06-19-2018 07:02:46 PM -0700
06-19-2018 01:26:56 PM -0700
06-18-2018 11:55:00 AM -0700
06-17-2018 08:12:25 AM -0700
06-15-2018 09:37:33 AM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.

Interview: Brent Bozell on Collusion: How the Media Stole the 2012 Election


MR. DRISCOLL:  This is Ed Driscoll for PJ Media.com, and we’re talking today with Brent Bozell, the founder of the Media Research Center, and the co-author, along with Tim Graham, of the new book Collusion: How the Media Stole the 2012 Election---and How to Stop Them from Doing It in 2016. It’s published by HarperCollins, and available from Amazon.com and your local bookseller. And Brent, thank you for stopping by today.

MR. BOZELL:  Thank you for having me.

MR. DRISCOLL:  Brent, let's start with the first word in your new book's title.  How do you define "Collusion" in regards to the media and the 2012 election?

MR. BOZELL:  Well, collusion, defined loosely, is an action of two -- two entities, away from the public eye in secret.  And that is, in fact, what was going on in the 2012 election.  Look, I will tell you, when the publishers first approached me to do a book of this nature, I didn't want to do it.  I thought it was -- it was too heavy-handed.  I thought the idea of collusion and stealing elections was a little bit over the top, and I just didn't -- wasn't interested.

Until my colleague, Tim Graham, started doing some research on it.  He came back two months later with the research.  We looked at it, and we thought my goodness, it is collusion and they did steal the 2012 elections.

MR. DRISCOLL:  For over half a century, the bulk of the American MSM has tilted left to some degree. But in 2008, enamored with Barack Obama, they really seemed to drop any mask of objectivity. In Britain, Fleet Street has long taken sides when it comes to British politics, but at least in the UK, there’s a newspaper for virtually everyone’s political worldview.

In America, it’s basically Fox and talk radio and the Blogosphere versus the entire American MSM. What is the future of American politics with such an imbalanced news media?

MR. BOZELL:  Well, a couple of points on the status quo.  You're right.  If you look at the -- at the media overseas, what you will find is a biased media known to the public as a biased media.  The conservative papers are known to be conservative; the liberal ones are known to be liberal.  They don't pretend to be other than what they are.

In the media today in the United States, the public knows the media to be liberal.  The media deny a liberalism.  They deny any kind of a bias.  But this bias, this liberalism, is far different than it was say five, eight years ago.  We conservatives should rue the day we lost Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather, and Peter Jennings passed away, because when you compare those liberals to today's crop of journalists, it's a day and night difference.

Liberalism used to be devoted to a sense of liberalism that was decent and honest and defensible.  Today's left has become so radicalized and dishonest in the sense that they believe that ends justify the means.  And that's what you've seen throughout the first term and going into the second term of the Obama administration.  And that is exactly what is happening with the national news media, com -- you know, look.  If you think about it, the Obama campaign never ended on election day.  It continued.

The media's coverage of Obama continued the exact same way after the election.  It's ongoing.

MR. DRISCOLL:  Obviously, the Obama administration's malfeasance in Benghazi was, in retrospect, one of the key moments of the run-up to the 2012 election. Could you talk about that, and why the MSM was so unwilling to investigate the administration's role in what went wrong there?

MR. BOZELL:  Sure.  In broad terms, they're not going to investigate or follow up anything that is harmful to the narrative of the Obama administration.  Look at the IRS scandal right now.  It's been forgotten.  It's been dropped.  Have we resolved it?  No.  We're nowhere nearer than we were a month ago.

Benghazi, we still haven't gotten back to the bottom of Benghazi.  In fact, the media could have pursued it.  And just think about how they pursued foreign policy issues with, say, President George Bush.  Remember WNDs and Iraq.  They wouldn't leave that one alone until they got what they thought was the to the bottom of it.  Benghazi?  They never even started investigating it.

And what do we know?  We know also that Candy Crowley, who was the debate moderator in the third presidential debate, took away the shining moment from Mitt Romney when Barack Obama made the outlandish statement that he had, in fact, called it terrorism, denounced it as terrorism the first night, when in fact, he hadn't.  And Mitt Romney looked at Obama in this look of disbelief, like I can't believe you just gave me the presidency, and she jumped in to defend the President and jumped in to back him up.

And he pulled back to her and he said to her, now say that again.  And she repeated her defense of Barack Obama.  This isn't -- this isn't journalism.  This isn't reporting.  They pick sides.