Meet the Press’ new regular

October 8, 2007

To borrow a line from Atrios, why is David Brody on my TV?

Yesterday’s Meet the Press panel reminded me of a children’s game: One of these things is not like the other. Five media figures sat around the table: Tim Russert, the NBC News bureau chief; David Broder, a Washington Post veteran journalist sometimes called the “dean” of the DC media establishment; Ted Koppel, the former host of Nightline and a man with a half-century of journalistic experience, Margaret Carlson, a fixture of the DC media scene, with stints at Time, The New Republic, the LA Times, and CNN; and David Brody, a correspondent for a crazed TV preacher’s “news” program.

While progressive voices have been effectively absent from the Sunday morning shows in recent years, Russert has now invited the Capitol Hill correspondent for TV preacher Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network on for political analysis four times in as many months. That’s crazy.

But wait, you say, maybe there was a good reason this time. Over the last week, talk about the religious right’s role in the GOP presidential primary process has been everywhere. Dobson & Co. are threatening the party, and the political world is reconsidering exactly how much power the religious right has right now. Brody’s experience at CBN suggests he may have valuable insights into this hot topic.

Except, not so much. Despite ample talk about the presidential race, Russert and Brody never even brought up the subject. As Digby noted:

No mention in the entire round table of the Dobson op-ed in the NY Times, no mention of the threatened schism on the right. Even though they had a “journalist” from the religious right media there at the table, they didn’t say a word about the unrest among the powerful christian conservatives. Why not?

I honestly have no idea.

To reiterate a point I raised several weeks ago, there’s a problem with Brody repeatedly being seated in one of the venerated chairs of the nation’s most-watched Sunday morning show, but it’s not really his fault.

I occasionally check in on Brody’s blog, which isn’t a bad site. It clearly leans to the right, but I wouldn’t describe it as reflexively conservative. Given the presidential candidates’ interest in wooing evangelical Christian voters, Brody even gets some very high-profile national figures to speak with him.

But let’s not lose sight of the context here. Brody is employed by CBN, Robertson’s “news” network. Brody offers political coverage on The 700 Club, most of which is a broadcast featuring a greedy, crazed televangelist offering hate-filled tirades against anyone who doesn’t think like he does. (On Sept. 13, 2001, 48 hours after the Twin Towers fell, viewers of The 700 Club got to hear why Americans “deserved” to be attacked. Robertson has also explained why terrorists should destroy the State Department, why mainline Protestant denominations are “the spirit of the Anti-Christ,” and why he has the ability to move hurricanes with his mind.)

Meet the Press, by making Brody a regular, is treating the Christian Broadcasting Network as a legitimate outlet. It shouldn’t.

Evangelical news looks and sounds much like its secular counterpart, but it homes in on issues of concern to believers and filters events through a conservative lens. In some cases this simply means giving greater weight to the conservative side of the ledger than most media do. In other instances, it amounts to disguising a partisan agenda as news. Likewise, most guests on Christian political talk shows are drawn from a fixed pool of culture warriors and Republican politicians. Even those shows that focus on non-political topics — such as finance, health, or family issues — often weave in political messages. Many evangelical programs and networks are, in fact, linked to conservative Christian political or legal organizations, which use broadcasts to help generate funding and mobilize their base supporters, who are tuning in en masse. Ninety-six percent of evangelicals consume some form of Christian media each month, according to the Barna Research Group….

CBN’s founder, Pat Robertson, who started this trend in the late 1970s by converting the 700 Club into a 60 Minutes-style magazine, says he originally considered making it a music showcase. But he decided news and talk would bring more viewers. “News provides the crossover between religious and secular, and it bridges the age gap,” he explains. Robertson continues to see news and current affairs as a means to an end. “If you buy a diamond from Tiffany’s the setting is very important,” he says. “To us, the jewel is the message of Jesus Christ. We see news as a setting for what’s most important.” …

Many Christian broadcasters attribute the success of their news operations to the biblical perspective that underpins their reporting in a world made wobbly by terrorist threats and moral relativism. “We don’t just tell them what the news is,” explains Wright of the NRB. “We tell them what it means. And that’s appealing to people, especially in moments of cultural instability.”

Robertson pays Brody to tell “them what it means,” as part of a broader evangelistic enterprise. What’s wrong with that? Nothing in particular. CBN exists to evangelize, convert, raise a lot of money from Robertson’s fans, and give a demagogue a platform to spread nonsense.

But now, apparently, Meet the Press wants to treat CBN as just another network. It’s mystifying.

Does The 700 Club have so many viewers that its political correspondent demands recognition? Not really; ratings wise, the show has a fairly small audience. Does Brody’s blog have so many visitors that he’s become a major political player? No, as of earlier this summer, the Brody File was drawing about 75,000 visits a month. I know of several dozen liberal political bloggers who have far, far more traffic, none of whom will ever be invited onto a Sunday morning show.

I guess that’s really the bottom line here. Meet the Press has a cadre of regulars, which apparently now includes Pat Robertson’s political correspondent. All the while, progressive voices have been locked out of the Sunday-show circuit altogether.

It’s enough to make one wonder why there’s so much whining about a “liberal media.”

MTP should just drop the pretense and move on over to Fox.

  • Maybe it has to do with the fact that a progressive / liberal leaning blogger ‘might’ not follow the script presented to them before the shows. 🙂

    Maybe it has to do with the fact that some progressives /liberals don’t dress conservative enough for the respectable viewers of their shows. 🙂

    Maybe it has to do with the fact that they’re nowadays leaning further to the right, that even centrists look like ‘leftists’. Therefor when they invite a centrist they can present them as a progressive / liberal. It’s all a matter of interpretation.

    When they do occasionally invite a so called ‘leftist’, they go out of their way to make sure it is a specimen who is an embarrassment to the progressive cause. That way they can showcase how ‘weird’ the views on the left are.

  • I can’t wait for Jonathan Frakes to start representing the Sci-Fi channel on Meet the Press. After all, he talks extensively about UFOs and paranormal events. Must be journalism, no?

  • When a ‘reformed’ right-winger finally sees the light, we’re not going to call them a liberal because they agree with progressive causes all of a sudden. We’ll look at them for what they are, and listen to what they have to say through a filter. At times they actually have some very good things to say; but we still don’t consider them true progressives.

    On the other side of the aisle it works a little bit different. When a democrat – doesn’t even have to be a progressive one – becomes more conservative, he/she gets invited to the shows to represent the progressives. Usually it is even worse on Fox: they end up using those attention seekers to represent the ‘sensible democrat’ who is ashamed of what the progressives are doing with the Democratic party.

    It is all about keeping the same myth going.

  • Unbelievable. A freaking televangelist’s “news” guy on Meet The Press. I wish Jon Stewart would show up sometime, just drop in and crash the set.

    “…they didn’t say a word about the unrest among the powerful christian conservatives. Why not?

    I honestly have no idea…”

    Well I do. Because Timmy and his pals get fat paychecks from the corporations who want another war, this time with Iran. And since the evangelicals are the only large group of people in this country crazy enough to be pushing for that, I guess we need an evangelical news guy to help sell us the next insane war.

    Watch Bill Moyer’s latest episode about John Hagee and his death cult, screaming for an attack on Iran. It’ll make your hair stand on end.

    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2007/10/preview_christian_zionism.html

  • It’s the slow collapse of the objectivity pretense. The MSM in general, and Russert in particular, are Republicans. They just are, and they hardly bother to hide that fact anymore.

    As I’ve said before, once the Dems get the executive branch (and thus control of the FCC) they need to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine and take dynamite to the overconsolidated media ownership structure. If they don’t they’re idiots.

  • If they don’t they’re idiots. -jimBOB

    Or they are owned by the same corporate entities. We should probably think about that before February.

  • I suppose the fact that Russert himself is an extremely conservative Catholic probably has nothing to do with any of this. Right? Right???

  • I would like to suggest that a moratorium be declared on “journalists” whose names begin with the letters DAVID BR… (and also suggest that the word journalists, er “journalists” heretofore, and until further notice, always be enclosed in double-quotes).

  • Are Christian TV and radio tax exempt? If so, they should be subject to the same firewalls between preaching and politics that churches are supposed to be.

  • Or they are owned by the same corporate entities. We should probably think about that before February.

    OK, so I guess there’s nothing to be done. Go back to watching American Idol.

  • Have you ever tried talking to someone who views CBN and the 700 club religiously? For years the insane have gotten away with appearing to be normal because they kept well hidden from society and could function holding down jobs etc.
    .

    Now they sit in front of their TV’s and send money to their insane leaders. They get their marching orders from a person who manipulates instructions from an old book which if traced back to it’s originality is barely credible. We call them ‘Godspeakers’ because they aren’t even original enough to give their god a name. They speak for the unseen, from a book that’s been edited thousands of times, in a language that is barely interpretable and is largely symbolic and they do so because of fear of punishment, the justification of condemnation making them holier than thou, and the inability to reason for themselves. It’s all in their head but they try to tell everyone it all exists outside their head too and that is where the Godspeakers like Robertson and co come in, along with the billions they require to operate. This is the big difference between spirituality and religion…the godspeakers. Now they try to push into politics by every means like getting on MTP. Spirituality has always been there and really needs no announcement. But the mere presence of David Brody on MTP suggests that CBN is legitimate news org.. They ain’t. Jenflowers comment #3 was right on, Brody on MTP is such a sci-fi representative.
    Why is any credibility given to supporters of insanity who manage to hide or disguise the depth of their insanity, pretending to be normal, while all the while hiding their vile secret.

    You say his site is not so bad…that’s because he keeps the insanity secret…Pat Robertson ego is too large for him to hide his insanity.

    I doubt seriously if Timme had any say in his being on MTP which is the most watched Sunday show because it is the only thing on tv at that hour of Sunday. There’s no competition on other channels.

  • OK, so I guess there’s nothing to be done. Go back to watching American Idol. -jimBOB

    Funny you bring up FOX’s very popular show, since I was implying we shouldn’t nominate a certain candidate who had a certain fundraiser thrown by ol’ Rupert himself.

    We know who is beholden to the corporate media…now we just have to act like we care.

  • for the 2008 election, doubtful, that really doesn’t mean much. until campaign finances are completely reformed, all viable candidates are corporate candidates.

    look at the advisers for Clinton, Edwards, Obama — and for the matter Biden and Dodd (and to a slightly lesser degree, Richardson). they all come from the same pool. look at who is writing checks to the campaigns – they all have their insiders, their exceedingly rich supporters (think Oprah Inc. wanting a formal role with Obama’s campaign), their bundlers. We all know why people here think Clinton is corporate, but Richardson comes from the Clinton Administration. Dodd is as well funded as he is solely because he chairs the Banking Committee. Edwards is involved with a large fund that is currently foreclosing on over 100 low-income Iowans. And all of them are a billion times better than the Republican alternatives.

    when it costs 40 million or so just to minimally be viable over the course of a cycle, and over 100 million to win the Presidency, you bet they are all corporate. all of the “little guys” everyone like to root for, all put together, couldn’t fund a winning campaign under the current formal and informal rules.

  • Here is my opinion of the political scene and the Christian Right:

    I see another abuse scandal coming- it isn’t sexual, but its activity parallels in harmfulness

    It was difficult enough when the Catholic sexual abuse scandal came out. People who were supposed to be the most trusted took sexual advantage of children. To made matters worse parishioners knowingly covered it up.

    The consequences of the sexual abuse were severe. First there was the initial suffering the children endured. Then there was the economic hardship imposed on the Church. Finally there was the suffering the children and others endured after the initial abuse. Many were shunned for speaking out. Others turned to drinking, drugs, sexual promiscuity, and even suicide.

    In the Catholic Church, Protecting God’s Children, a program to educate about the signs of abuse was made a requirement for anyone working around children. The program was designed to help educate about sexual abuse and what signs to look for in the victim and the abuser. That should have been the end of things, but another form of abuse and cover up crept actively into Christianity. It was psychological abuse.

    Psychological abuse might sound vague at first, but when one begins to look at psychological abuse on the level of what blacks endured during slavery or Jews endured during Hitler’s reign, it is a little easier to comprehend. These incidents are a type of psychological abuse done on a coordinated group level to cleanse society and keep people in their place. Today instead of blacks and Jews it is homosexuals, abortionists, and others that need to be cleansed and Muslims and others who need to be kept in their place.

    As a result of these viewpoints, two very, very different psychological abuse patterns have escalated in society.

    First, instead of looking at the behavior and actions of homosexuals and abortionists as a manifestation of a past abuse, similar to the actions of those abused who were mentioned earlier, many are unable to look beyond the signs – drinking, drugs, sexual promiscuity, suicide, homosexuality, and abortions to face the initial psychological abuse as the cause. When the abused victims act out their suffering they get abused a second time, this time by people trying to cleanse society.

    The second is an entirely different perspective. Rather than looking at homosexuality and people of the Muslim faith as a difference to be accepted such as people of the Jewish faith or people with black skin color, the natural difference whether it is skin color and sexual orientation or the freedom to hold a different religious belief, the difference is seen as the problem. When this difference becomes a strong focus a segregated society and all the problems that go with it is created.

    A new path needs to be taken because these two patterns only foster additional turmoil. An inspiring model is the way the Catholic Church successfully faced their issue and brought about a healthy openness and awareness of sexual abuse and prevention through the Protecting God’s Children program. Christianity as a whole needs to adopt a similar method to bring about a healthy openness and awareness of psychological abuse, its consequences, and its prevention.

    Lou Wms
    Columbus, Ohio

  • I have a question that I’m not sure where to fnd the answer to.

    When exactly did our calender change from B.C. to A.C.? Was it the day Christ was born, or was it many years after. Also, how did it come about being changed and who was responsible for it other than God?

    When I am witnessing to people, I always ask them if they know of any other person that has changed our calender or time in such a drastic way.

    Thanks for your help.

    Joyce Lemley

    • Comments are closed.