MRC Alert: MSNBC Uses Fake, ‘Sexy’ Photos of Sarah Palin on Air; Will Network Correct and Apologize?
MSNBC Uses Fake, ‘Sexy’ Photos of Sarah Palin on Air; Will Network Correct and Apologize?
View the Video HereOn Friday’s edition of Morning Meeting, host Dylan Ratigan featured fake photos of Sarah Palin during a mocking segment on why Americans are fascinated with the former vice presidential candidate. While listing the show’s top ten reasons, Ratigan showed a doctored photo of Palin’s head on the bikini-clad body of a woman holding a weapon.
The host never admitted or addressed the fact that his network was passing off counterfeit pictures to his viewers. Earlier in the segment, Ratigan displayed an image of Palin in a short, black mini-skirt. This photo is also not real. MSNBC should immediately apologize for presenting such false information.
It’s important to remember, several hosts on the network, including Chris Matthews, have mocked Fox News host Sean Hannity for taking video images from the 9/12 rally and then portraying the footage as from a more recent tea party event. After it was brought to his attention, Hannity apologized on Wednesday. How long will it take MSNBC?
During the segment, Ratigan repeatedly and dismissively referred to Palin’s looks. One reason he mentioned for the Republican’s popularity: “She’s also very hot.” Talking to a fellow MSNBC host, he wondered, “Hey, listen. That’s big, wouldn’t you say, Contessa [Brewer]?”
Ratigan began the piece by acknowledging, “I could not feel more stupid doing what I’m about to do, which is make fun of Sarah Palin.” He also touted the, supposed, main reason for Palin’s draw: “Number one…she has family drama that makes you feel better about your own.”
Time magazine Jay Newton Small sneered, “Well, certainly her headlines are more suited to People magazine than, say, Time magazine these days.”
Although there were some positive comments about Palin during the segment, there is no excuse for MSNBC to use false and doctored information on air. How will the network remedy this situation?
For more information on the fake photos, see Snopes.com and Patterico.com.
A transcript of the segment, which aired at 10:36am EST, follows:
DYLAN RATIGAN: [Pivoting off of a serious story by Contessa Brewer]: And having digested everything you just said, I could not feel more stupid doing what I’m about to do, which is make fun of Sarah Palin. So I feel peculiar right now is the truth, because I feel like that is terrible and this is silly. I don’t know what to do with that, quite honestly. So, I’m going to attempt to make the transition. But you can call our next segment Palin Palooza. Next week, in fact, you can expect to see the former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin everywhere. Her new book Going Rogue hits store shelves next week. And to drum up publicity, she is appearing on Oprah and launching on a 13 city book tour. Not that the book needs a big PR push, mind you. It’s already number one on Amazon’s book list of best sellers, which leads us to this question: What is it about Palin that drives America wild? We at the Morning Meeting have some ideas on why America is infatuated with Palin. And to have some fun, we have Time magazine writer Jay Small Newton. She covered Sarah Palin on the campaign trail and our own Contessa Brewer is with us as well. And, so, let us commence the conversation. [Reading off the Morning Meeting top ten list.] The tenth reason why she’s people are so obsessed with her, Jay, we say is because we say she is the strongest man in the. Republican party. You agree with that?
JAY NEWTON SMALL: She is definitely the only superstar in the Republican Party has right now. She is the one drawing the crowds and the money.
RATIGAN: “She’s also very hot.”
NEWTON-SMALL: She’s very pretty.
RATIGAN: Hey, listen. That’s big, wouldn’t you say, Contessa?
CONTESSA BREWER: You know what? Being attractive does not hurt.
RATIGAN: Yes. “She’s also the only member of the GOP that knows how to use Twitter and Facebook.” That’s actually huge.
BREWER: I actually think that is one of her best features because she is authentic. American people see her as accessible and she is using the best tools at her disposable to reach out and communicate with the people who are her best audience.
RATIGAN: I’m going to burn through a couple more of these. Hang on, for a second. [Reads from Morning Meeting Top Ten list.] “Drill, baby, drill.” I don’t know what you have to say about that. “Ultimate capitalist. She’ll sell anything for anybody for any reason.” “She does looks like Tina Fey which makes her more attractive.” This one, I like, though, Jay. “No one else can wink and smile and rip an opponent all in one breath.” Pretty good skill.
NEWTON-SMALL: Absolutely. She can- she has what they call the velvet stiletto. She can rip your heart out with a big smile and looking great about it.
RATIGAN: She also, of course, sticks to her guns.
BREWER: She tends to be pretty dynamic when she is on a particular topic.
RATIGAN: Number two, she is not Bush.
BREWER: Well, there is that. That helps anybody at this point! [A fake picture of Palin holding a rifle and wearing a bikini appears onscreen. Next to it is a real picture of Cheney with a gun.]
RATIGAN: Number one, Jay, she has family drama that makes you feel better about your own.
NEWTON-SMALL: Well, certainly her headlines are more suited to People magazine than, say, Time magazine these days. But, you know, she’s- it’s fascinating to watch. Levi drama, the baby, is he going to reconcile with Bristol, are they going to get married or not?
BREWER: And how do you invite him to dinner after he poses for Playgirl?
RATIGAN: He’s a hockey stud.
BREWER: I don’t really see it that way. And I’m not really sure that Sarah Palin would either.
RATIGAN: Everywhere that Sarah Palin goes, she’s going to have this hockey stud somewhere nearby posing.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.
David Brooks Derides Palin as a ‘Joke’ and ‘Talk Show Host’; Only Ifill Sees Her Appeal
The roundtable members on Sunday’s This Week derided or dismissed Sarah Palin, with David Brooks, the putative conservative columnist for the New York Times, declaring “she’s a joke” and insisting “Republican primary voters just are not going to elect a talk show host” — leaving it to PBS’s Gwen Ifill, of all people, to come to her defense as a fellow woman.
Left-winger David Corn yearned for how she will damage Republicans while the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward agreed with Brooks and George Will wondered: “Some conservatives think they have found in Sarah Palin a Republican William Jennings. Why they would want somebody who lost the presidency three times I do not know.”
The derogatory take from David Books on the November 15 This Week with George Stephanopoulos on ABC:
Yeah, she’s a joke. I mean, I just can’t take her seriously. We’ve got serious problems in the country. Barack Obama’s trying to handle war. We just had a guy elected Virginia Governor who’s probably the model for the future of the Republican Party, Bob McDonnell. Pretty serious guy, pragmatic, calm, kind of boring. The idea that this potential talk show host is considered seriously for the Republican nomination, believe me, it will never happen. Republican primary voters just are not going to elect a talk show host.
Bob Woodward:
I agree with David on this. You talk to Republicans and they say they voted for Obama because Sarah Palin was John McCain’s pick.
Gwen Ifill:
As the girl at the table, I feel like I can say you cannot underestimate the degree to which women will be drawn to her story. And that’s who she’s speaking to. These are people who are ignored, who nobody counts into their thinking, it’s why she’s appealing to Hillary Clinton. It’s why — when she made her own a announcement, she used the term glass ceiling back in the summer. Don’t underestimate that factor.
— Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
Palin Regrets — ‘Dang It’ — Journalists Didn’t Get ‘Fish-Slimed,’ NBC’s Mitchell Reports
Looking at Sarah Palin’s new book, Going Rogue: An American Life, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell caught a passage about herself in which Palin recalled that when she invited some reporters to go fishing with her this past July that “I wanted to see Andrea and her colleagues sporting fish-slimed waders, banging around in a skiff, stuck in the mud,” but, she regretted, the weather was too good so “dang it — none of them got slimed.”
On Sunday’s NBC Nightly News, Mitchell recounted, over video (with the book text over-layed) of Mitchell and Palin on a boat:
Remember when we went fishing with her after she resigned as Governor? Palin writes: “Now I wanted to see Andrea and her colleagues sporting fish-slimed waders, banging around in a skiff, stuck in the mud and trying to pull themselves back over the bow. At the very least they’d see there was no diva in me.”
But the weather didn’t cooperate. She writes: “It was sunny, hot and flat calm, so — dang it — none of them got slimed.”
— Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
Ann Coulter Takes on Palin-Bashing Media on CBS Early Show
Appearing on Friday’s CBS Early Show to discuss the release of Sarah Palin’s book, ‘Going Rogue,’ author Ann Coulter told co-host Harry Smith: “[John] McCain…was the media’s favorite Republican. So any criticism his side made of Palin was instantly printed and now we finally get the pay back. And I’m looking forward to it.”
Coulter made the comment after Smith asked about “the tension and the conflict between” the former vice presidential candidate and the McCain campaign. He went on to remark that Palin “represents a kind of orthodoxy within the Republican Party.” Coulter replied: “I’d put it a little differently….I would say she is an authentic American the way most members of the media are not, that certainly Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd do not represent the average American.”
Referring to the left-wing New York Times columnists who frequently attacked Palin, Coulter continued: “She can go and be comfortable in very many parts of the country where Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich would never deign to visit, much less be comfortable.” Smith clarified: “These are the people who might necessarily be critical of some of the things she has to say.” Coulter responded: “Yes, they certainly were.”
Smith followed up by wondering: “Does she represent in her philosophy, in her, say, support base, does that represent the future of the party?” An on-screen headline read: “Politics of Palin; Is She A Serious 2012 Candidate for GOP?” Coulter touted Palin’s importance, but was unsure of her political ambitions: “It’s certainly a part of the future, but, I mean, I don’t – it’s not like I’m supporting her for president. I don’t know who our president is going to be….I think she is a very powerful voice for conservatism and wow she has a lot of appeal out in America.”
Coulter added: “I think that has a lot to do with the hatred for her. I think any liberal male took his life in his hands for saying, ‘well, I’d never vote for her, but, boy, she’s attractive.’ Woah.”
At the end of the interview, Smith promoted the release of Coulter’s book, ‘Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault on America,’ in paperback. Coulter mentioned: “Oh, I discuss the media’s treatment of Palin in here.” Smith replied: “I remember that. I remember our conversation about that.” On the January 6 Early Show, Smith interviewed Coulter about the book and proclaimed: “You’re the whiner. You’re the one who’s claiming victimhood here. That you’re the victim o this great left-wing conspiracy….You should – you should have a cross. You should put yourself up on a cross.”
Here is a full transcript of Smith’s Friday interview with Coulter:
HARRY SMITH: Conservative commentator and best selling author Ann Coulter is one of Sarah Palin’s biggest supporters. She is with us live in the studio. Good morning. ANN COULTER: Good morning.
SMITH: Scott Fitzgerald said there’s no second acts. I’m wondering if everything that happened with Sarah Palin in her vice presidential campaign was really just an overture and not a first act. And that this really is setting the table for her to run for president. Would you read it that way?
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Politics of Palin; Is She A Serious 2012 Candidate for GOP?]
COULTER: I have no idea if that’s what she wants to do, but this is certainly a big second acts in itself. I mean, she has a massive fan base. This book has been number one on Amazon since it was announced. It isn’t out yet and we’re talking about it.
SMITH: Sure.
COULTER: So she has a popular appeal. I’m sure she’ll campaign for other Republicans if she wants to run for office in three years or 11 or 15. Who knows.
SMITH: You don’t have a gut check that says this is really about her rise to national prominence?
COULTER: Oh, she has national prominence.
SMITH: Well, right, but as setting – setting some sort of a foundation for a run for the presidency?
[Coulter shrugs shoulders]
SMITH: Really?
COULTER: I’m not Nostradamus.
SMITH [LAUGHS]: I’m stunned.
COULTER: Really?
SMITH: I’m a little stunned. I just thought that you would – that this is what it feels like, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s so.
COULTER: I think she’s – right now we just see her promoting this book and having mass – I mean, she sends out a Twitter post on the death panels and suddenly that’s all everyone’s talking about and it gets the death panels killed. That’s a little Twitter post when she’s just sitting in her kitchen. She has massive influence. What she does with that I don’t know.
SMITH: Right. Some of the things in the book are pretty interesting and she says she was billed $50,000 by the RNC for the vetting process.
COULTER: Right, right.
SMITH: When they came to see, ‘well is she run-able?’
COULTER: Yeah.
SMITH: And the RNC came back and said ‘no, she wasn’t.’ This sounds very interesting. The tension and the conflict between her and this campaign-
COULTER: Right, right.
SMITH: Were formidable.
COULTER: Right. And, wow, I hope she pays them back in this book and I can’t wait to read it. No, I mean, McCain – the – he was the media’s favorite Republican. So any criticism his side made of Palin was instantly printed and now we finally get the pay back. And I’m looking forward to it.
SMITH: This – it’s interesting because she represents a kind of orthodoxy within the Republican Party, right?
COULTER: Yeah, I’d put it a little differently.
SMITH: How would you say it?
COULTER: I would say she is an authentic American the way most members of the media are not, that certainly Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd do not represent the average American. She has a blue collar union-card-holding husband. She can go and be comfortable in very many parts of the country where Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich would never deign to visit, much less be comfortable.
SMITH: These are the people who might necessarily be critical of some of the things she has to say.
COUTLER: Yes, they certainly were.
SMITH: We’re just – we’re just fleshing this out for the rest of the audience. And my – my question is, though, in the end, is – does she represent in her philosophy, in her, say, support base, does that represent the future of the party?
COULTER: It’s certainly a part of the future, but, I mean, I don’t – it’s not like I’m supporting her for president. I don’t know who our president is going to be. I don’t know if conservatives do. I think she is a very powerful voice for conservatism and wow she has a lot of appeal out in America. And the camera loves her. I mean, I think that has a lot to do with the hatred for her. I think any liberal male took his life in his hands for saying, ‘well, I’d never vote for her, but, boy, she’s attractive.’ Woah.
SMITH: Alright, last but not least, guess who’s book is out in paper, right? There it is.
COULTER: This weekend. Oh, I discuss the media’s treatment of Palin in here.
SMITH: I remember that. I remember our conversation about that. Alright, Ann Coulter, good to see you.
COULTER: Good to see you.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
No Party ID on ABC for Imprisoned Jefferson; CBS Skips Sentencing
Former Congressman William Jefferson, the New Orleans Democrat with bribery cash hidden in his freezer, was sentenced Friday to 13 years in prison, the longest-ever for a Member of Congress on a corruption charge — yet the CBS Evening News didn’t utter a word about it, just as that newscast ignored his August conviction, while ABC’s World News didn’t bother to mention his party affiliation.
NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams noted Jefferson’s party in this short item: “Former Louisiana Democratic Congressman William Jefferson made headlines a while back when the FBI found $90,000 in cash hidden in his freezer. Today, he was sentenced to 13 years in prison for taking bribes.”
ABC’s Charles Gibson, however, the MRC’s Brad Wilmouth noticed, failed to identify Jefferson as a Democrat: “Former Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson has been sentenced to 13 years in prison for his conviction on federal bribery charges. Authorities found $90,000 wrapped in foil in Jefferson’s freezer, part of the half million dollars prosecutors say he received for using his influence to broker business deals in Africa.”This reticence to name Jefferson’s party isn’t anything new.
From August 6, “Nets Take Turns Failing to ID Convicted Democrat William Jefferson”
On Thursday, all three network morning news programs reported the conviction of former Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson on bribery charges, but only NBC’s Today identified him as a Democrat. CBS’s Early Show and ABC’s Good Morning America simply referred to him as a “former Congressman.”
From August 5, “After Guilty Verdicts, NBC Fails to ID Jefferson’s Party Affiliation”
Wednesday’s NBC Nightly News devoted a full minute to the guilty convictions for bribery, racketeering and wire fraud against former nine-term Louisiana Democratic Congressman William Jefferson, but failed to name his political party.
ABC’s Charles Gibson mentioned Jefferson’s party in a brief World News item. The CBS Evening News didn’t air anything about Jefferson’s convictions which were announced just under an hour before the 6:30 PM EDT feeds of the newscasts shown in the eastern and central time zones, though Couric did manage to highlight how “Giants quarterback Eli Manning agreed today to a six-year deal for $97 million, making him the highest-paid player ever in the NFL.”
From May 22, 2006, “Borger Spins Democrat’s Corruption Into Bad News for Both Parties”
Gloria Borger concluded her Monday CBS Evening News story on the FBI’s weekend confiscation of cash from a freezer in Louisiana Democratic Congressman William Jefferson’s home by declaring a pox on both parties: “At a time when 77 percent of the American public believes that all members of Congress take bribes, Congressman Jefferson’s troubles help no one in either party.”
Unlike ABC anchor Elizabeth Vargas and NBC anchor Campbell Brown who noted Jefferson’s party affiliation in their story introductions, CBS’s Bob Schieffer managed to set up Borger’s report without identifying Jefferson’s party: “The government says FBI agents videotaped Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson taking $100,000 in cash from an informant and later found $90,000 in his home freezer.” Borger did subsequently identify Jefferson as a Democrat.
— Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
Report: Liberal Dem George Stephanopoulos Edging Out Liberal Dem Chris Cuomo for Anchor Slot
The Daily Beast on Friday reported that former Democratic aide turned journalist George Stephanopoulos has now pulled ahead of ex-Democratic Governor Mario Cuomo’s son, Chris Cuomo, in the race to become the new co-host of Good Morning America. Correspondent Rebecca Dana quoted an ABC source as saying, “It’s George’s now to lose.”
Dana added, “That both contenders are associated with prominent Democrats has helped to add a campaign vibe to the contest for Sawyer’s anchor chair.” She then gossiped, “There is a rumor floating around ABC that Mario Cuomo has placed some calls on his son’s behalf…” (Chris Cuomo is also the brother of New York state’s current Democratic attorney general.)
If Stephanopoulos does become the new host of GMA, there would potentially be an opening at his old show, This Week. The Daily Beast asserted that the contenders are Jake Tapper and Nightline co-host Terry Moran, a well known liberal. On February 20, 2009, Moran famously provided this over-the-top comparison between Barack Obama and George Washington: “I like to say that, in some ways, Barack Obama is the first President since George Washington to be taking a step down into the Oval Office.”
A few years earlier, on November 6, 2006, Moran rhapsodized about then-Senator Obama:
TERRY MORAN: You can see it in the crowds. The thrill, the hope. How they surge toward him. You’re looking at an American political phenomenon. In state after state, in the furious final days of this crucial campaign, Illinois Senator Barack Obama has been the Democrat’s not-so-secret get-out-the-vote weapon. He inspires the party faithful and many others, like no one else on the scene today…And the question you can sense on everyone’s mind, as they listen so intently to him, is he the one? Is Barack Obama the man, the black man, who could lead the Democrats back to the White House and maybe even unite the country?
Current GMA host Diane Sawyer will be leaving in January to become the host of World News.
To read a recap of Stephanopoulos’ most egregious bias, check out the Media Research Center’s Profile in Bias.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.
Time’s Von Drehle: Obama’s Ft. Hood Speech Ruined by Too Much TV Analysis
Here we go again: a liberal journalist feeling Barack Obama’s pain, that he would be instantly judged by the media. Wait, the Obama-mythologizing, pinch-me-history-is-happening media? Yes. Time Senior Writer David Von Drehle wrote an article titled “Obama’s Fort Hood Speech: Lost in Translation.” Von Drehle compared it to…the Gettysburg Address:
Lincoln was lucky. His speech at Gettysburg wasn’t televised, and so he wasn’t subjected to hours of commentary in advance of his address, setting expectations, or hours after his speech, analyzing his every word.
No one tried to tease out the difference between his “Commander in Chief moment” and his “pastor-in-chief role,” as various TV pundits undertook to do while waiting for President Barack Obama to speak at a memorial service Tuesday for the men and women killed last week in the massacre at Fort Hood. Televised speeches now come larded in so much analysis, before and after, that it becomes almost impossible to connect with them in a genuine, visceral way.
Time magazine is beating its collective breast: we are not the makers of glorious Obama history! We are the blabby pundits that prevent a “genuine, visceral” connection with Obama’s eloquence!
Von Drehle seems to wish that everyone was like C-SPAN and just transmitted President Obama without any annoying commentary that might diminish his stature:
Today, everything is a set piece of some kind, framed as a recapitulation of a familiar form. Former Bush speechwriter and now columnist Michael Gerson was just one of many voices filling the empty air with comparisons of Obama’s yet-to-be speech with the words of George W. Bush after 9/11, of Bill Clinton after the Oklahoma City bombing, of Ronald Reagan after the Challenger explosion. And every set piece is political, whether it should be or not, as we learned from the repeated observation that Obama’s speech would be a sort of prelude to his awaited decision on strategy and troop levels in the Afghanistan war.
Von Drehle lamented what he feared the public had missed: “Obama’s speech was somber and concise. He spoke of the dead as individuals, which was sorrowful, and also as exemplars, which was inspiring. He made some points well worth making.” But television just ruins it, dragging Obama’s soaring speeches down to the pedestrian depths of political chatter. We are critics, not citizens:
Simple truths are often the best. But even these, on television, come swimming now against a current of expectations: Is this line a signal about future troop levels? Is that paragraph a veiled play for bipartisan support on health care? Is the tone appropriately pastoral in this section and sufficiently martial in the next? TV’s original power was its immediacy, its you-are-there quality. More and more, it seeks instead to mediate. A nation of citizens is invited to become a culture of critics.
For this reason, distant viewers were even more removed from the estimated 15,000 soldiers and civilians who gathered under clear Texas skies to hear the prayers, hymns and speeches in person. While their grief was more hard-earned, their experience was more authentic. They waited for the beginning of the service in appropriate silence — a fact the television commentators could hardly stop talking about.
Von Drehle skipped over the fact that two broadcast network news divisions thought the “prayers, hymns, and speeches” at Fort Hood were all un-newsworthy except for Obama’s remarks.
— Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Facebook comments: