three people, and then, he used a gun to kill three more. Some argue if a deranged person wants to kill, they will find a way. It’s the argument that gun control advocates cannot seem to win with those who – who passionately believe in gun rights. So, how do you compromise?

View video on MRCTV

Costello led the segment with a clip from an interview of Richard Martinez, who lost his son in the Friday murder spree. Martinez slammed Congress for their failure to pass new gun control in the wake of the Newtown massacre. She then turned to Senator Blumenthal and asked, “Is Mr. Martinez right?” The liberal politician replied, in part, that “he is right that Congress’s failure to act is shameful and disgraceful….But I am absolutely determined that we will achieve common-sense, sensible measures – including a focus on mental health, which, I think, is common ground to bring us together.”

The CNN journalist then brought up California’s strict gun control laws. Senator Blumenthal conceded that “there is no single solution. There’s no panacea to the problem of gun violence, and not every death – even every mass shooting – can be prevented.” But he added that “very soon, everyone will have known someone who has suffered from gun violence – or will know someone among the 32,000 every year who are victims of gun violence, either by their own hand or others….we need to continue this effort, even if it doesn’t eliminate every death.”

When Costello brought up that Rodger used a knife to murder three out of the six, and that “some argue if a deranged person wants to kill, they will find a way,” the Connecticut senator doubled down that the path forward was to reintroduce the gun control bills that failed to pass through Congress after the Newtown massacre: “What’s needed now is a renewed commitment to organizing – to bringing these bills back, which I hope will happen; and to making sure we have a will to make our streets safer.”

Near the end of the segment, the CNN anchor wondered if a renewed push for gun control was a “waste of time.” Senator Blumenthal replied that “far from wasting time, this effort is about law enforcement – about protecting our police, whose lives are on the line; our children who are victims every day in our streets and neighborhoods; about keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous or severely mentally-ill people, such as this young man in California.”

.

By Kyle Drennen

On Tuesday, only NBC’s Today reported on the White House accidentally leaking the name of the CIA station chief in Kabul, Afghanistan, which correspondent Peter Alexander described as “an incredibly embarrassing and actually potentially dangerous mistake.” Neither ABC’s Good Morning America nor CBS This Morning mentioned the administration screw-up that occurred during President Obama’s trip to Afghanistan over the weekend to visit the troops. [Listen to the audio]

ABC and CBS did find time to promote other favorable White House stories. GMA did a full segment on First Lady Michelle Obama defending school lunch standards against criticism and This Morning devoted a full report to the White House holding a science fair for girls.

View video on MRCTV

Alexander detailed the seriousness of the situation: “Just hours after successfully pulling off a secret presidential trip to Afghanistan, White House officials were scrambling to protect another high-stakes secret that they mistakenly let out of the bag. Aides accidentally blew the cover of the CIA’s top official in Afghanistan, one of the most dangerous corners of the planet.”

However, he couldn’t resist bringing up a supposed Bush administration scandal: “‘Astonishing,’ tweeted Valerie Plame, whose undercover CIA status was leaked by Bush administration officials in 2003 after her Plame’s husband criticized the Iraq war.”

Alexander failed to mention that a career State Department official was responsible for accidentally leaking Plame’s name, not anonymous “Bush administration officials.”

On Tuesday, Alexander read a quote from Plame blasting the Obama administration leak: “The life of the Chief of Station and his family (if they are with him at the post) are in immediate danger from any number of terrorists who would rejoice at the opportunity to kill him and claim a victory.”

Wrapping up the report, Alexander noted “…senior intelligence officials tell NBC News that the White House mistake is in their words, ’embarrassing, stupid, and unhelpful,’ but they insist…it is ‘not catastrophic.'”

Here is a full transcript of the May 27 report:

7:14 AM ET

MATT LAUER: There’s new fallout this morning over a glaring mistake that happened during President Obama’s surprise weekend trip to Afghanistan. A member of the administration accidentally releasing the name of the CIA station chief in Kabul. So how serious is this? NBC’s national correspondent Peter Alexander is at the White house. Peter, good morning to you.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Fallout Over Outing of CIA Official; White House’s Afghanistan Mistake Raises Concerns]

PETER ALEXANDER: Matt, good morning to you. This is an incredibly embarrassing and actually potentially dangerous mistake by this White House, accidentally outing the CIA’s top officer in Afghanistan. And this morning, it’s still unclear whether the error will force the CIA to pull the official out of Afghanistan.

Just hours after successfully pulling off a secret presidential trip to Afghanistan, White House officials were scrambling to protect another high-stakes secret that they mistakenly let out of the bag. Aides accidentally blew the cover of the CIA’s top official in Afghanistan, one of the most dangerous corners of the planet.

MICHAEL LEITER [NBC NEWS NAT’L SECURITY & COUNTERTERRORISM
ANALYST]: It does simply show a bit of sloppiness, which any administration wants to avoid, both because of the embarrassment, but also, more significantly, its relationship with the CIA and keeping secrets secret.

ALEXANDER: The officer, listed as “Chief of Station” in Kabul, was identified by White House aides on a roster of senior U.S. officials who met privately with President Obama during his visit. Those names were then emailed to the White House press distribution list, more than 6,000 recipients in all. NBC News is not reporting the officer’s name.

“Astonishing,” tweeted Valerie Plame, whose undercover CIA status was leaked by Bush administration officials in 2003 after her Plame’s husband criticized the Iraq war.

VALERIE PLAME WILSON [FORMER UNDERCOVER CIA OFFICIAL]: And I felt like I had been hit in the gut, and I immediately thought of my family’s safety.

ALEXANDER: Late Monday, Plame told NBC News in a statement, “The life of the Chief of Station and his family (if they are with him at the post) are in immediate danger from any number of terrorists who would rejoice at the opportunity to kill him and claim a victory.”

Still, some analysts are downplaying the potential consequences.

LEITER: This disclosure won’t have enormous operational impact because of the nature of the station chief’s role in Afghanistan, a place where most Afghan officials would already know him.

ALEXANDER: This morning, neither the White House nor the CIA is commenting, but senior intelligence officials tell NBC News that the White House mistake is in their words, “embarrassing, stupid, and unhelpful,” but they insist, Matt, it is “not catastrophic.”

LAUER: Alright, Peter Alexander at the White House. Peter, thanks.

By Geoffrey Dickens

The major news, announced on Thursday, that the IRS is going back to the drawing board on proposed rules that would’ve regulated political activity for groups like the Tea Party was ignored by two of the Big Three networks. Only CBS, on Friday’s CBS This Morning, covered the agency’s backtracking in a 19-second Charlie Rose brief.

According to Friday’s New York Times the delay, coming in the wake of the IRS/Tea Party scandal, was made “after receiving 150,000 comments — both positive and negative — about the proposal, the biggest public response to any proposed rule in its history.”

The May 22 online story, that appeared in the May 23 print version of the New York Times, reported the following:

The Internal Revenue Service said Thursday that it has delayed and is revamping new rules intended to curb political activity by tax-exempt groups and that were proposed after the agency was accused last year of targeting Tea Party groups.

The I.R.S. said it made the decision after receiving 150,000 comments — both positive and negative — about the proposal, the biggest public response to any proposed rule in its history. The decision postpones public hearings originally expected for this summer.

The proposal is intended to clarify how the I.R.S. defines political activity and how much nonprofit groups are allowed to spend on it. Nonprofit groups ranging from Americans for Prosperity, a free-market grass-roots organization co-founded by the billionaires Charles and David Koch, to the League of Conservation Voters, an environmental organization that chiefly supports Democrats, are expected to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in the battle for control of Congress in November. The delay announced Thursday means the new rules will not be in place before Election Day.

The following brief, aired on the May 23 edition of CBS This Morning is the only mention, so far, of the delay on the Big Three networks:

CHARLIE ROSE: The New York Times says the IRS is delaying new rules. They’re aimed at curbing political activity by groups that want to be tax exempt. The proposal comes after accusations that the IRS targeted Tea Party-backed organizations. But hearings on the overhaul are on hold after overwhelming public response.