News

Republicans Suspend Partnership With NBC News

We don’t spend a whole lot of time talking about the Republicans on this page, maybe a little bit here and there but so far our main focus is the Democratic primary. That said this development between RNC(Republican National Committee) and NBC News is quite interesting. We have maintained that NBC wants Hillary Clinton to be the next President and they have worked hard to paint inaccurate pictures of Bernie Sanders.

Now let’s be honest there IS a lot to laugh about in terms of the Republican field of candidates but the letter posted below, to Andrew Lack, the chairman of NBC should serve to help Bernie in the long run.

Maybe more people will now realize that the game is rigged and by that we mean they want Hillary Rodham Clinton.

 

Mr. Andrew Lack
Chairman, NBC News
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, New York 10112

Dear Mr. Lack,

I write to inform you that pending further discussion between the Republican National Committee (RNC) and our presidential campaigns, we are suspending the partnership with NBC News for the Republican primary debate at the University of Houston on February 26, 2016. The RNC’s sole role in the primary debate process is to ensure that our candidates are given a full and fair opportunity to lay out their vision for America’s future. We simply cannot continue with NBC without full consultation with our campaigns.

The CNBC network is one of your media properties, and its handling of the debate was conducted in bad faith. We understand that NBC does not exercise full editorial control over CNBC’s journalistic approach. However, the network is an arm of your organization, and we need to ensure there is not a repeat performance.

CNBC billed the debate as one that would focus on “the key issues that matter to all voters—job growth, taxes, technology, retirement and the health of our national economy.”  That was not the case. Before the debate, the candidates were promised an opening question on economic or financial matters. That was not the case. Candidates were promised that speaking time would be carefully monitored to ensure fairness. That was not the case.  Questions were inaccurate or downright offensive. The first question directed to one of our candidates asked if he was running a comic book version of a presidential campaign, hardly in the spirit of how the debate was billed.

While debates are meant to include tough questions and contrast candidates’ visions and policies for the future of America, CNBC’s moderators engaged in a series of “gotcha” questions, petty and mean-spirited in tone, and designed to embarrass our candidates. What took place Wednesday night was not an attempt to give the American people a greater understanding of our candidates’ policies and ideas.

I have tremendous respect for the First Amendment and freedom of the press. However, I also expect the media to host a substantive debate on consequential issues important to Americans. CNBC did not.

While we are suspending our partnership with NBC News and its properties, we still fully intend to have a debate on that day, and will ensure that National Review remains part of it.

I will be working with our candidates to discuss how to move forward and will be in touch.

Sincerely,

Reince Priebus
Chairman, Republican National Committee

About G.A. Casebeer

2 Comments

  1. Jon Barber

    I agree with Priebus. That comic book question clearly was out of line. Imagine if Sanders had gotten that question at the first debate, I would be livid. What if Bernie had to field a question like, “Senator, some people have characterized you as a communist, would you say you were closer to Stalin or Chairman Mao?”

    The first question they asked was “what is your greatest weakness?” That is a poor opening question, a question no one really answers. Will we see this in the next Dem debate? “This is for all the candidates, you all are full of flaws, please list them.”

    The letter was sent to the Chairman of NBC News. Name? Andrew Lack. I saw that and laughed. Lack makes sense or is that a Lack OF sense? It was probably Lack that approved of Lester Holt’s entirely in-the-air chopper newscast, Lack was hired not long before. I was googling around and Holt wants the same salary as Brian Williams has, $10 million. I won’t even look at what that weeny Matt Lauer makes.

    It’s funny, I sort of align with the Repubs about the media, we both don’t trust it. They complain it is too liberal, my complaint, it is too corporate. We both dislike it, for different reasons. The Right thinks it is pro-Clinton, I think it is pro-ratings, they only want to try to drive ratings to make money. If it was pro-Clinton, why do we get endless Clinton email stories? Wouldn’t they ignore the story? But I certainly detect an anti-Bernie bias which makes sense since he wants to clamp down on them as corporations. He wants free internet, stuff like that.

    I would say, the idea that TEN candidates makes an ‘organized debate’ has been proven wrong. You will never see this again in your lifetime, it was a mistake.

    I don’t know how the GOP is going to handle the next one which is Nov, 10th on the Fox Business Channel. The number of candidates is based on having 2.5 percent polling on the last polls up to 11/4 and wouldn’t the candidates complain that the CNBC debate might have screwed them for polling? Some on stage were barely allowed to speak.

    What I don’t get, why are ALL the GOP debates on cable so far? Not until Feb. 2, do they go to free TV. Another of their mistakes. They don’t have poor people among their constituency? Of course they do.

    The next three Democrat debates are free TV, first CBS, then ABC followed by NBC (which is hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus in South Carolina on Jan 17th.). I wonder about the next one, CBS. I’ve seen how they use a wild haired photo of Bernie next to portrait shots of Clinton and O’Malley. They did it last week twice that I randomly saw.

    Bernie is going to win, I truly believe that.

  2. Ralph Roberts

    When I first watched the debates I didn’t think much of it but when looking at it a second time I guess I did see a difference in some of the questions. Some where not terribly good and yes some seemed to confront the candidates a bit more forcefully than happened in the democratic debate. Frankly after a second look I found myself wishing that the next dem debate would have those toothier questions. Confront the candidates on discrepancies in what they claim, make them back up what they say. The response though is one more example of the conservative right being all big on a hard nosed – tough it out- approach to poverty, racial inequality, sexism and so on but when it has to do with them- weather them is a politician or a Kim Davis– the squeel bias, discrimination, persecution.