Charles Pierce Slams Mainstream Media For Promoting Liz Cheney, Obama 'Birthers' Movement (VIDEO)

David Shuster, guest-hosting for Keith Olbermann on "Countdown" last night, invited Boston Globe Magazine writer Charles Pierce on the program to discuss what, if any, political utility there is in Liz Cheney refusing to disown the conspiracy theory movement known as the Obama 'Birthers.'

The segment was quickly turned around, however, when Pierce started blaming the mainstream media for pumping up Ms. Cheney and giving the Obama 'Birthers' a forum in which to seriously discuss their conspiracy theory.

Referencing Chuck Todd's statement earlier on Hardball that the internet is the medium through these, Pierce argued that the political utility of advancing these kinds arguments is not that the internet will help to disseminate them, but that the mainstream media will pick up and debate them as if they were serious issues.

Shuster tried to steer the conversation back towards Liz Cheney and what strategic benefit she saw in not disowning the 'Birther' movement, but Pierce refused to let go:

Schuster: If liz cheney or anybody else is unwilling to acknowledge the facts in something as clear-cut as President Obama's birth, why should Liz Cheney be trusted on anything else she that she wants to talk about?

Pierce: I don't know. I'm not the one who books her. I mean, it's the folks on shows like this that book her... I don't know that she's a leader of any kind. What I would tell you is she's a prominent Republican because she's been made a prominent Republican on TV.

Send us tips! Write us at [e-mail] if you see any newsworthy or notable TV moments. Read more about our media monitoring project here and click here to join the Media Monitors team.

Comments

[oregonbird]

I sent an email to MSNBC -- not easy getting an addy that works -- expressing outrage over the treatment Mr. Pierce received. Schuster even refused to allow his guest to mention the name of the book he was there to tout -- petty and vindictive, because his guest refused to bobblehead.

I've never seen Schuster behave so badly -- I've never seen anyone on Countdown be treated so vilely. Pierce was reasonable, quiet and polite -- and I was very pleased to see Schuster gone the next night, and the cute, minkish Brit on in his place.

[stagebandman]

David, David, David. You want to know why you don't have a regular show on MSNBC? Watch this video about 100 times. Then tell yourself if that was a fair interview.

Mr. Pierce, you have my utmost respect. That was right on!

[Dustee]

I like David, but Mr Pierce is soooo right! David want's to protect Chris, morning Joe NBC etc. It's all about the media David for which you tried to NOT speak about!

Two thumbs up to Charlie Pierce!!!

[LCLA]

Enough of the rude interruptions and talking over interviewees every time there is any disagreement or a new idea pops into the host's head. Apparently some people like all this cacophony, but I use my channel changer and off button pretty quickly when the arguing starts. I guess they think civil discourse is boring.

[talkingdog]

There again,...this isn't news.

[David2]

I find it interesting that JUST when the focus of the media started to turn to the C Street Center and its influence in Congress, right after Senator Ensign and Governor Sanford (current and former C Street "residents") had their affairs aired, all of a sudden the "Birther" fraud goes from fringe flakes to long and exasperated debates on cable news.

It's a very convenient distraction that HuffPo readers should pay a little more attention to.

[Dustee]

I've been posting similar thoughts as yours. Why are we giving all this attention to whackos and letting them run the conversation? This wouldn't have happened to McCain because he's a republican born in Panama. Media is giving them too much face time as if to say what birthers have to talk about is important. And I blame HuffPo too.

[mheister]

Really, the question we should be asking of these "news" organizations is, why aren't they booking guests as far to the Left as Liz Cheney is to the Right? Why isn't Ralph Nader getting more air time? Congressman Kucinich? Noam Chomsky? Why hasn't MSNBC offered to syndicate "Democracy Now!"???

Actually, those are all serious voices, but once they're established, these infotainment portals can start booking the Left-wing conspiracy theorist nutjobs to push ratings.

[gatogato]

Why do we always have to be represented from the far left or the far right? I don't much care to be represented by those you just mentioned. Hate Nader, don't think too much off Kucinch, or Chompsky.
Why not have on reasonable and informed people from the mainstream of dems and repubs on - not wingnuts to the far left or right?
Everyone should be allowed their opinion but the media always focuses on the fringe.

[mooklyn]

you had me at "don't think to much. . . "

[gvidal]

Charles Pierce is right on!

[whitenoise007]

yep--it's the "liberal" media--including hffpst-- that keeps the right-wing lunatics alive. but they don't want to hear that. but the alternative is substantial journalism, and we can't have that!

[bobfeld]

Morning Joke on MSNBC gives LIZ cheney a platform all the time. Of course,none of her "comments" get challenged. Not even Mika(the self proclaimed "journalist" )challenges anything she say.

[pxgabriel]

The problem is this guy is never going to get to speak on MSM media again. Just like the Cheneys and the Bush administration on a whole will not talk to anybody that is going to criticize them. Did you see the look Liz Gave James Carville when he had the audacity to call Liz out on Larry King. Well this guy is not going to be asked back. MSNBC has Keith and Rachel but keith has a hard time critcizing other MSNBC stories at least Rachel took on Pat Buchanan, although she was weak during the interview but made amends the next night. But morning Joe will have Liz Cheney on time and time again spewing her lies and rewriting of history about her father. They will not criticize Sarah Palin for lyin' cheatin' ways in hopes that she will be a guest on their show. And they Put Jesse Ventura down for calling Sarah Palin a quitter, after he served i Vietnam and had a successful term as governor. Mike Barnicle said "Can you believe that guy" or something to that effect. There really isn't any news on TV that does not have an agenda except Jon Stewart. That is why he got the vote for most trusted.

[superbowl3]

How does MSNBC stay in business?

[pxgabriel]

Its not MSNBC, its all of the news networks.

[bobfeld]

You sure use the term "news networks" pretty loosely. :-)

[Dannydel]

We need something akin to the BBC or the ABC in Australia. Non commercial organizations free from government and economic pressure in their reportage. Look at networks like CNN and you see a group of well coiffed eye candy, reading off of teleprompters. These are not journalists, they are eye candy, used for diseminating a 24 hour repetetive re-hash of McHeadlines.

[roch20]

Well, we have that already, it's called "DemocracyNow"; why haven't they been in the same spotlight as MSNBC, CNN, or FOX? Go figure! Money talks, hmmm, money talks!

[Counterglow]

Try CBC TV or CBC Radio, or Newsworld on cable. They're Canadian public stations. Their features tend to be quite left wing, but they report the news straight up. They also tend to believe that you don't have to have an exactly equal breakdown of one "side" of an issue versus the other on a minute-by-minute basis. They balance their coverage over days or even weeks.

[Saidas]

We do and its called The News Hour on PBS.

[MarionWatts]

Pardon me, are you for real? Because you know NOTHING about the BBC. It's GOVERNMENT-FUNDED through a licence fee which EVERYONE who owns a television has to pay. It's leftwing and its agenda is to promote whatever agenda the current government has. Its only constant is its overt anti-Americanism. Free from economic pressure? Google ANY British broadsheet and you'll see that it is in crisis at the moment because too many top-level executives in the BBC have been misusing and misappropriating funds. It can pay its so-called 'top' star, Jonathon Ross the US equivalent of $8,500,000 per annum for him to ring an elderly actor during a live radio broadcast and sexually berate him? Would you be satisfied in paying for that?

Also, eye candy? They are under pressure here for sacking a top-ranked professional choreographer from the judging panel of Dancing with the Stars because she was 66 years old and replacing her with a twenty-something bimbo who won one of the past competitions and who has NO dance qualifications.

Before you praise the BBC, get some facts straight!

[IAmHeather]

Well, first off, the BBC has NOTHING to do with the government. Usually they spend their time critisizing the government in quiet way, running lead stories on problems with the war, diplomacy, or domestic troubles. They are really not fans of Gordon Brown.

Secondly, most people choose to pay the licence fee (don't have BBC, don't pay) because the shows on BBC are the best quality (well, mostly) and there aren't any adverts. The money also funds 8 or 9 radio stations, a website, 24 hour news station, a kid's station, the iplayer service, and charitable causes like Red Nose Day (raised £80 MILLION, over 100 million USD, in the middle of a recession). Children In Need, Sport Relief, etc.

Jonathon Ross does not get that much. I would eat my own hat if he gets more than £500,000 a year. Seriously. And he almost lost his job over that phone call, was ridiculed for WEEKS in the press, his reputation damaged beyond repair.

Get some facts before you start slagging the BBC.

[oregonbird]

Ah, yes, the BBC. Which recently began airing "in-country" and "export" versions. What they show British citizens, news programs and the emphasis on various issues, is not the same as the content and emphasis they produce for the continent and the US.

Welcome to 1984. it got held up in traffic.

[springsm]

Wow someone finally had the guts to tell it like it is TO THEIR FACE!!!. Go, Mr. Pierce. It is about time they heard this. The MSM is only entertainment these days...you have to diagram sentences in order to find a peckle of news. Or a serious debate. I suppose Charles Pierce won't be asked to any other programs with talking heads...but he should really make the rounds. We have Palin, Rove, Boehner, Jowls McConnell and a whole pelathra of subjects to whom a voice should not be given on MSM...cable or anything else.

[local21]

Pierce was telling it like it is and Shuster kept talking over him.

[ghostdance]

The perspective Charles Pierce is coming from is exactly what Neil Postman was saying back in 1984 with Amusing Ourselves to Death. Notice how he wants to point out a BOOK to see a counterargument. I just finished reading Postman again for the first time since college and I was shocked to see he made a desperate attempt at predicting a remedy for mainstream news. It was a show "like SNL" that uses satire to raise media consciousness in the public. In other words, in 1984 Neil Postman predicted the need for shows like "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" and "The Colbert Report." Are we finally becoming sophisticated to the brain deadening TV news entertainment. Shuster is clearly unwilling to cast any aspersions on the mainstream media and was using bully tactics to get Pierce back on point. That is very sad as Olbermann wouldn't have been as kneejerk reactionary if he were sitting there, I believe. He needn't be so defensive anyway, because it is in their perspective's best interest to increase the number of people savvy to media manipulation and social engineering as they would have the votes if there weren't so many swayed from their own best interests. When both sides are guilty of the same thing there is no value in the argument anymore. But Maddow and Olbermann manage it without being guilty of just reversing the tactics. They differ both stylistically and substantively.