Today Show's Katie Couric slanders Democrats--Update

For the second time in a week, Katie Couric illustrates the right-wing bias in the media.  This AM in her interview with Howard Dean, she adamantly repeated Rove & Co.'s assertion that Democrats as well as Republicans have taken Abramoff money.  When Dean protested, she got tense and said it would have to be looked into and shared with all the Today Show viewers.  
Write to Today and tell them that they need to do that, fairly and objectively, and present the truth on the air, along with her retraction and apology for slandering all the Democrats with charges of corruption. Contact her at msnbc.msn.com or [e-mail]. Or you can call 212-664-4249. (You can also watch a video clip at msnbc.msn.com.)

The Today Show is important, because it has the highest ratings of any show on tv, and it is watched by people who otherwise pay little attention to what the news networks are saying. Also, people trust Katie Couric.  She's betraying their trust by repeating lies, and needs to be called on it.  
The corporate media and the major news networks have become incredibly biased, and no one except bloggers and certain liberal publications (The Nation is excellent) are speaking up about it.  They are a huge part of the problem liberal Democrats are having in getting their message out.  When they must spend the precious little air time they receive answering baseless charges, how can they help but appear defensive and hapless?
This bias needs to be slammed whenever it appears, until the media realizes that "we, the people" are tired of being manipulated and misled.  It's time to take our country back, and that starts with insisting those with the incredibly crucial role of reporting what's going on do so with integrity and respect for the truth. UPDATE: This morning, January 27, on Today, NBC news put Tim Russert on to speak about the controversy over the Abramoff scandal. Matt Lauer handled the interview, not Katie Couric. Russert stated that Democrats become "raging mad" when it is stated that it is a Republican scandal. They aired a film clip taken from yesterday's show, in which Dean states the Democrats did not take a dime from Abramoff. Then Russert goes on to undercut the point Dean made by saying he was only "technically" accurate. Translation: Dean was right, completely, irrefutably, but let's not come out and say that. It would seem to most people that whether Abramoff gave money to some Democrat, for the purpose of influencing that Congressman's vote or not, is in fact a crucial distinction. But not, I guess, to the folks at NBC. Russert goes on to say that Abramoff's "associates" gave money to Democrats and then they helpfully put up a graphic with an elephant on one side and a donkey on the other, with arrows pointing to both. See folks, the subtext is, they're both guilty as sin. And that was the end of it. The Republicans must have been cheering. No background, no context, just a conclusion Tim Russert has drawn from his examination of "the facts." And this is how the corporate media operates. Because we let it.

•  The important thing is that Dean kicked

  her ass.  She looked so uncomfortable when he said, "And we've looked at the FEC records that prove it."  The "we'll have to look into it" was just an attempt at a face-saving cut and run.  

  I thought Dean was very good this morning.  Clear, concise, no "well, you have to realize...."  Just yes, no, you've got it wrong.

  I was not a big fan of Dean the presidential candidate, but except for a few minor missteps here and there, he's turning out to be a damn good DNC chair -- leagues ahead of the last one!

  by litigatormom on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 05:12:49 AM PDT

  •  You're right

    I forgot to mention Dean was great.  

    by CarolynC967 on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 05:19:28 AM PDT

    •  I'm considering this your tip jar....

      ....and giving you a 4!!!!

      by MariaSquared on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 05:25:08 AM PDT

      •  I second that.

        NBC is owned by General Electric (80%). That should tell you right there who is paying Katie to lie.

        GE has some of the largest and well funded lobbyists in the world. They pour in billions to lobby for their toxic crap.  They also fund predominately Republican candidates. (Oh, I am sure Lieberman gets some too.)

        In 2004 they contributed $1.9 billion to campaigns.

        In return they get all kinds of perks like $2.8 billion in defense contracts in 2003.

        http://www.corpwatch.org/...

        "Those that would give up essential liberty in pursuit of a little temporary
        security deserve neither liberty nor security."

        Benjamin Franklin

        by nonconreformer on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 03:11:48 PM PDT

        •  well, katie and matt (and al) are not journalists

          or reporters... they are infotainment all the way.  not that i think that much of barbara walters one way or the other, but at least she drew a line!  matt was on will and grace's live episode and katie has i believe been on stuff before...  kinda 'taints' them if you ask me.  i do watch the today show....  but that's because of the fluff stuff... i don't take their 'serious' seriously frankly.  

          by ejpoeta on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 04:58:18 PM PDT

          •  Yes, and if you watched Jon Stewart

            then we all know where the Republican taint is.
            Just between the Washington Monument and the Pentagon.

            by epluribus on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:55:13 PM PDT

        •  Capital Eye uses faulty methodology

          and admits that there may be no connection to Abramoff in many of the "contributions" they list. They have removed a number of names from their list, mostly Democrats, but it looks like they won't make a correction unless someone who stands "accused" gets in touch with them to explain the error. This means that every Democrat on their list who accepted a legal campaign contribution from an Indian tribe that Abramoff robbed will remain on that blasted list unless they do something about it themselves. The Capital Eye FAQ page makes this pretty clear, and if Couric's staff didn't look any further than the summary of contributions, which is very misleading, and didn't even read the FAQ page for clarification, then it was easy to misstate the case. Howard Dean needs to address this problem with Capital Eye, and so do the Dems who who have been tainted by this sloppy methodology.

          It also doesn't help that one has to click under a name to see who actually gave that person a contribution, and that every Democrat they listed received legal campaign contributions from Indian Tribes, none from Abramoff. This is the worst case of glib and massive guilt by association I have ever seen. They just took the raw data that they received from the FEC and melded it into one summary report, without checking anything. I wrote to Capital Eye (parent organization is the Center for Responsive Politics) yesterday (copy here) to complain, and I hope others will keep up the pressure to have them revise their methodology. If they don't, these same erroneous messages will continue to go out through the media. Write to them here: [e-mail].

          by martyc35 on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 06:43:25 AM PDT

    •  CarolynC, you did a good job

      explaining why people should really respond to "reporters" like Katie Couric when they make blatant attempts to defy the truth of the matter.

      Katie is either very checked out where it comes to the facts or she is on the payroll.  Either way she should be called out because she is considered a "trusted source" for a great many Americans.

      by inclusiveheart on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:30:52 AM PDT

      •  Overpaid and lazy..

        is more like it.

        by sandmancan on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:42:13 AM PDT

        •  Ironic

          Overpaid, sure, but Couric asked tough and sometimes hostile questions -- which Dean was mostly very effective at batting back -- and asked followup questions to boot that were based on Dean's responses.

          In other words, she looks great compared to Tim Russert, who exploits "gotcha" moments, lamely tried to tie Harry Belafonte to Obama (skin color alert!) and blithely let Dick Cheney claim that Iraq had nuclear weapons without batting an eye or asking for a clarifiation.

          Her tone was fairly hostile, but I'd rather that be the case than blithely letting comments slide unchallenged. In my view, because she actively questioned the point about the Abramoff money, it helped Dean state more strongly that Democrats didn't take any dough -- "Not one dime!" -- from the slush funds.  (I kept saying that to myself all morning: "Not one dime!")

          If we could just get all journalists to parry with politicians of all parties like that, I'd be a more satisfied man.

          by sakitume on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:01:20 AM PDT

          •  Yep..

            I agree. She got flustered because she clearly had not taken the time to be informed on the issue.  Lazy.

            But, philosophically, if a good idea always needs to be best appreciated in juxtaposition to a bad one - or in this case laying out the Republican charge for Dean to effectively sweep away, then that's a positive.

            by sandmancan on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:11:33 AM PDT

            •  too spoiled, "normal" and unpleasant.

              My wife and I can't stand her. We call her skeletor.

              by sooner on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 11:26:58 AM PDT

          •  working the refs

            It doesn't matter if she is better than someone else.  We need to adopt the GOP's strategy of making the lives of reporters miserable under they are so afraid of us they start playing by our rules.  The goal isn't to ensure that our activism is equitably distributed.  The goal is to win.

            by captainebo on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:44:22 AM PDT

            •  truth

              "We need to adopt the GOP's strategy of making the lives of reporters miserable under they are so afraid of us they start playing by our rules. "

              Nail, meet the hammer.  

              Although I know it's a tiny thing, I've been visiting companies that advertise on Chicago's Salem Radio Network (Bennett, Savage, Medved, Ingraham, Hewitt, etc).  I calmly explain to them that as long as they support hate speech and outright lies, not only will I never buy their products, but I will make every effort to convince everyone I know not to use their products.  It all started when one of WIND-AM radio's salesmen called me to see if a company in which I'm  involved wanted to advertise on their station.  At first, I just said "no" and ended the call, but later I called the salesman back and gave him a thorough explanation of why I could never buy an ad on his station.  I don't know if he ever had that kind of response before, but he sounded stunned, and told me it sounded as if I was advocating censorship.  I didn't want to have to explain life to this guy, so I just pointed out that on various shows on his network, his hosts have advocated boycotting everything from newspapers to CNN to movies, other radio shows, even Google stock.  I also explained that if he was going to sucessfully sell ads on that station he was going to have to get used to a significant percentage of his potential customers feeling the same way I do.

              The media is afraid of the Right, and it's time to let them know that we have muscle, too.

              by nittacci on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:26:42 AM PDT

            •  How correct you are!

               Our goal is to win.

              by lyvwyr101 on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:09:57 AM PDT

          •  Katie Couric is a first class hack...

            ...and the reason we have to push back against her is that CBS is courting her to become the new anchor for CBS Evening News.

            I think she probably doesn't do any of her own research or writing anymore.  She just parrots what's put in front of her, unquestioningly.  

            I'm sorry, I'm not buying her "tough" act.  Has she been that tough with the Republicans?  She probably just lets them spin their "but everyone is doing it" storyline.

            I saw this live this morning, and was praying someone would make a stink about it.

            NBC will be hearing from me, that's for sure.

            by Exurban Mom on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:19:43 AM PDT

            •  & that's the issue

              do you slap her back down & hope she'll retreat & apolgize or stay quiet (former ain't happen i think)?

              or do you push her to stay agressive but to be agressive to everyone?

              i'd rather have the latter but i'm with on cussing her out if she deserves it.

              i don't watch her enough (or american news) to know if she's a hack or just another photogenic face for the camera who reads what's in front of her.

              well, i suppose that's a hack but much more diplomatically stated.

              i still wonder if we can't convince her to be agressive with everybody.  

              Bush, What Price Did You Pay?

              by krazypuppy on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:32:50 AM PDT

            •  asdf

              Don't forget her infamous "Navy Seals rule!" moment in Farenheit 9/11.

              I can't believe that the person who uttered that bit of chirpy cheerleading might be occupying  Cronkite's seat.

              Jeez.

              by saucy monkey on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:33:07 AM PDT

              •  A 4 ..

                for "chirpy cheerleading"! Absolute dead-on characterization of Ms. Couric. If journalism students want to know why the credibility of their future profession is careening to levels below those historically reserved for used car sales reps, they only need to take a look at the male (Matt Lauer) and female (Katie Couric) bobble-heads on the Today Show to know why.

                by dicta on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:47:31 AM PDT

                •  Parallel Thoughts

                  
                  My email to Today (entire thing printed in some comment below) says almost word-for-word what you just wrote -- only you applied it to journalism students, and I applied it to the "major networks and newspapers."  Great minds think alike.

                  I wrote:

                  
                  "The major networks and papers wonder why their integrity and trustworthiness are increasingly coming under fire.  It's people like Ms. Couric who are the answer to your own question."
                  

                   BenGoshi
                  ___________________

                  by BenGoshi on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:23:34 AM PDT

                  •  My Email to Today

                    FACT:
                    Indian tribes LEGALLY donate money to political representatives and lobbyists, both Democrat and Republican.  

                    FACT:
                    Jack Abramoff, as a paid political lobbyist for some Indian tribes, has embezzled money from and wrongly used that position to illegally launder money for Republicans ONLY, increased the amount of Indian donations to Republicans ONLY, PERSONALLY sent money to Republicans ONLY, and has pled guilty to such acts in federal court.  

                    FACT:
                    Abramoff also REDUCED the amount of money these Indian tribes LEGALLY provided to Democratic Congress members.

                    FACT:
                    Katie Couric is wrong and uninformed to say that Jack Abramoff has "provided money to Democrats as well as Republicans" and owes her viewers a clear and distinct retraction, correction, and apology.

                    And those of you in the traditional, corporate media (newspapers, radio, and television) wonder why you've lost the Trust of the American Public.  It's because entirely too many of the most prominent spokespersons for said media are either blatant Republican shills, and are lazy and/or incompetent and/or unwilling to do the necessary research and fact-finding.

                    Name and address

                    by vmibran on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 10:41:09 AM PDT

                  •  Jeepers.

                    I haven't blushed so much since Jodi Johnson kissed me on the cheek in 4th grade. Anyway, thanks for the compliment and here's an electronic pat on the back for you too ... 'pat, pat'

                    by dicta on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 11:59:40 AM PDT

            •  hackery, that makes NBC look like a student cable

              production. But wait, that's an insult to student cable productions. She's made the show unwatchable.

              I know the show is geared towards women, but I know that women actually need factual information, too.

              I would like to see Media Matters put together the Katie Couric montage of nasty to lefties, and only lefties. She nearly spat venom at Micheal Moore. This tough guy act she puts on is pure BS. I was done looking forward to finding out something new on the Today Show years ago.
              

              by kazoo of the north on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:35:51 AM PDT

            •  Here's where to write:

              [e-mail]

              by Exurban Mom on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:38:45 AM PDT

            •  Yes

              And she seemed downright hostile to Howard Dean.

              Is it fair to assume that Katie is a Republican?

              by turning blue on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:57:32 AM PDT

              •  I don't know about her.

                But her sister, Emily Couric, was a Democratic Party stalwart in Virginia until she died in 2001.

                by HellofaSandwich on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:30:42 AM PDT

              •  I doubt she votes at all

                too confusing!

                by AMcG826 on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 12:01:36 PM PDT

              •  No, I think Katie's a Democrat

                Remember all the nasty things Barbara Bush has said about "that Katie Couric"? (like her name is a dirty word)

                I think that in this day and age news anchors and especially show hosts are told what to say and how to convey it.  

                The big dogs tell them who the guests will be, they tell them what the guest will say, and they "suggest" a line of questioning to pursue.  Katie and her ilk are mere magpies.  She doesn't have much leeway as long as she chooses to collect her $13 mil a year paycheck.  I think she does her best to get in her swipes at the Republicans when she can, but she's just not all that deep.  She's perky instead.  

                And from the street gossip, I hear she's a real terror behind the scenes, going through aides, assistants, and hair/makeup people at a breakneck pace.  With a boss like that, I'd not be surprised if someone deliberately chose to provide her with less than complete talking points for her interview with Howard Dean.

                by busternjake on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 03:26:25 PM PDT

            •  My Email to Today

              Dear Today:

              Whatever happened to just interviewing someone?  Or, in other words, is Ms. Couric capable of conducting any interview without wearing her Right Wing politics on her sleeve?  If she cannot resist the temptation to repeat Rovian Lying Points (to wit:  "Well, Democrats took Abramoff money, too!"), then do you think she could be shown the door and given an application for Fox "News"?  Just a thought.

              The major networks and papers wonder why their integrity and trustworthiness are increasingly coming under fire.  It's people like Ms. Couric who are the answer to your own question.

              Sincerely,

              BenGoshi's Real Name
              Address
              Phone
              _________________

              by BenGoshi on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:16:55 AM PDT

            •  Worse than mere hack.

              Several years ago interviewing a man about genealogies:

              Man: For example, your relatives come from France.

              Couric: No, my relatives come from from Brittany.

              Cut to man looking like, what the hell am I talking to?

              She replaced Deborah Norville who was the dumb blond. But Norville, like most TV hosts of either sex, was passively dumb. Couric is aggressive-in-your-face-dumb. Reallly unbearable.

              Plus she looks like Ceasar Romero as the Joker on the Batman TV show.

              by Julian on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:44:00 AM PDT

              •  Brittany is IN France,

                but natives of Brittany are as French as Basques are Spanish. Brittany is Celtic, with strong cultural and linguistic ties to the Welsh.

                France may have swallowed up Brittany, as the United States swallowed up Native American land, but Brittany is culturally and linguistically distinct from France.

                Not defending Couric on the larger issues, but I can totally understand why someone whose family is from Brittany would take exception to being told that their relatives are from "France."

                by zerocrossing on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 10:50:44 AM PDT

                •  Buut the sentance began

                  "for example".... he could have siad from MARs and she would have said, "no, I'm from VENUS"! Obviously there was a communication problem with a reporter who's major was most likely.... COMMUNICATION.

                  by pinkpanther on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 11:33:41 AM PDT

                  •  So it was a hypothetical?

                    I didn't gather that from your original post. You wrote:

                    "Man: For example, your relatives come from France.
                    Couric: No, my relatives come from from Brittany."

                    Even with the "For example," it sounds (given no other context) as if he's stating a fact about her family, not a hypothetical.

                    But I take it that he was actually saying: "For example, let's say that your relatives come from France." Is that a fair recap of the exchange?

                    by zerocrossing on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 12:16:09 PM PDT

                  •  Nothing wrong with that

                    She's not incorrect.  If you said, "for example, your family's from Mars", she wouldn't be incorrect in saying, "no, my family's from Earth".  It's not a hypothetical without using something like "if".

                    Also, I think the correction is valid.  I have ancestors from Alsace-Lorraine.  Depending on the time, that part of Europe belonged to either France or Germany.  If you were speaking of the lineage from that area, it would actually be inaccurate to refer to the people there as Germans since at some point they were politically part of France (and later, vice-versa) and are ethnically some mixture of Northern European.  It would be different if you selected a particular time period or were referring to their ethnicity.

                    by ergowa on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 12:45:02 PM PDT

              •  I agree with your characterization...

                of Katie's response, since he did indeed say, "For example, ...".

                For her to just interrupt, as if correcting him, although he made it clear that this was merely an example, just makes her look clueless and ridiculous.  (I would have made a face, too!)

                (I mean, for me, an appropriate back-and-forth might have been something along the lines of: "For example, let's say your relatives come from France..."  Then, she would (I hope) interject: "But, of course, my family comes from Brittany."  
                Then, he could say something like: "Yes, of course"...
                Granted, I would have definitely added the "let's say..." after "for example" for precision's sake, but that's just me.)

                Jim
                Seattle

                by DemInSeattle on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 03:19:34 AM PDT

          •  excellent comment

            i was ready to rant at Couric but I think I agree with your point.

            we DO need an agressive press & it's that lack of one that has aided the degeneration of politicians of both parties.

            Dick Cheney knows he can push these guys around & make them parrot his talking points.  If someone would JUST CHALLENGE the fucker once, maybe we wouldn't have a crook for VP & better people in government.

            i've been thinking about our press since reading The Daou Report yesterday.  living in canada I was used to agressive, sound journalism.

            the parrots that we have today are not only repugnant - but they fail their central function in democracy - a function that the founding fathers found so important that they codified it in the Constitution:

            The Press is failing its duty to investigate & give the people the truth - whatever the political impact of that truth

            I frankly have no problem with Couric challenging Dean & Democrats.  If it makes them better public officials, then good.  Challenge the F*** out of them!

            I'm a Darwinist.  It'll weed out the weaker politicians.  

            instead of attacking Katie Couric & thereby alienating her, I'm wondering about the whole "guide their aggressiveness" approach.

            honey rather than the stick (altho ya keep the stick just in case)?
            

            Bush, What Price Did You Pay?

            by krazypuppy on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:26:08 AM PDT

            •  "Aggressiveness" is not the issue

              Most of us on this website don't object to agressiveness if it's fair-minded.  What passes for media these days is anything but.  I see it over and over and over again.  This adminstration's apologists are never seriously confronted with their contradictions or misstatement of fact.  When they spew personal invective it is almost never challenged.
               BTW, Ms. Couric resorted to making a statement about both sides slinging mud and the American people being tired of that.  Excuse me?  Hello?  The Democrats can't wipe the mud off fast enough to grab any to throw back.  And most of them are too decent to do so.  Unlike the other side, who appear to know no shame whatsoever.  

              by CarolynC967 on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:13:36 AM PDT

              •  i agree with ya

                there's definitely been a double standard.

                as for being to decent, i don't think it's about decency.

                it's not indecent to challenge someone (GOPers or journalists) to check the facts & we Dems haven't done that enough.

                we've allowed people to Swiftboat us & we need to sharpen ourselves & fight back effectively.

                i definitely think Couric was out of her league & speaking stuff fed to her by her staff (who are these guys btw?  they have alot of power).

                if we can pounce on their statements, we can turn the interview from something negative to a chance for us to show the american people that we've got the backbone & facts to led.

                Bush, What Price Did You Pay?

                by krazypuppy on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:54:16 AM PDT

              •  Slinging mud

                Yeah, Couric's framing of the question came out of right field, so to speak.  Lame.  Unless, of course, she was basically inviting Dean to point out that concerns about the spying program run across the political spectrum -- from Gore and Feingold to Barr and Specter -- which I wish Dean had done (though he did a good job on the "obeying the law is not partisan" angle).

                Since I rarely watch the morning lose-weight 'n' fashion blabfests, I've no idea if Couric is an administration apologist or a Republican -- but then, as Tweety sadly demonstrates, you can be a Dem and still be an apologist boot-licker.

                by sakitume on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 10:14:00 AM PDT

            •  I'd be fine with that

              If only she were being equally aggressive to Republican guests. She only unsheaths her claws when she's interviewing Democrats.

              But then again, one of America's largest defense contractors signs her paychecks.

              by saucy monkey on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 11:05:49 AM PDT

          •  What was worse about Russert

            was it took him 9 months to call Cheney on that lie.  Cheney's reply was "Yeah, I mis-spoke" and he let it go at that.  How about, "You mis-spoke, and had 9 frickin' months to set the record straight, but you didn't.  Care to explain that, Dick?"

            by frsbdg on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:43:10 AM PDT

            •  Just proves Rove's point

              I have a deck of cards I got in Sante Fe at the Hemp store which puts the faces of the Bush Administration on them with a comment or quote, Rove's quote; "As people do better, they vote like republicans_unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing."

              Cheney, Rove et al think that the majority of Americans are too lazy or dumb to pay any attention to when or what they say long term. That's why they will say something today and next week are caught in a lie they will deny they ever made the original statement or claim it was taken out of context. And for the most part they get away with it (except here and MediaMatters etc.).

              by TexDem on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 10:30:48 AM PDT

        •  WRONG!

          You are wrong if you think Couric did this just because she's lazy.

          NBC is owned by GE.  GE is a major defense contractor, and has made a lot of money from the Republican wars of the last few years.

          Back during the 2004 campaigns, reports showing the bias of the various networks usually had NBC as second only to FOX in their bias towards the Republican campaign.

          When spokespeople on a network favor the Republicans over the Democratics, IT IS NOT ACCIDENTAL.  And its not just "laziness" on the part of the on-air-personality.

          Also, its not accidental that the most biased and slanted Sunday morning news show is also Tim Russert on MSNBC.

          Also, its not accidental that Chris Mathews and his anti-Democrat, anti-Bush-opponent slanders are on MSNBC.

          I see Democrats making this mistake over and over again.  They keep thinking that the pro-Republican bias in the media is somehow an accident, or a mistake.  Its not!  Take a look at who owns the media and the patterns of this across lots of shows and you'll see very plainly its not accidental.

          Now, I'm not against pointing out the bias.  I think that's vitally important.  That's a key education job that the opponents to the Republicans need to do.  They need to do it because you can be sure this same bias will be very clearly in view in the last week before the fall elections (especially if the Democrats look like they are taking control of a house).  And we need to innoculate as many of our supporters as we can to be immune from that when the time comes.  

          And we do need to write to NBC and call them on it.  I don't expect them to be fair.  But they want to project the illusion of fairness, so we need to call them on it.  Also, one of their excuses for unfairness is all the complaints they get from the right, so we need to balance it when we can.

          But don't make the mistake of thinking this was just laziness on the part of Couric.  She wouldn't be in that chair if she couldn't be counted on to project the views that GE wants on the air.

          by COBear on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 10:11:28 AM PDT

          •  ..well...

            ..maybe.  Now I did write to Today, but I still think part of the problem with the traditional media - including Couric - is that they enjoy being celebrities and quasi-entertainers, and don't work hard enough at being journalists.  When they actually are fair - they get hit hard from the Right.  So, they are perpetually caught trying to react in a way that rebalances them between fair and Right, rather than just being fair.

            by sandmancan on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 11:23:05 AM PDT

          •  Exactly, and it's not just NBC and MSNBC

            Here's a list of media owned by General Electric:

            NBC Universal (80%-owned by GE, 20% controlled by Vivendi Universal)

            Television
            NBC Stations:

            WNBC - New York
            KNBC - Los Angeles
            WMAQ - Chicago
            WCAU - Philadelphia
            KNTV - San Jose/San Francisco
            KXAS - Dallas/Fort Worth
            WRC - Washington
            WTVJ - Miami
            KNSD - San Diego
            WVIT - Hartford
            WNCN - Raleigh
            WCMH - Columbus
            WVTM - Birmingham
            WJAR - Providence

            Telemundo Stations:

            KVEA/KWHY - Los Angeles
            WNJU - New York
            WSCV - Miami
            KTMD - Houston
            WSNS - Chicago
            KXTX - Dallas/Fort Worth
            KVDA - San Antonio
            KSTS - San Jose/San Francisco
            KDRX - Phoenix
            KNSO - Fresno
            KMAS - Denver
            WNEU - Boston/Merrimack
            KHRR - Tucson
            WKAQ - Puerto Rico

            NBC Universal Television Studio
            NBC Universal Television Distribution

            CNBC
            MSNBC
            Bravo
            Mun2TV
            Sci-Fi
            Trio
            USA

            Film
            Universal Pictures

            Parks
            Universal Parks & Resorts

            Other
            Paxson Communications (30%)

            Especially noteworthy are the flagship NBC stations in so many large cities, and the Spanish-language Telemundo stations in so many large cities.

            Source http://www.cjr.org/...

            For a third-party investors views on GE and war profits, see "If You Believe In War Buy GE" at the Prudent Investor. A quote:

            As long as the Pentagon is supplied with government monies to keep the guns in Iraq red hot, GE can expect to pipeline a good share of it into its cash register. Remember the phrase computer wars the Pentagon likes so much. Remotely controlled war machines are the rage of the war-future. The Pentagon is believed to have awarded research contracts for war-robots at an amount of 127 billion $, making it the biggest-funded research project ever. NASA research figures look like the collection in a beggar's hat in comparison.

            Right now, GE is the most egregious example of corporate control over large media outlets resulting in viewpoints that benefit that corporation rather than the American public. And seeing what' happening right now, over the last few weeks, it's getting even worse.

            by bewert on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 11:46:46 AM PDT

          •  You're so RIGHT, COBear

            Watched the clip on Crooks and Liars -- she's reading the questions, not just blithering away happy morning chat style.  The questions were prepared in advance.  Scripted.  Work went into what NBC chose to do this morning.

            If she didn't write the script, she certainly looked it over before air time because she's not surprised by what she finds herself saying.  She's forceful and deliberate.  Belligerent, even.

            Fairly far along, she stops looking down, takes off her glasses, and shakes out her hair.  She thinks she's moving in for the kill.  But no, Dean stands his ground, one crisply delivered fact after another and another and another.  When her questions are based on Republican strawmen, he uses them as springboards to the real issue behind them and just keeps laying down the truth instead of taking her bait.

            Hugely funny that she actually says to that man, Well, Carville and Begala, and they're such Dems, right?, even they say Dems need to get some spine.  What do you say about THAT, fella?

            At that point, Dean's spine had been much in evidence already, so it comes off as a weird question as phrased.  If she had not been just reading the script she might have cooed, Well, you've got a rep for being a pretty fiesty fella, but Carville and Begala think the Dems need more spine.  Who's too spineless for you and what are you doing about Lieber--, ummm, I mean, doing about them?  

            But no, she reads him a question that implies he's spineless as though she was unaware of the obviously spiney answers he'd already given to her other questions.  She's not listening to his side of the interview, she's just energetically performing her side of the interview.  

            And hers were not probing or tough questions -- they were more like hollow insults, sneers.  She seemed to expect him to crumble before her bluster, which again is a little weird, given how Dean took down Blitzer the other day on that same "Dems took Abramoff money too" crap (never mind Deborah Howell's howls of "genteel" indignation when the same GOP talking point blew the om off her budsman).  

            Whether Couric wrote the script or someone else did, they sure as hell didn't have NBC's best interests as a news provider at heart.  Put me in mind of GE CEO (and big-time GOP contributor) Jack Welch's having ordered NBC News to retract its initial announcement that Gore had carried Florida, making NBC the second network (after Fox) to declare a Bush win in 2000.

            Welch's move was good for the Rovians, but not for NBC.  Though he's retired (with a mountain of goodies), his spirit lingers.
            

            by KateCrashes on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 10:07:59 PM PDT

      •  Sent a Letter

        laying out some facts for them, expressing my disappointment in her obvious lack of preparation, and asking, with the Abramoff Cabal's total dedication to electing Republicans, how she and others could think for a moment that they would do anything--anything whatsoever-to help elect a Dem.  Goes to motive, Your Honor.  

        Problem w/ol' Turdblossom is, he doesn't seem to always think through his lies to their ultimate conclusion, so, while they seem ok to some at first, they ultimately have about the shelf-life of a bucket of warm spit.  

        Maybe he's just a little distracted by all of that indictment stuff....

        by serrano on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:04:38 AM PDT

        •  My letter to Katie

          Katie-

          I've watched the Today Show since the days of Jane Pauley, and Katie, you're no Jane Pauley.

          I was embarrassed for you during your interview with Howard Dean.  I was pretty surprised that you parroted the same tired spin Wolf Blitzer tried when he repeated the false GOP claim that Democrats took Abramoff money.

          As a longtime Today show viewer, I fully support your plan to "investigate" whether this is true.  Of course, had you done your homework by looking at FEC records  before the show, you would KNOW this was true and have no need to look into it.

          Disappointing.  Are you lacking for research assistants?  My son (very smart kid) is graduating from college and needs a job.  Just let me know.

          A fan of the show

          Paul R
          Queens, NY

          by pawlr on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:16:22 AM PDT

          •  and mine:

            I must tell you that my wife is an avid Today Show watcher - we have watched it every single morning for at least the past 4-5 years or so.  However, in recent months, Katie Couric has become sloppy, arrogant, disingenuous and erroneous in her stories and reporting.  She is the sole reason that, starting with 2 weeks ago, we have switched to watching Good Morning America instead of the Today Show.

            I must say that the reporting there is much less biased and more accurate than Katie's sensationalism and bias against Democrats and the truth.

            Once again, I happened to switch channels and caught her "interview" with Howard Dean and her mindless parroting of Republican lies and talking points absolutely ruined her credibility, made your network look foolish for not reporting facts, and basically cemented my never watching the Today Show again.  In fact, this type of reporting and repeating of lies without any semblance of research makes me reconsider whether to watch your network at all anymore.

            If you don't report unbiased truth, you can expect a continued decline in your already declining viewership.

            Adam L.

            *******

            On a side note, I hate Katie and have for quite some time.  Finally convinced the missus to watch GMA instead (and Katie was the sole reason why), and while it is pretty boring, at least I don't have to hear Katie's sanctimonius crap.  I'd rather eat glass than listen to her.

            by clammyc on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:29:17 AM PDT

            •  Interesting

              I switched from GMA to Today Show because I found them to be even worse with the 'conservative' pandering. What settled it for me was Diane Sawyer's interview of the Dixie Chicks. Granted, it wasn't on GMA, but an evening show, but her whole demeanor made it obvious that she felt that we shouldn't question the President. Made me sick to the point where I couldn't stand watching GMA anymore.

              While it pissed me off that Katie repeated the 'Dems are involved too' line, I've watched her enough to see that she's asked tough questions to Republicans as well. And sometimes it actually seemed to strike home. So I give her some credit.

              Sad, though, that this time we were left with a "We'll look into it." How many viewers are going to wait around and remember a follow-up? And how are they going to try to explain the difference between Abramov's tribes, Abramov's money, and other tribes? Badly, I'm sure.

              by reklemrov on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:11:21 AM PDT

              •  Diane Sawyer

                not really a fan of hers either, but less of an annoying voice to wake up to.  Of course, as my wife is trying to wake up, she is subjected to my groggy voice calling bullshit on some of the stuff that GMA misses...

                by clammyc on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:53:12 AM PDT

                •  Sawyer is Republican

                  She worked for the Nixon White House.  Wouldn't trust her as far as I could kick her.

                  by lzachary on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:37:34 AM PDT

                  •  Actually...

                    Get the basic facts right please,

                    I don't like Sawyer, I think she's Geraldo level crap.

                    BUT, she is not a Republican, she interned at the Nixon White House, and has noted many times how interesting it was to be in, at that time, the most secretive Republican Administration and be a Democrat...

                    by patsprouseyo on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 11:32:50 AM PDT

                    •  get the facts straight yourself

                      Diane Sawyer was not an intern for Nixon.  She was his press aide, and was loyal to him to the end, and past the end: she helped him write his memoirs.  Damn straight she was a fiercely loyal Republican.

                      Who says so?
                      Her employer says so.
                      

                      by Joe Buck on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 03:08:11 PM PDT

                      •  Stand corrected...

                        But hey...i play to the crowd...someone rated me a four!

                        by patsprouseyo on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:03:51 PM PDT

            •  And mine...

              Dear Today Show;

              As a morning staple, almost like a hearty breakfast, Americans welcome you into their homes and their trust on a daily basis. Because of NBC's unique position of being in more homes every morning than any other morning show, NBC also has a much larger responsibility; to insure that the information disseminated through your program is accurate and up to date.

              To my dismay, NBC left star anchor Katie Couric holding fallacious, previously debunked partisan talking points in her interview with Howard Dean. The pressures put on news organizations are at an all time high from both divides of the political aisle, however, the media in a functioning democracy has to withstand the partisan assaults and provide the public the best information available, NBC failed this morning.

              Less than a month ago, CNN's Wolf Blitzer made the same mistake as Ms. Couric. And, like Ms. Couric, had the humility to suggest that he may have not come to the interview with the correct facts. Mr. Blitzer a few days latter, when interviewing Republican Party chair Ken Mehlman, set the record straight; there is no direct or indirect cash or illegal donations given to any Democrat from Jack Abrahamoff (not to mention Jack Abrahamoff is not a bi-partisan scandal, Deborah Howell corrected the record on that fact with her revisions this past week). I would suggest that Ms. Couric should do the same as soon as tomorrow morning's show, to not correct the message publicly and in person, would not only be a blemish on Ms.Couric's ability to garner her viewers trust, but it would also be a tacit support of a political party's spin, rather than the pursuit of truth that has been a hallmark of American news organizations.

              Sincerely,

              D. Patrick Sprouse
              

              by patsprouseyo on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:18:45 AM PDT

              •  Excellent, excellent job

                I like your letter's straight-forward tone.  And I especially like the way you phrased your demand for a prompt on-air correction.

                by KateCrashes on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 10:14:21 PM PDT

            •  My Letter

              Dear Today Show,

              I have seen enough bias against Democrats in the MSM to last me a lifetime, but when Katie Couric wastes Howard Dean's time on The Today Show making him defend outright lies about Democrats being a part of the Abramhoff scandal, it perpetuates a disservice to the public that the MSM has been party to for the duration of the Bush administration. The Republicans may be in power now, and they have most definitely been corrupted by that power, but it's very sad to know that Karl Rove and Company's tactics have been picked up by one of the most viewed morning shows on network TV. Perhaps your people should research the facts before they waste the precious little time that Democrats have to share their message. The American people deserve to know what the Democrat's message is, and most of America doesn't watch C-Span, which is where you can find the facts as they happen. There are also publications such as "The Nation" that might help you understand the truth about Democrats and their message. Please don't forget that in November of '04 half of American voters voted against this administration, and according to polls, if the election were held today, Democrats would be in power and your message would be for the minority.

              A Former Viewer,

              Kim Owen
              

              by JoMo DemKim on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:19:32 AM PDT

              •  Great Letters All!

                Looks like these guys just might figure out that we're out here to keep them honest, and won't take it lying down anymore.  Silent Majority my ass!!!!

                by serrano on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:32:06 AM PDT

            •  go with c-span!!

              no commercials and high marks for objectivity

              by the basque on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 10:44:18 AM PDT

              •  Ah, but...

                The point is not for us to see what we wish to see.  I've been reduced to getting my news mostly from this site and others like it.  Not something I care for, to be frank.

                The point is to get the media to do their freaking jobs and not just be shills for the party in power (not that I expect it, but I'd not want them to do this for a Democrat either!  I want the media to be a questioning voice and not a talking point vendor)

                Remember, most people watching Couric don't REALIZE that she is spouting anything other than truth, and since they by default distrust politicians less than the media, guess who they will believe in that interview, no matter how well Dean comes off?

                by Stymnus on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 11:15:29 AM PDT

                •  trust me on this--

                  watch c-span in the morning for a week.  It cleanses the palate and lets you go back to the bullshit buffet of commercial news with a sense of mission: revamp the media and take it back from the corporate world.

                  by the basque on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 11:37:59 AM PDT

          •  Good letter....

            Finally got around to sending mine:

            Dear Today Show:

            This morning Katie Couric incorrectly stated that Democrats received Abramoff contributions. When corrected by Howard Dean, she amended this characterization somewhat by stating that Abramoff associates gave money to Democrats. If by "Abramoff associates" she is referring to the Indian tribes who were duped and cheated by Abramoff, I am troubled by the fact that the victims of Abramoff's misconduct and alleged crimes are being victimized again by this type of labeling by the media. If Ms.Couric was not referring to the Indian tribes and has credible information about other "Abramoff associates" who were directed by him to give money to Democrats, please share that with the viewing public. I realize that the issue can seem complicated, but your audience is very poorly served by these misrepresentations whereas Republicans who want to muddy the waters regarding Abramoff's ac
            tivities are very well served indeed.

            by MariaSquared on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:06:03 AM PDT

            •  Excellent

              This is a very concise and clear statement of the problem. Well done. Hope she actually sees this one.

              by reklemrov on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:16:33 AM PDT

              •  Exactly: Well Done

                This letter is a model of balanced outrage and factual underscoring of the outrage.

                Thank you for the great example --

                by Voice on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:18:27 AM PDT

          •  One of my letters

            Thank you Katie for showing your viewers what a talking head is. You made it quite clear that many people will smear Democrats without having a clue what they are talking about.  It may not have been your intention, but you pulled it off magnificiently.
            

            by RAZE on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:14:52 AM PDT

        •  Repugs' Political Cleansing

           My letter went as follows:

          Good Morning--I am very disappointed that, in her interview with DNC Chair Howard Dean this morning, Katie Couric was not well-informed, and seemed to have bought into the Republican spin that the Abramoff affair is a bipartisan scandal.

          Jack Abramoff, it would seem obvious, was (and probably still is), along with Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, Tom DeLay, and others, a very loyal Movement Republican, totally dedicated to their party's dominance of the political scene.  He, in fact, got to know Rove in college, when they both served as Presidents of the College Republicans.  What the Democrats call a "culture of corruption" is, in fact, what this group and others (think Ralph Reed), with their fundraising machine and "political-cleansing" K Street Project devised and executed in an attempt to create what they called a "permanent Republican majority" in Washington.  

          Do you think for a moment that Jack Abramoff et.al. would do anything--anything to help a single elected Democrat???  This assertion simply defies logic.  

          Again, I am disappointed by Katie's false assertion that Democrats benefitted from Abramoff (in fact, his client tribes donated less to Democrats after he came on the scene), and I certainly hope that she will correct the record soon.  

          Thanks for your attention and consideration.  

          by serrano on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:31:31 AM PDT

          •  Dismiss and Deride

            I recently saw Deedee Myers on w/a Repug robot, and when he started talking about political attacks, she got a bemused look on her face and chuckled, "Oh, I'm just glad you guys don't attack anybody!"  She instantly slapped his lyin' weak-ass shit into the backcourt.  

            As with the old Clinton days, it's time to stand up to, dismiss and deride the ludicrous hypocrisy these talking-points bots spew.  If u allow a charge to stand, some may accept it.  When u just matter-of-factly retort, as she did, that obviously what you are peddling is ridiculous, you instantly take the air out of their balloon.  

            She was much more impressive than she was years ago.  You go, DeeDee!!!

            by serrano on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:06:57 AM PDT

        •  Great Diary - I sent the following to the show

          I've been watching the Today Show since the mid-70s, and I have to say that I'm appauled to see that Katie Couric is still perpetuating the lie that Democrats took money from Jack Abramoff.  This is a flat-out lie.  Her interview with Howard Dean this morning was just another example of her failure to check the facts.

          She said she'd look in to this and share what she found with your viewers.  I thought I'd help her out by passing along this link from the Center for Responsive Politics, which clearly shows that not one single Democrat took even a dime from Abramoff...

          http://www.opensecrets.org/...

          This information is easy to dig up and is all a part of the public record.  Abramoff's crimes have been in the news for months - at this late date, there's absolutely no excuse for the lazy reporting style of your so-called journalists.

          Couric owes Dr. Dean - and Democrats an on-air apology.  And until that happens, I will tune in to other morning programs for the news.  It's becoming clear that your program and it's producers have no interest in digging up the facts on important stories like this.
           

          by Alegre on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:27:50 AM PDT

          •  I love your letter

            but if you are going to use a word like "appalled," it would be better to get the correct spelling.

            by ccr4nine on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 11:33:51 AM PDT

            •  Yeah - I caught that AFTER the fact

              Sheesh!

              by Alegre on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 01:20:50 PM PDT

        •  Short and sweet -

          Here;s mine:

          Katie's performance today was shameful, and typical of the continued attack of the right-wing, corporate-owned, traditional media aganst the truth. I'm sure that dozens of other former viewers have provided you wtih links to enough sources to provide that in-depth investigation you promised, and show that Abram-off himself DID NOT donate a dime to Democratic politicians. An immediate retraction and apology are required, and necessary. See if you can fit it into tonight's evening news.

          For me, I certainly now have better things to do than watch someone as misinformed as she is, I think that Washington Journal deserves more of my time - there's also the added benefit that THERE'S NO COMMERCIALS.

          Thanks for helping to undermine our country-
          [etc]

          by KilljoyTXinMI on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:38:31 AM PDT

      •  re: Katie is either very checked out...

        Katie is a registered Republican.  She writes her own questions to ask the people she interviews, and she can instill in them whatever lean she feels is in the best interest of her viewing public.  Whenever a Democrat is on the show, they try to have her do the interview so it won't look like the interviewer is siding with them.
        Also Matt Lauer who is a Democrat will be asked to interview people in the Administration.

        NBC is not a right wing media puppet for the White House or the Administration.

        by Erin13 on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:49:59 AM PDT

        •  That does make sense

          but don't I remember Katie interviewing O'Reilly?

          Technically, he's not in the administration, but still, he's a powerful enough figure that they should have had him interviewed by an opposing view.

          by Easy B Oven on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:04:09 AM PDT

        •  Oh no?

          Then, full disclosure: tell your viewers that. If interviewers are going to play partisan politics and insert their own views into their interviews-- as they all do!-- then say it!

          Katie Couric, a republican? Hello...?

          Face it,the impartial interviewer has vanished from journalism.  Okay, if "fairness" means anything-- anything at all!-- then clue the viewer in.

          Enough Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, Katie Couric setting traps for the people who come on their shows-- it's not journalism, it's not even infotainment, it's partisan politics-- it's sabotage.

          If you're not ashamed of it-- and I assume from your post that you work for NBC-- then just say it publicly.

          Fair's fair.

          by Tulip on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:07:26 AM PDT

          •  Setting traps

            well, part of the blame has to go to the interviewees...they should know by now the modus operandi of Couric and Russert potato head by now...Dean is quick and clever enough to shoot back, and I think that Harry Reid is too.  

            Those who allow Russert and his ilk to spout his fake data need to hold them accountable, e.g. "I really don't know where you're getting your data from, because according to.....your facts are all wrong," etc.

            And when Katie Couric says she'll check into it, ask her when and if she's going to make a retraction!

            by wry twinger on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:22:17 AM PDT

            •  yeah, of course, there's that

              They're slow learners, all rightie.

              by Tulip on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 10:45:58 AM PDT

              •  Hiya Tulip!

                You zeroed me here.
                May I ask why?

                by kestrel9000 on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 11:21:50 AM PDT

                •  oopsy, didn't mean to

                  You always get 4's from me Kestral on account of: we agree & I love your name. (ohhh dem boids)  Plus, you were valiant on that thread.

                  Here I go, to switch it upwards.  

                  by Tulip on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 12:35:39 PM PDT

                  •  I kinda thought......

                    ...that was a mouseigraphical error! :)
                    Thank ya thank ya thank ya.

                    by kestrel9000 on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 01:31:54 PM PDT

          •  reply to Tulip

            Actually I work for the most RED, conservative, white male over 50, Republican place to ever host an editorial page -- The Wall Street Journal.  Yet they hired me, a Kerry fundraiser, last year.  So go figure.  But I don't report to the editorial page editor; my dept. is research.  And I research both sides.  And I vote Democratic.
            

            by Erin13 on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 11:24:26 AM PDT

            •  The WSJ is a bit unusual

              They have a strong separation between their news department and their editorial page.  The news in the rest of the paper, while pro-business, is put together with some integrity.  The editorial page is from another planet.
              

              by Joe Buck on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 03:12:52 PM PDT

          •  Fat little POS

            The Today show should kick her fat ass off the air.  Send her to Fox Where she belongs.  It's POS's like her that confuse the issues.  Can't this fat turd read?

            Off the air and soon!

            by Oscar Who on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 01:59:40 PM PDT

        •  None of Which,

          even if u accept the premise, gives her the right to lie, mislead, or assert her own "facts"!!!

          Presenting another point of view is one thing.  Presenting untruths in order to obfuscate or confuse is dishonest and wrong!!!

          by serrano on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:10:04 AM PDT

        •  actually

          Katie is a big liberal....
          while this interview was bad, disappointing and it showed her lack of preparation

          i kind of think she was trying to WAY overcompensate her liberal bias and it just all fell apart.

          by distributorcap on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:16:03 AM PDT

          •  LACK of preparation?

            It was scripted.  She was reading.  Go watch it again -- she's reading the questions.  She was as prepared as it can get.

            And the questions aren't tough, probing journalistic questions, they're just GOP talking points replete with strawmen.  

            She rarely follows up, doesn't even seem to take in his answers.  She just goes back to her script -- and finally gets snippy when he doesn't cave on her stupid assertions that Abramoff gave money to Dems.  

            It was a lame job of journalism, but not at all a performance lacking in preparation.

            by KateCrashes on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 10:27:48 PM PDT

        •  Really?

          I was under the impression that Lauer is a repuglican, too.

          by vome minnesota on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:36:00 AM PDT

          •  reply to vome

            Matt is a Democrat.

            by Erin13 on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 11:25:56 AM PDT

        •  asdf

          Are you sure that Lauer is a Democrat?

          I remember during the 2004 when he interviewed Michael Moore. He was hostile and openly dripping with contempt. It was one of the most biased, nasty things I've ever seen.

          by saucy monkey on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:36:43 AM PDT

          •  Don't you think

            that some of these news people "run with the rabbits and bark with the dogs"?

            by chancy gardner on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:38:59 AM PDT

          •  no contradiction

            Most establishment Democrats loathe anyone to the left of them.  I've seen many hostile comments about Michael Moore from Democrats.
            

            by Joe Buck on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 03:16:54 PM PDT

        •  Lauer a Democrat?!

          That certainly wasn't the impression I got the day he interviewed Al Franken, when Franken's last book came out.

          That's the day I sent my mad letter to the Today Show.  I haven't watched their morning show since.

          And I'm not particularly an Al Franken fan.

          But it was one damn republican talking point out of his (Lauer's) mouth after another. Made me sick.  They do not treat the right wing like that.

          by papercut on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 10:08:09 AM PDT

          •  In 2004

            Lauer said in 2004 that he wasn't going to vote - to avoid partisanship, or so a Rethug news site reported.

            I remember seeing so many attacks in past years on Katie Couric from the right. And she still carries water for them? What's wrong with these people?

            by Floja Roja on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 11:21:33 AM PDT

        •  Perky Katie a Republican?

          Interesting in that the freepers hate her more than any other TV personality now that Rather is off the evening news.

          I knew there was a reason why I depise the bitch and rarely watch Today.

          by vic ariel on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 01:25:29 PM PDT

        •  I was leaving the judgement to history re

          Katie being checked in or out.  In fact, she would have to be checked out not to have heard anything about this debate and thus if I were not to leave it to history to judge, I would say that she was trying to further GOP mythology rather than trying to uncover facts.

          Her deceased husband Jay Monahan was quite a powerful Democratic lobbyist and she was once a Democrat as far as anyone could tell.  I don't know what her current political affiliation is.  I am not sure you know for sure either unless she has shared that with you personally or has declared publicly.  I seriously doubt that she has gone on record regarding her political affiliation as she is a reporter - however good or bad.

          In any case, she blew it in either over simplifying a topic that she of all people would have great insight into (lobbyist's wife) or she deliberately attempted to cover for the administration.

          by inclusiveheart on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 01:46:14 PM PDT

    •  He was spot-on

      As angered as I was by Katie's stupid regurgitation of the right's talking points, I was very impressed with how Dean handled it -- in fact, when she started into her "Democrats took Abramoff money too" bit, I was pleased, for I saw what he did to Sheep Blitzer a couple of weeks ago and thus knew what was coming.

      Clear and concise is right. She even had to praise him for staying within her arbitrary time parameters.

      And did anyone catch their follow-up piece about how women can choose the right jeans to look "bootylicious?" That says all that one needs to know about the TODAY show. Official corruption, bootylicious jeans, it's all the same to them -- just brain candy to keep the listless fingers of the masses from reaching for the remote.
      

      by MHB on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:32:27 AM PDT

      •  For that reason, I avoid Katie and Matt

        because of the hop-skip to various unrelated stories-all of which are done too briefly anyway.
        "Brain Candy" is the right phrase; unfortunately, your IQ goes down with each show!!

        by Phil S 33 on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:45:29 AM PDT

        •  Now there's a story idea:

          "Next up, brain candy: can watching the TODAY show help you shed those unwanted I.Q. points? We'll find out after a word from our sponsors."

          by MHB on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:56:45 AM PDT

      •  Wikipedia article says 2 Democrats got Abramoff $

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        "Documents showed that Abramoff and his firm paid travel bills not only for Republicans like DeLay, but also for Southern Democrats like James Clyburn of South Carolina and Bennie Thompson of Mississippi."

        This seems to me like Democrats got money from Abramoff.  I was all adamant to a neo-con at work, and we usually fall back on wikipedia since it's more objective than my blogs and his blogs, and I was disappointed to see this.  What's up with this?  What's "the rest of the story?"  Why are we still insisting that Democrats did not get anything?  

        by Greenkermie in AZ on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:05:21 AM PDT

        •  Another source?

          I'm sorry, do you have any other source besides Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia give a citation? Wikipedia is not the best place to look for current highly political issues, so I will continue insisting that Democrats did not get any money until you can back that up.

          by Jawis on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:13:10 AM PDT

          •  WaPo is another source

            s'truth, sadly:
            check it out

            by torridjoe on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:41:56 AM PDT

            •  as always

              the devil is in the details:

              Clyburn and Thompson were invited to the islands by the National Security Caucus Foundation, a nonprofit group, in a letter dated Dec. 17, 1996, according to a copy Clyburn supplied. The letter said the trip would "not involve any cost to the U.S. government."

              Greg Hilton, who directed the group at the time, said he understood at the outset that the expenses would be covered by "the private sector" -- meaning island businesses. "As we came closer to the trip, a check had not arrived," he said in a written statement. But Hilton said he received a call from Preston Gates, which depicted itself as legal counsel for the island government.

              "What happened was airline tickets were sent to our offices," he said. "I was assured that they had been paid for entirely by the . . . government, and the government would pay for all of the lawmakers' expenses."

              He also said that "if I did not inform Rep. Clyburn and Thompson of the funding situation, it was a mistake" that he now regrets.

              Clyburn said in an interview yesterday that he responded to the letter of invitation and had no idea that Abramoff or Preston Gates paid at the outset

              by Cedwyn on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 12:48:08 PM PDT

          •  Links are included here

            When was the last time someone paid $5,000 for you to travel across the world while you had no clue who paid for it?

            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            by skywriter on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 03:25:17 PM PDT

        •  Because

          We're insisting Democrats didn't get money because--as far as I know--they didn't.  

          This scandal is a big deal, and if WE let the Republicans set the tone and educate the people, we won't see any change.  

          This whole event is a Republican problem, brought on by their tactics to raise money and win elections.  Simple.

          by jarrrettg on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:14:50 AM PDT

        •  Dean reference is to campaign contributions

          The FEC mention is the key.  He is asserting that neither Abramoff or his wife gave any campaign contributions to Democrats, and the records I have seen support that.

          Thompson and Clyburn may have taken trips paid for by Abramoff clients, but that is outside the category of payments that Gov. Dean was talking about.

          by sam3am on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:20:18 AM PDT

          •  Aha.

            So the distinction is campaign contributions.

            Another so-called liberal friend of mine would sweep it all into one pile.  Six of one, half dozen of another.  The problem is that Joe Popcorn would too.

            by Greenkermie in AZ on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:28:14 AM PDT

            •  more than that...

              No, the major distinction is that no Democrate took ANY money from Jack Abramoff.  Some Indian tribes have made contributions to Democrats, but why would you assume that is Jack Abramoff money?  It doesn't make any sense.  They (the Indian tribes)were paying Abramoff money, not the other way around.

              NO DEMOCRAT TOOK ANY MONEY FROM JACK ABRAMOFF. PERIOD.  Unless you can prove otherwise, I don't see why we should just sit silently and let these people make these false accusations.

              by TerryinSF on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:50:19 AM PDT

              •  look at his username

                some green party people are determined to paint the two parties as the same.

                by TeresaInPa on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:42:14 AM PDT

                •  I didn't think so

                  I thought he was just saying that even some of his liberal friends are falling for the Republican talking points (lies).

                  And hence, the power of the TV (propoganda system).

                  And hence, why we must put all the pressure we have on them to report the truth, not Republican propaganda.

                  However, Dean knows how this game is played.  When someone tries to smear you, don't get upset, just view it as an opportunity to set the record straight.  Dean knows how to do this, Biden can stay at home.

                  by yet another liberal on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 08:53:53 AM PDT

              •  reply to TerryinSF

                It's on the record that both Hillary Clinton and Charles Rangel (D, NY) took money , and donated it back to charity -- and Harry Reid did, too but he's keeping his check.