Democrats can take back Congress, but they can’t ‘meet the press’

November 10, 2006

The fact the conservative voices have dominated the Sunday-morning public affairs shows in recent years is well-documented. Some have suggested that shows like Meet the Press simply go where the action is — if Republicans have power, than it’s Republicans who’ll get the invitations. Since the GOP has been the majority party in recent years, it stands to reason they’ll get more on-air time. Perhaps.

This week, however, Dems came roaring back and reclaimed the majority in both chambers. Surely, Tim Russert will want to get some sense of the Democratic perspective to understand why the party excelled and where the Congress is going, right? Wrong.

The 2006 election was defined by a) a repudiation of the war in Iraq and the current Iraq strategy, and b) widespread national victories for Democratic House, Senate, and gubernatorial candidates.

Yet, according to a press aide, this Sunday’s edition of NBC’s Meet the Press will include two interviews: one with Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), an Iraq war supporter who defeated Ned Lamont (D-CT), and one with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who recently called for 20,000 additional U.S. troops to be sent to Iraq, and who was not up for reelection in 2006.

The same week Dems sweep into power for the first time in 12 years, and the same week in which every single Republican challenger for Congress lost, Meet the Press will talk to two people: a pro-war Republican and a pro-war independent who won thanks to Republican votes. Perfect.

Media Matters helpfully went back and found the Meet the Press line-up from this week 12 years ago: “[W]hen Republicans won control of Congress in the 1994 midterm elections, the guest list for the first Meet the Press following that election included then-Sens. Phil Gramm (R-TX) and Alfonse D’Amato (R-NY), and then-House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt (MO).”

I sometimes get the sense we’re playing a game in which the ref has been paid off.

My longstanding debate with most of the commenters in the liberal blogosphere has now been settled.

Shills, not suck-ups.

I win!

  • By defeating Republicans in Congress, Dems have won only the first battle in what needs to be a long, calculated battle against forces that have been working against a free republic. Two areas that need to be targeted before 2008 are the press/media and the electoral process. (One might add public financing of campaigns, but that seems a stretch).

    Whatever leadership or political success Dems might have between now and 08 will be diminished unless (1) their message and successes are broadly and fairly covered and (2) the outcome of elections fairly represents what the voters intended. Dems have their work cut out for them, but at least now they have a seat in the game.

  • I sometimes get the sense we’re playing a game in which the ref has been paid off.

    Ya think? Isn’t GE, which owns NBC, a military contractor? Lieberman and McCain are a commercial for their products.

  • I pretty much skip Russert these days. There are better shows on other channels.

    Don’t let him bother you so much.

  • 3 and 4, bullseye.

    War for war’s sake. Sell down inventory to the gov’t at full and inflated prices. Generate demand for product. Don’t acknowledge anyone who says your product and business plan isn’t doing much to advance the cause of civilized human interaction.

  • Russert is aiming for that invaluable 65 year old median age demographic that O’Riely has cornered.

    I guess he didn’t hear the American people tell him he was irrelevant last Tuesday.

  • If Borat had called for 20,001 additional troops in Iraq, he could have replaced McCain on Meet the Press.

  • It’s imperative that the Dems use their power to dismantle the media empires. Let’s go back to restrictions on how many stations one entity can own and a ban on owning more than one type of media. This fear, afterall, already has Rupert Murdoch cuddling up to Hilary. If the Dems don’t do this, they deserve to have their voices drowned out by the corporatist media conglomerates. No one person or company should be able to own a newspaper and TV network, for example. And the Dems now have the power to legislate against this. Do they have the will?

  • We ought to coordinate all the new Dems to watch Stephanopoulos instead. Because he’s got the Dems.

    Screw Russert. Don’t pay attention to us? I’m sorry – what’s the faint whining sound? Timmy?

  • You are absolutely correct. The Referee has been paid off.
    What else can you expect in a Capitalist society? Everything we do MUST bring PROFIT or it has no value. This is what the Media has turned into, corporate whores walking the streets of the information highway.
    Now that we might have a handle on it, will the Dems push for thie disolution of the corporation? I doubt it.

    Corporations have been the greatest threat to Democracy and to peace in the world.
    My proof? Halliburton.Bechtel. Raytheon. GE.Exxon. Enron. Tyco.Lockheed-martin…..

    In this last election, all that happened is we peeled one layer back, but there are thousands more.

  • As I mentioned yesterday, the Dems need to reward the Olbermanns of the media with top access and appearances and exclusives, and leave sloppy thirds and fourths to the Russerts. Time to take charge and change the dynamic. Once the ratings for MTP start to drop and his show (and those like his) becomes a mere waste of air space (sort of like Russert has become a waste of human flesh) then the Dems can demand that someone who actually practices journalism in a fair manner take over if the networks want the Dems on their shows. Russert would either change his tune or drop to the ranks of Bill O’Reilly.

    YEAH ORANGE IS BACK

  • Baghdad Bob has more credibility than Russert ever will have. Russert is a well paid whore. Ditto Chris Mathews.

  • Lieberman is a Democrat. if he is not than stop saying the Democrats control the Senate because without Lieberman the Dems do not contol the Senate. You can’t have it both ways. Lieberman says he is a Democrat now that the election is over.

  • Like 5., I stopped watching Russert a long time ago. His schtick is old and boring, and he somehow ends up parroting Repug lines anyway.

  • Russert parrots Repug lines because he is a conservative Catholic who votes Republican. Where’s the surprise?

    I haven’t watched him in five years and it gets boring every time somone mentions his name anywhere in the liberal blogosphere.

    The “man” is a piece of dog excrement that needs to be scraped off our shoes.

  • Second try… I’d wonder if there was a cap on the number of postings a day, if the beast hadn’t gulped my very first try, too ( a few hours ago)
    Oh, come on, CB… I’ve been reading blogs for only… mmm… what’s 11-5? months and the steady bass-note on all of them is that the MSMs are not fair and balanced; they favor the Rethugs. I don’t watch TV (can’t stand the ads, having grown up in a culture which didn’t have them), but, from the occasional clip which surfaces on TP, I’d say y’all’re right. And, while I still read the papers (NYT mostly and WashPo on Sundays), all the raw ends of my nerves are now alerted to *their* skew as well (I still enjoy reading Letters to the Editor in NYT, though ).

    But if, with my minimal exposure to MSM, I’ve given up expecting balance from them somewhere in mid-July, how come *you*, who reads/watches crap for a living, still get your innocence pins knocked from under you every couple of days?

    • Comments are closed.