NBC Softball in Tehran
NBC News anchor Brian Williams interviewed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad this past week on the lawn of his presidential residence in Tehran. The interview might have provided valuable information on Iran's intentions if only Williams would have asked some tough questions and the President would have answered them.
Although the well-coiffed news anchor had enough time to ask if Ahmadinejad expected to be re-elected next year (no comment) and if he was following the US presidential election (yes), he never got around to inquiring about the Iranian leader's threats to wipe-out Israel. For those who missed the broadcast (also available on msnbc.com), here is what was said and what should have been asked:
US-Iran Relations
Ahmadinejad said he welcomed better relations with the United States, and favored re-opening the US Embassy in Tehran. Williams was too polite to mention that the last time we had diplomats in Tehran they were taken hostage and abused for 444 days. (Some witnesses have identified Ahmadinejad as one of the captors.)
Enriching Uranium and Nuclear Power
The President re-iterated past claims that Iran was enriching uranium only for the purpose of generating electricity. He said Iran would negotiate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), but would not be threatened or bullied by anyone.
He emphasized that nuclear power was the most safe and efficient source of energy available today, and urged all nations to invest in new nuclear plants. He added that if a thousand more nuclear power plants were in use right now, the price of oil would be much lower. (1)
Atomic Weapons
As he has before, Ahmadinejad denied that Iran has any intention of making atomic bombs, which he termed "20th century technology" and not useful in the 21st century. He noted that the "Zionist entity" (Israel) has hundreds of atomic bombs, but that they were useless in fighting Hezbollah forces in Lebanon; Soviet nuclear weapons did not stave-off collapse; American nuclear bombs were useless in Afghanistan and Iraq.
What Should Have Been Asked
1. Why does Iran refuse to have its nuclear facilities inspected by the UN? (2)
2 You have said that "the Iranian people will fight till the Zionist entity is entirely eliminated" and that Israel should be "wiped off the map." Do these statements mean that you intend to attack Israel? If so, how can Iran win without nuclear weapons?
3. Are you willing to meet with Israeli leaders, as Anwar Sadat did in 1977, to prevent war between your two countries?
There is no reason to believe that Ahmadinejad would have answered these questions any more cogently or truthfully than he answered the "softball" questions that Mr Williams lobbed to him. Yet, they should have been asked anyway, if only to show the American people and the rest of the world whether Ahmadinejad is really committed to peace, as he now says.
I believe that the cordial tone toward the US expressed by the President of Iran in this interview ( in contrast to his belligerent attitude in the past) can be attributed to pressure from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini, who fears that Ahmadinejad's reckless rhetoric may have provoked an attack by the US or Israel. The goal is not only to prevent an attack by the US itself, but also to get the Americans to restrain Israel.
I understand that this interview was a ratings-coup for NBC News, which cannot afford to offend such a valuable news source by asking tough questions. The deferential attitude toward newsmakers by reporters is well established in Washington for exactly this reason. This is lamentable: if we ever needed Edward R Murrow, we need him now!
Heck, I would even settle for Dan Rather.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) If Ahmadinejad had seen the latest McCain TVads, he would know that real cause of high oil prices is Barack Obama. These ads are not now running in Tehran.
(2) As readers of the Glazerbeam know (but Williams might not), uranium need only be enriched to 20% U-235 for generation of electricity, but at least 80% U-235 for nuclear weapons (see our post of June 16, 2008 for details)
Although the well-coiffed news anchor had enough time to ask if Ahmadinejad expected to be re-elected next year (no comment) and if he was following the US presidential election (yes), he never got around to inquiring about the Iranian leader's threats to wipe-out Israel. For those who missed the broadcast (also available on msnbc.com), here is what was said and what should have been asked:
US-Iran Relations
Ahmadinejad said he welcomed better relations with the United States, and favored re-opening the US Embassy in Tehran. Williams was too polite to mention that the last time we had diplomats in Tehran they were taken hostage and abused for 444 days. (Some witnesses have identified Ahmadinejad as one of the captors.)
Enriching Uranium and Nuclear Power
The President re-iterated past claims that Iran was enriching uranium only for the purpose of generating electricity. He said Iran would negotiate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), but would not be threatened or bullied by anyone.
He emphasized that nuclear power was the most safe and efficient source of energy available today, and urged all nations to invest in new nuclear plants. He added that if a thousand more nuclear power plants were in use right now, the price of oil would be much lower. (1)
Atomic Weapons
As he has before, Ahmadinejad denied that Iran has any intention of making atomic bombs, which he termed "20th century technology" and not useful in the 21st century. He noted that the "Zionist entity" (Israel) has hundreds of atomic bombs, but that they were useless in fighting Hezbollah forces in Lebanon; Soviet nuclear weapons did not stave-off collapse; American nuclear bombs were useless in Afghanistan and Iraq.
What Should Have Been Asked
1. Why does Iran refuse to have its nuclear facilities inspected by the UN? (2)
2 You have said that "the Iranian people will fight till the Zionist entity is entirely eliminated" and that Israel should be "wiped off the map." Do these statements mean that you intend to attack Israel? If so, how can Iran win without nuclear weapons?
3. Are you willing to meet with Israeli leaders, as Anwar Sadat did in 1977, to prevent war between your two countries?
There is no reason to believe that Ahmadinejad would have answered these questions any more cogently or truthfully than he answered the "softball" questions that Mr Williams lobbed to him. Yet, they should have been asked anyway, if only to show the American people and the rest of the world whether Ahmadinejad is really committed to peace, as he now says.
I believe that the cordial tone toward the US expressed by the President of Iran in this interview ( in contrast to his belligerent attitude in the past) can be attributed to pressure from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini, who fears that Ahmadinejad's reckless rhetoric may have provoked an attack by the US or Israel. The goal is not only to prevent an attack by the US itself, but also to get the Americans to restrain Israel.
I understand that this interview was a ratings-coup for NBC News, which cannot afford to offend such a valuable news source by asking tough questions. The deferential attitude toward newsmakers by reporters is well established in Washington for exactly this reason. This is lamentable: if we ever needed Edward R Murrow, we need him now!
Heck, I would even settle for Dan Rather.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) If Ahmadinejad had seen the latest McCain TVads, he would know that real cause of high oil prices is Barack Obama. These ads are not now running in Tehran.
(2) As readers of the Glazerbeam know (but Williams might not), uranium need only be enriched to 20% U-235 for generation of electricity, but at least 80% U-235 for nuclear weapons (see our post of June 16, 2008 for details)
Labels: Ahmadinejad, Iran, nuclear
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 10:23 AM
2 Comments:
You missed the boat on this one. Brian Williams kissed Ahmadinajad's ass because Brian Williams and NBC are super left wing liberals. Brian Williams would have no problem accusing Bush of lying or Olmert of killing Arab children, but he and NBC excuse and whitewash Arabs and Muslims every day. Ths is par for the course for Williams and NBC.
No, this is pure left wing liberal idiocy on display. It was expected and it will happen again tomorrow as it has happened numerous times in the past.
OOOPs!!!!!!!! Sorry!!!!!!!!!!
I commented on the wrong post. The second Kucinich comment goes here instead.
Here is proof of my prior comment about Williams and it was written 6 years ago.
Ivan
From the Same School
Brian Williams is more liberal anchoring from NBC.
By Brent H. Baker
Many see the "big three" nightly news shows as dinosaurs in the face of vibrant cable alternatives. But who anchors them remains relevant for two reasons: First, the anchor is the face of the network during special coverage when millions tune in, such as on Election Night or a Sept. 11th. Second, while those with a great interest in the news watch cable, the broadcast networks reach a far larger audience of less politically aware viewers who are more susceptible to any bias. Though the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening newscasts continue to lose viewers, each still individually attracts an audience about three times greater than the primetime audience of CNN, FNC, and MSNBC combined.
Any hope, however, that the next generation of network-news anchors might nudge the evening newscasts away from the liberalism which is driving viewers to cable was dashed, at least by NBC, when the network announced that Brian Williams will slide into the NBC Nightly News anchor seat after the 2004 election.
Williams, now anchor of a nightly newscast shown on both MSNBC and CNBC, and the primary NBC Nightly News fill-in for Tom Brokaw, is a case study in Bernard Goldberg's observation that it is the "inability to see liberal views as liberal that is at the heart" of liberal media bias.
Indeed, to Williams neither Al Gore nor Bill Bradley were liberal presidential candidates. On his MSNBC show in July of 1999 he lamented how "there is no true liberal to be found in this race. There's no Harkin, there's no Kennedy, there are just two centrists."
Bill Bradley a "centrist?" Ted Kennedy has earned an 88 percent lifetime rating from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action (ADA). The ADA's lifetime rating for Bradley: A barely differentiable 85 percent.
While he doesn't see any liberals in America, he has no problem tagging conservatives as "far right" extremists. In February of 2000 he pleaded with guest Laura Ingraham: "What do you do to convince, if you are John McCain, to convince the far right, 'No, really, you have to listen to my point of electability'?" Opening the December 22, 2000 NBC Nightly News, Williams asserted that in picking John Ashcroft for attorney general, President Bush "calms the far right politically."
Being pro-life made Bob Casey, the former governor of Pennsylvania, an "ultraconservative" to Williams. When Casey passed away in May 2000, Williams warned that Casey was "a Democrat, but a devout Catholic and thus was ultraconservative on the topic of abortion."
Standing up for conservative principles seems to really annoy Williams. Following a January 2000 GOP debate, Williams denigrated the positions taken by the six candidates, bemoaning how "it's red meat for conservatives, the positions rather strident tonight: anti-gay, pro-Jesus, and anti-abortion and no gray matter in between."
Back in 1996 Williams followed the Clintonista script as he scolded Bob Dole for daring to mention how the Clinton White House got caught with hundreds of FBI background files. Williams set up a Nightly News story: "The politics of Campaign '96 are getting very ugly, very early. Today Bob Dole accused the White House of using the FBI to wage war against its political enemies, and if that sounds like another political scandal, that's the point."
Matching the environmental lobby's spin, Williams regularly condemns SUVs. He demanded in January this year: "With the U.S. locked in dependence on foreign oil, is it downright unpatriotic to drive an SUV?" In early March he rued: "Gas-guzzling SUVs and light trucks were big winners on Capitol Hill today, but there's concern tonight the environment could be the big loser."
A classic example of the contrasting way Williams treats liberals versus conservatives was illustrated by how he approached interviews with Janet Reno versus Ken Starr. He delivered a love-fest with Reno in May of 2001. Asking her "what do your days consist of these days" elicited the response that she likes to kayak and "walk in the grass in my bare feet." Now there's an image.
Williams empathized with how Reno was the target of criticism: "Did any of it make you want to scream?" When she insisted that if Orrin Hatch walked into the room she'd give him a "big hug," Williams was astonished: "But he said some terrible things about you on those Sunday talk shows." Williams even wondered: "How would you like to leave this Earth?"
But quizzing Starr 18 months earlier on MSNBC, in November 1999, Williams had demanded that Starr identify "a moment of zealotry, two moments of zealotry" in his "hunt" for the president. Williams also wondered if Starr realized that his case was perceived as being "about a middle aged man telling kind of run-of-the-mill lies to protect a non-intercourse sexual affair"?
On the upside, Williams is at least sometimes cognizant of the mainstream media's slant. On September 21, 2000 Williams opened his MSNBC program by conceding: "A series of small mistakes have taken their toll on the Gore campaign. There was the campaign event where Gore forgot the word mammogram, called it a sonogram, before asking some nurses in the audience for help. No big deal, mind you, but had that happened to Bush the news media would have used it to further the theme that the Texas governor has a troubled relationship with the English language."
Now, if only he would do more to correct the bias than to perpetuate it.
— Brent Baker is vice president of the Media Research Center.
Post a Comment
<< Home