Woodward Book: Lauer Interprets For The Liberal Hearing-Impaired

Today Show/NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[governsleastgovernsbest]

by Mark Finkelstein

October 2, 2006 - 07:54

If Matt Lauer ever decides to leave 'Today,' he has a promising career ahead of him interpreting for the hearing-impaired at meetings of Moveon.org and like-minded groups.

Interviewing Bob Woodward on this morning's 'Today' on his Bush-bashing State of Denial, Lauer served as a cheerleader worthy of Katie at her perkiest.

At one point, Lauer summarized matters thusly:

"You paint a picture of a White House and administration that is not tone deaf in some cases but that literally in some cases puts their hands over their ears and said we don't want to hear the information if the information is not going to bolster our company line."

That's when, in the screen capture shown here, Lauer 'helpfully' mimed the White House's 'hear no evil' attitude that Woodward alleges.

Lauer's only criticism was that Woodward didn't come out sooner with his unflattering portrait of the Bush administration:

"As you uncover all of this stuff, some of this stuff is vitally important as this nation is at war and people are dying. Didn't you have a responsibility to go to a mountain top and scream this out and not hold it for the release of a book a month before the mid-term elections? . . . If it's a case of not listening to key military advice when Americans are dying, people could say it's disingenuous to wait for a splash with a book?"

Woodward made a telling admission in response:

"The publisher Simon & Schuster and my bosses at the Washington Post said the real obligation here, to use your analogy to get up on top of the mountain and tell the full story, is to tell it before the election. That's what we are doing."

With two big helping hands from Matt.

Aside: In her interview of White House spokesman Tony Snow that preceded the Woodward-Lauer love-in, Meredith Vieira might have scored the most inane question of the still-young month with this pearl: "Is there anything in the book you agree with?"

Note: NewsBusters is looking for a few good men - or women. NB is seeking: 1. military, ex-military and former intelligence community members to write about the media's coverage of military and intelligence issues; and 2. an experienced MySQL and PHP programmer (especially those who know about Drupal.org's software) who wants to help out the conservative cause. If interested, contact newsbusters@mediaresearch.org

Finkelstein lives in the liberal haven of Ithaca, NY. View webcasts of Mark's award-winning TV show 'Right Angle' here. Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net

[LibLieSlayer]

Foley will hurt... but not Republicans. Many at ABC and at the DNC knew about this and did nothing (waiting until election time to spring their supposed trap).

The FBI is investigating, and ABC and dims are being questioned. Since we all know it was dims holding this until right before the election, they have far more to lose than a party that threw this animal out right away!

No evidence to date links any Republican to a cover-up... only media and dim innuendo. Pubs need to remind America that we have dims still in office that murdered, raped, embezzled, were members of the Klan, principles in the Abscam case, Keating Five etc.

LLS

[governsleastgovernsbest]

It was Casey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Woodward

See next-to-last para of 'Style and Commentary' section.

Woolsey is still alive and appears on TV regularly.

[LibLieSlayer]

I thought it was Woolsey, so thanks for the heads-up.

LLS

[Tokra]

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Your underlying point remains very valid, regardless of the particular CIA chief in question.

[StarFan]

Couldn't pick a better title to summarize the exchange I witnessed today. It was truly mouth dropping.

[fhayek]

Bob Woodward... Bob Woodward... Oh yes, now I remember. Mark Felt's stenographer.

[Blind Eye Jones]

You forgot the Clinton tirade. All planned no doubt, but ultimately ineffective.

[Stegall Tx]

Isn't there something in law somewhere that says a free and fair press cannot collude with one of the parties? I don't know, just asking the question.

No, I don't think there is any law that would prevent a news organization from being biased. The Constitution doesn't outline a free and fair press. The founders believed they had the right to present their side of the argument, even if their press outlets were biased in their favor.

For that matter, what good would a law do? The conservatives would abide by the law (as they generally do now) and the liberals would skip over the law any time it was expedient (as they generally do now).

To be honest, I don't care whether a media outlet is biased ... so long as they admit their bias.

Not too long ago, media outlets were up front about which side they stood on. I located several examples with a quick search: the Fresno Republican, the Waterbury (CT) Republican-American, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the Rochester (NY) Democrat and Chronicle, the Quincy (IL) Herald-Whig, etc. You knew which party the management agreed with and could adjust your grain of salt accordingly.

[Stegall Tx]

You know, for the first time, I realized shorthand for NewsBusters would be NB. i.e., note bene - "take note". That might be a good byline (or double entrendre) for NewsBusters. Just a thought.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Hadn't thought of that - thanks for bringing to my attention!