Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

GOP needs to make an example of NBC News

GOP needs to make an example of NBC News

GOP can harness the anger of the electorate by not letting the CNBC Debate crisis go to waste

The GOP has a long history of subjecting its candidates to abuse by debate moderators.

From George Stephanopolous to Candy Crowley, debates are a time for network journalists to earn their battle badges by damaging Republicans.

And the GOP just sucks it up and takes it.

So why would the CNBC moderators have thought the most recent Republican Primary debate should be any different?

CNBC did what it thought it was supposed to do — mock and snicker at Republican candidates. Belittle them. Dismiss their intelligence and portray them as kooks.

CNBC moderators were so over the top, however, that even the Republican National Committee Chair Reince Preibus, who had agreed to have CNBC moderate a debate, expressed outrage.

But the RNC took one more step – it pulled NBC News off a planned debate to be co-moderated with National Review. That step was met with strong support among Republican voters.

NBC News issued a statement saying it hoped to work with the RNC to resolve any differences.

Don’t let it.

The GOP has stumbled, almost blind, into a way to harness the anger of the Republican electorate while also resetting the relationship between the GOP and the hostile media.

Make an example of NBC News.

It’s a winning issue. No one likes journalists. The profession is not well respected and is viewed widely as biased. Who is going to come to the defense of NBC News?

Its main news operation may not be the worst offender, but it runs two anti-Republican attack shops — MSNBC and CNBC. Don’t let it back into any debates, not in the primaries or the general election.

Republican voters will support the decision to fight. And because the conduct of CNBC is so indefensible, it’s the issue over which to extract a price.

Candidates need to go one step further, and refuse to appear on NBC News broadcasts. So we miss out on Meet the Press. Who cares? Andrea Mitchell doesn’t get to interview Republicans. Big deal. The only loss would be Morning Joe, but it’s a small price to pay for proving an overall point.

I don’t think all networks should be shut out. Divide them against themselves.

Will CNN turn away the largest audiences it ever had and the massive paydays to defend NBC News? Let the others profit from NBC News’ loss. They’ll get the message.

Turn the narrative around from the GOP needing the media to the media needing the GOP.

And it they don’t get the message, and the other networks rally around NBC News, then the battle lines will have been drawn. This is a fight that has been long in coming, and one we need.

Of course, it’s unlikely the GOP will have the guts to fight this fight.

The GOP will strike some deal with NBC News wherein NBC News promises to be nice. And thereby, the GOP will have let a perfect media crisis go to waste. Unless you make your voices heard.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

The candidates, when faced with bias from reporters, should ask them why they so blatantly violate the code of ethics published by their professional association. And then point out that most Americans would lose their jobs if they did it in an unethical manner.

http://www.spj.org/pdf/spj-code-of-ethics.pdf

Watching that video, I have to ask …

… isn’t that a comic book version of journalism?

For years now the Democrat media has engaged in one of the most dishonest strategies possible – I call it the 2 AM Twitter apology.

In a live debate in prime time with tens of millions of viewers the Democrat moderator either severely twists the truth and outright lies to make the Republican candidate look bad.

Then at 2 AM they send out an ‘apology’ on a Twitter feed that nobody but a few hardcore Democrats ready about how they were wrong.

Tens of millions of people see the LIE, only a few ever see the ‘apology’.

Candy Crowley did it in 2012 and was massively successful. Literally to this day Democrats claim that Romney lied when Crowley ADMITTED she was wrong, but did it quietly so nobody really heard it.

Moderators have to sign a contract that they will appear, live and IN PERSON, at the start of the next debate to publically apologize and correct any LIES they have told, or Republicans should refuse to appear on their network.

I agree with Professor J, but I say let NBC go ahead and broadcast the debate—just as long as all the moderators are chosen from their co-sponsor, National Review.

It would be nice to see Jonah Goldberg, Rich Lowry, and Kevin Williamson as the moderators.

    CloseTheFed in reply to LukeHandCool. | October 31, 2015 at 8:33 pm

    No. National Review has been infected by rabies. All its writers attack Trump viciously and mindlessly.

    Let Limbaugh pick the moderators. Be one himself. Have Breitbart News livestream it.

      If anything, their attacks on Trump are counter-productive.

      DirkBelig in reply to CloseTheFed. | October 31, 2015 at 8:45 pm

      Spoken like a true Trump Chump. “Waaaaaaaaaaaaah, they’re being mean to The Donald! Waaaaaaaaaah!!! Only True Believers in how Trump will Make America Great Again should be allowed to address my liege!!!”

      Pffft. At least Santa Marx’s (Bernie Sanders) mindless acolytes are understandable in their support: They’re morons who believe in Santa Claus and have been programmed by Leftists to believe they’re entitled to everything for free, but are too lazy to go out and mug people themselves.

      What baffles about the Trump Chumps, though, is how they fancy themselves “conservative” and then go for a pompous arse whose policies – AS HE ADMITS!!! – are liberal Democrat through and through. There’s a special kind of stupid afoot when folks believe the fix for 10 years of liberal Democrat malfeasance is to elect another liberal Democrat whose idea of specifics is to bray, “I’m going to hire the top men. It’s going to make your head spin at how great this will be!”

      np: Living Colour, “Cult of Personality”

    NR has unfortunately discredited itself with their rabid attacks on Trump, not to be confused in any way with thoughtful criticism of Trump.

      Ragspierre in reply to DaMav. | October 31, 2015 at 9:34 pm

      What an appalling hack! Victor Davis Hansen “rabid”?

      Moron.

      Trump-Hating Hysteria, as a tactical strategy, is the mother of all losers.

      No other candidate’s platform is more closely aligned with Conservative voters.

      Some argue its all lies. Most voters disagree, including Democrats from far left to left of center.

      This fight is more about failures of the GOP Establishment itself which created furtle ground in which a candidate like Obama could come to power and get reelected.

        Ragspierre in reply to VotingFemale. | November 1, 2015 at 12:07 pm

        Now, THERE’S a Costco super-sized drum of delusional sludge, right there!

        There is really NOTHING “conservative” about T-rump’s LIFE, his positions (even the ones he’s pretending to have at the moment), or the way he “thinks”!

        He’s an American oligarch who has made his crony fortune as Mr. Establishment, via the buying and selling of influence.

        He thinks about property rights in lock-step with Bernie Sanders, the Kelo majority, and the the AFL-CIO.

        He HATES the First Amendment, and has used every corrupt means at his disposal to quash speech that hurts his narcissistic lil’ self.

        ALLLLLLL of which is ANTI-conservative.

        He’s a BIG GOVERNMENT thinker who’s idea of “reform” is “better Brights”, NOT reducing BIG GOVERNMENT.

        His vaunted “tax plan”, that he couldn’t articulate to save his hair, would result in MORE debt than Obama’s reign of terror. AND is terrible civics.

        He’s an “immigration hawk” who is himself a H2B abuser and user, and has NEVER ONCE done a damn thing to bar illegal aliens from his OWN lil’ fiefdoms.

        And he threw the Benghazi committee under the bus while declaring that he himself “gets along with everybody”. Which is KINDA true, when you consider that he DOES get along very, very well with the Clintons, Anthony Wiener, Harry Reid, Nanny Pelosi, and Chuck “Cameras” Schumer.

        It’s bullshit, all up and down!

The GOP should conduct its own REAL debates with A moderator asking questions.

Sell the video to the news outlets. First publication rights going to highest bidder, but everyone can line up behind them and buy the same stuff.

“Republican voters will support the decision to fight.”

Always true. Always ignored.

“Unless you make your voices heard.”

How?

It’s not like I can stop sending the RNC money. 🙂

The premise of this article is that the GOP are smart. Here’s a shocker, they’re not. Trump is running circles around the RNC without even trying. Let’s not forget that he negotiated this fiasco down to two hours instead of three by threatening to boycott the proceedings and take his TV ratings with him. At this point, I see no reason to have debates sponsored by liberal news organizations at all, including FNC. Shut them out of the process. Conservatives don’t listen to them. The RNC does not even realize that you don’t reach voters in these antiquated venues anymore. The Obama administration understands this and so does the Trump campaign. It’s time to leave the 90’s behind.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Guein. | October 31, 2015 at 10:28 pm

    Trump is running circles around the RNC without even trying. Let’s not forget that he negotiated this fiasco down to two hours instead of three by threatening to boycott the proceedings and take his TV ratings with him. Trump claimed in the debate it was going to be 3 hours or even three and half hours. He said he called Carson and they told CNBC they wouldn’t do it and CNBC agreed, and that he renegotiated it in about two minutes. John Harwood denied that and said the debate was always going to be two hours.

    I don’t know what the truth is, but the debate ended at about 10:20 pm EDT.

    The New York Times story October 17, said:

    http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/16/cnbc-gives-in-to-donald-trump-on-details-of-the-debate/?_r=0

    CNBC will allow the Republican presidential candidates 30-second opening and closing statements at a debate this month, bowing to the demands of Donald J. Trump and other leading candidates that they be allowed to introduce themselves.

    The Oct. 28 debate at the Coors Events Center in Boulder, Colo., will last two hours, including commercials, another accommodation to Mr. Trump, who was unhappy with the length of the three-hour Republican debate last month in California.

    That is, what Trump got was opening and closing statements.

    Possibly as well, as Newsmax says, the original two hours, did not count commercials so they would have been on the
    stage longer than two hours – except I think they were anyway.

    The New York Times says CNBC did give in, but doesn’t say. what, if anything, had been the plan before. The only mention of three hours is that that had been the length of the debate at the Reagan library. It does not say that this one was originally supposed to be 3 hours, although it does say that Trump, with Carson’s help, had gotten CNBC to reverse itself on “time limit.”

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Guein. | October 31, 2015 at 10:40 pm

    Here again is the New York Times:

    http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/15/donald-trump-campaign-raises-specter-of-boycotting-next-debate/

    First, of all, the negotiations lasted longer than two minutes. There were two calls, on Wednesday and Thursday October 14 and 15, and besides Carson’s campaign, Rand Paul’s campaign was also involved in the first call, and aides to Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee had also joined in on the second call.

    Corey Lewandowski, Donald Trump’s campaign manager, told the New York Times:

    “For us it was imperative that the time be changed to 120 minutes

    But it is not at all clear that the time was originally supposed to be longer. Lewandowski threw out this 3-hour number, and in the debate, Trump raised that to 3 1/2.

    Indeed Lewandowski didn’t actually say it was originally be 3 hours, but that the exact time limit was unclear.

    “Until we have this criteria specifically laid out, it is difficult to participate.”

    Maybe CNBC wasn’t being clear in their first memo they sent to the campaigns as to exactly how long they would have to stay there.

OK, yes the debate was egregious and monitored poorly.
But I don’t know if a boycott of all things NBC will have the intended outcome.

Years ago, Obama tried to boycott Fox News, saying they were not professional enough and should not be allowed in the Presidential news conferences. I think all the news agencies came to the support of Fox News, and the boycott was squelched.

So what is the real difference and the perceived difference between what Obama attempted and what you are suggesting? I.e, how do you explain the difference, and how will this be spinned? This could backfire in a big way.

I think it might be better to bring up the difference in questions that the Democrats faced and what the Republicans are being asked. And continue to call the reporters out on all the stupid questions.

    snopercod in reply to mochajava76. | October 31, 2015 at 9:49 pm

    The difference is that Fox was right and CNBC was wrong. Your moral equivalence attempt falls short.

    MathMom in reply to mochajava76. | October 31, 2015 at 10:12 pm

    The difference is this would be driven from the bottom, up. It would be the will of the people.

    It is egregiously wrong for the President to say what news organizations should be in business and which should not. This is not a kingdom, no matter how regal Obama thinks he is.

      Milhouse in reply to MathMom. | November 1, 2015 at 12:19 am

      The president never tried to say that FNC should not be in business; he just didn’t want to talk to them, which is his prerogative. He doesn’t have to talk to anyone.

      The question is why the other news companies stood up for FNC then, but would not stand up for NBC now. And the answer is, if they want to stand up for NBC, let them, and let them deal with the consequences. I think they won’t like that prospect, and will therefore let NBC stand alone.

      Karensky in reply to MathMom. | November 1, 2015 at 7:42 am

      Those running for office do not care for the format that the RNC is offering and are meeting today to discuss what can be done to better the “debate” format. By doing this they are forcing the RNC’s hand to do something. Should the candidates choose they can set up their own format with revenues going to their campaign coffers rather than the RNC and the networks.
      It would be surprising if the RNC sticks to its guns by shutting NBC out, but doubtful. Would not C-SPAN be the best venue? Their moderators are very good at being neutral. Let Brian Lamb make the big money and his organization.
      Until the size of the republican hopefuls is winnowed down they cannot truly conduct a debate. When it gets down to six or less then a 15 to 20 minute format with two going one on one or two on two debating an issue could open it up to what their positions mean.

        mrtomsr in reply to Karensky. | November 1, 2015 at 9:44 am

        Sorry for the thumbs down, my thumbs are too big. I was trying to hit reply. Because it seems that these news outlets want to set up behind their paywalls, I am unable to watch them on any TV as I do not have cable/satellite and have only an antenna. I guess those that have given up on any “pay television” is not worth marketing to.

          Sammy Finkelman in reply to mrtomsr. | November 1, 2015 at 8:20 pm

          The CNBC debate was broadcast over the radio, free. Besides that, you can gte transcripts, and little (possibly out of context) excerpts get played on all kinds of radio and some TV shows the next day.

          It’s getting more toward broadcast television (although since 2009 reception is not so good without cable) This one, after all, was (or is) going to be on NBC (non-cable)

          The Tuesday November 10, 2015 Republican debate will be on the Fox Business network. I don’t know what, if any, radio stations will broadcast it.

          The Saturday November 14, 2015 Democratic debate will be on CBS.

          The Tuesday, December 15, 2015 Republican debate will be on CNN.

          The Saturday, December 19, 2015 Democratic debate will be on ABC, which is OK if you can get ABC.

          Fox News has a Republican debate sometime in January, ABC on February 6, CBS on February 13 and the NBC debate was scheduled for February 26. (There’s also a March date on Fox News and, on March 10, CNN.)

          Democratic debates scheduled in 2016 Sunday January 17, 2016 on NBC, PBS on February 11, and Univision on March 9.

          All of these things can be cancelled and new ones even substituted or added.

        Voyager in reply to Karensky. | November 1, 2015 at 10:52 am

        I really thing we ought to do more debates like the Saddleback Church debate from the 2008 election. It was an awesome debate, and people still remember it years after the fact. Have real leaders who’ve done real things ask interesting questions of potential future presidential candidates.

        Follow up with a Reddit Q&A. Moderating one of those is one of the sort of things the RNC could do very well; staffing up people to sort through the wall of responses for good, interesting, questions and clear out the redundancy that you’re going to get, before handing off the list of top questions to the candidates’ teams for each candidate’s responses. They’d have to bring their own servers lest the traffic load break Reddit. It would be epic.

The RNC should do what the guys from Top Gear did… sell the rights to an Amazon Prime, or a Netflix type of outlet. Those who want to see it live will learn a whole new world of options are available, and we can have a decent debate format with a clean slate.

The Networks will still be able to show snippets and tidbits, just as they do now; but it WILL deprive them of their profits from carrying the debate on their own networks at the expense of the Republican Party’s candidates.

In the meantime, you may make a few friends in this new online world we are living in…

Apparently, the top CNBC executive on site during the debate had worked in 3 different jobs in the Clinton White House.

The GOP needs to make an example of — itself: fire Pee Wee Prebus, and screw a set of balls on to Paul Ryan.

The only reason that CNBC got the 14 million watchers is because of Donald Trump. Say what you will, but Trump is the best thing that has hit the American political scene since Ronald Reagan. He has shown that there can be someone to stand up to the state controlled media and the political establishment on both sides of the aisle and they hate him for doing that. CNBC caved on the time, because they knew without Trump, there would be no TV audience to sell ad revenue.

    Radegunda in reply to Stan25. | November 1, 2015 at 10:51 am

    It was Ted Cruz who called out the media in a more comprehensive and cogent way than Trump would ever have done. The insinuation that Cruz wouldn’t have had the backbone to do it without Trump showing the way is daft.

    There’s another difference: Trump got angry at the media when he thought they were not sufficiently respectful to HIM. For Trump, it’s all personal. Cruz, by contrast, called out the media for being disrespectful to ALL of the GOP candidates, and for ideological bias. For Cruz, it’s a matter of a larger principle.

    Huckabee also directly defended Trump against a media put-down. Did Trump similarly defend any of the other candidates?

Private citizen Trump counter-punches. He gave WSJ advance fair warning.

They are free to exercise the first amendment.

If Trump is fair game, the WSJ is fair game.

I think I’ll set out some rage-bait and see if I can trigger some thumbs down and perhaps a maniacal reply. Shhh…. Don’t tell anyone! 😉

TRUMP

I don’t watch the “debates”. I look at twitter, blogs, news articles, checking comments to get a gist of overall impressions, followed by clips of interactions between the candidates.

Roughly about three plus candidates among the GOP are SERIOUSLY running for President; they’re already in the top 4-5. The deadlines for getting candidates on a number of ballots across the country are coming up or might have already expired: that tells you who is in the game.

While polls are in flux, registered voters haven’t missing anything – regarding positions on issues – that information is widely available.

Likely, the last batch some candidates are searching for are the undecided, unregistered last minute voters.

Last note, while I support a “fair” debate, I find it interesting that the RNC only complained and acted on it now. They had no problem with Trump getting hammered the last two times. When it finally hits some of their “establishment” candidates do they care. That doesn’t look good on their part; it makes them look stupid, since they’ve been compliant with that behavior for so many years.

    Telling, isn’t it?

    Ragspierre in reply to GoldenAh. | November 1, 2015 at 3:31 pm

    “They had no problem with Trump getting hammered the last two times.”

    Well, I don’t think it’s fair to suggest he was drunk. Though that WOULD explain some of his behavior on TV the next few days following….

    cantor4massat4 in reply to GoldenAh. | November 2, 2015 at 1:41 pm

    “it makes them look stupid, since they’ve been compliant with that behavior for so many years.”

    The RNC doesn’t just look stupid, they are stupid. There have been a myriad of complaints over the years but nothing ever done. If it weren’t for Cruz, there would not be an attempt to change the format. And Radegunda’s right, Trump only cares about himself with these debates. If Trump had won all three debates, he’d be perfectly happy with the format.

Ihave heard more sense from NR than from Trumples.

I’ve seen more sense demonstrated by Trump Supporters than by T-Phobes.

Mileage Varies, as always.

I’ll give you just one

National Review’s George Will: all Trump Supporters are trash and needs to be purged from the GOP.

Paraphrased, but accurate.

That is the worst nonsense I have yet seen outside the Liberal gettos.

Much of this misses the point that the GOP was in on the plot with NBC.

Working to ‘change’ the attitudes of the GOP leaderhacks to embrace conservative candidates is akin to working to change little barry’s attitude to embrace American patriotism.

The likes of Pee Wee Prebus and little barry simply need to get a boot in their asses and shown the door.

Midwest Rhino | November 1, 2015 at 6:06 pm

Dems get their debates run by fellow dems praising them, Repubs get debates run by lying leftists trying to denigrate them.

So why does the RNC keep setting that charade up?

Trump is outside the failure theater charade … he seems good to me, his kids are good, he may be our best hope for a man that will fight the machine.

Sure, Cruz/Palin would be groovy … but let’s talk reality. Cruz wants to ride in after Trump decline … but his own party won’t support him, really, will they? With REince selling out even Romney … all leftist hack moderators all the time … are we that dumb? r is failure theater a planned event?

Trump/Giuliani … a winning ticket. The DC/NYC cabal must be destroyed.

Sammy Finkelman | November 1, 2015 at 8:25 pm

THe bst debate would be questions from the public – perhaps selected by those getting the highest scores from a random panel of 20 voters who had posed questions.

Sammy Finkelman | November 1, 2015 at 8:26 pm

Fred Thompson died?

This is real simple!

CNBC gave the Republican candidates a early Christmas gift that will just keep giving!

Thank you CNBC for being so childish and hyper partisan!
There is nothing that the party could do to bring conservatives together like you guys did! 🙂

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend