Phil Donahue needs to quit seeking the approval of right-wing lunatics and allowing goofballs to drive his program. And, for the sake of both his show and the liberal agenda he has long supported, he'd better do it fast.
Consider the themes of three consecutive recent editions -- Dec. 16, Dec. 17 and Dec. 18 -- of Donahue's MSNBC show:
"War Protesters: Patriotic or un-American?"
"Do You Have to Be a Christian to Go to Heaven?"
"Are Today's Women Getting a Free Ride?"
Donahue's long been known as a genuine progressive. Inject him with truth serum and I suspect he'd tell you that those stage-setting questions are preposterous, and that it's absurd to even discuss them. So why is he shifting the debate terrain so far to the right -- and in the process forcing himself and those who share his beliefs to squander precious time arguing over matters that, in their minds, have long been settled?
You don't hear CNN's Wolf Blitzer tackling the issue, "War Supporters: Patriotic or un-American?" Or FOX's Bill O'Reilly asking, "AreIrish-American Catholics Welcome in Heaven?" Or Oprah Winfrey wondering, "WhenWill the Coddling of Black Women End?"
Maybe Donahue made a New Year's resolution to do better, for on theJan. 6 edition he had a more appropriate topic: the conservativebias of the mainstream media. But proving that old habits die hard,he gave the show's first few minutes to conservative Bernard Goldberg, thelaziest advocate of the media-have-a-liberal-biasschool of thought. (You can read the transcript here.)
To balance Goldberg, Donahue could have had a guest who actually hasdocumented the conservative-corporate-establishment bias of the media,such as Jeff Cohen (one of Donahue's producers and a former panelist on"FOX News Watch"), Eric Alterman or Mark Hertsgaard. Hecould have invited Geoffrey Nunberg, who last year demolished Goldberg's arguments in a piece for the Prospect, or Jonathan Chait, who did the same in The New Republic.
Instead, Donahue balanced two conservative guests withMario Cuomo and Al Franken. To be sure, both are worthy adversaries of the right,but neither is an authority on bias in the media (though Franken, an AlGore backer and Saturday Night Live alum, did write a funny book about blowhard Rush Limbaugh).
Fortunately, Franken came prepared, hitting Goldberg with a haymaker inthe first round. He said the problem with people such as Goldberg andLimbaugh is that "they cheat." They rip stuffout of context to make it appear that their target said something thatwould make decent Americans recoil in horror, knowing full well thattheir target intended no such thing.
Franken said that Goldberg, in his book Bias, branded as "liberal hate speech" a ho-hum 1991 story by John Chancellor on the NBC evening news about shortages and economic hard times in Russia as the former Soviet Union transitioned from communism to capitalism. Goldberg blasted that report -- which apparently set off no alarm bells at the time and was, after all, the work of a centrist, establishment-oriented journalist -- as pro-communist propaganda.
But Franken filled in Goldberg on the context of Chancellor's story,including Tom Brokaw's opening remarks that evening: "This is a day forbold print in history to be remembered and savored as the day when thepower of the people in the Soviet Union proved to be greater than thepower of the gray and cold-blooded men who thought they could returnthat country to the darkness of state oppression."
Franken had Goldberg on the ropes. And what did our progressive hostdo? He changed the subject. Franken was incensed. "Phil, why are youletting Bernie off?" he asked. Throughout the evening, Franken tried tohold Goldberg's feet to the fire, to force him to explain how he couldtar a good man as an apologist for communism and not even bother tocheck on the context of an out-of-context quote. Every time, Donahueintervened.
I guarantee that Donahue didn't do it on purpose. His intent wasn't torescue the bloodied and beaten conservative. No, this was another caseof Phil being Phil -- the most incompetent progressive to ever walk theearth. He means well but is incapable of recognizing a devastatingtalking point no matter how frequently it slaps him upside the head.
Back on the Sept. 13 show, Harper's publisher John MacArthur tried repeatedly to drive home the point that it is "subverting American democracy" to deceive the public into supporting war with Iraq. He talked about "informed consent" of the governed, which is absent when the government cynically misinforms.
MacArthur has written a book, Second Front, about the use of disinformation to sell the Gulf War in 1991. He was on Donahue's show to review that record and show how the current Bush administration is up to the same deceptive tricks as the last Bush administration. MacArthur's foe, NationalReview editor Rich Lowry, sought to change the subject by falsely painting MacArthur as an apologist for Saddam Hussein, but MacArthur wouldn't let go. Too bad he was on a show hosted by an inept liberal. Here's an excerpt. The opening line is Donahue restating Lowry's point that almost all governments lie to sell a looming or ongoing war:
DONAHUE: Everybody does it. All right.
LOWRY: That always happens!
DONAHUE: We hear you. Everybody does it.
MACARTHUR: Well, if everybody does it, OK. So . . .
DONAHUE: Go ahead.
MACARTHUR: . . . the Bushes subverting American democracy, subverting the Senate, subverting . . .
LOWRY: Subverting!
MACARTHUR: . . . the whole notion of informed consent -- I think -- you think that's really funny. [Lowry had chuckled at the words "subverting American democracy."]
LOWRY: Well, look -- look . . .
MACARTHUR: I think -- I don't think it's funny.
LOWRY: If you have secret evidence . . .
MACARTHUR: I don't think it's funny!
LOWRY: . . . that Saddam Hussein is in compliance . . .
MACARTHUR: No, no, no, no, no!
LOWRY: . . . with the UN resolutions . . .
MACARTHUR: I'm talking about the democratic . . .
LOWRY: . . . put it on the table!
MACARTHUR: . . . process. I'm talking about . . .
LOWRY: Is he really not a murderer?
MACARTHUR: . . . the democratic process.
(CROSSTALK)
LOWRY: Let's hear the evidence!
DONAHUE: We ought to be able to do this . . .
MACARTHUR: If you think it's OK to subvert the democratic process with lies . . .
LOWRY: Subverting . . .
MACARTHUR: . . . and this is what the Bushes are doing . . .
LOWRY: . . . is a very strong word!
MACARTHUR: . . . and this is what the Bushes did . . .
LOWRY: That's a very strong word.
DONAHUE: Yes.
LOWRY: Do you have secret evidence that Saddam Hussein . . .
MACARTHUR: Why are you changing the subject?
LOWRY: . . . is not, indeed, a thug?
(CROSSTALK)
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Oh, come on!
MACARTHUR: Why are you changing the subject?
DONAHUE: Mr. Hitchens . . .
LOWRY: I want you to address the question!
HITCHENS: Yes?
DONAHUE: Bring some civility to this, for goodness sake! That's why we have you.
HITCHENS: Look, I can make it very easy for -- I hope, anyway, for all of them. At the same time as Bush and Reagan were acting in this way, they were teaching -- we know this for sure -- they coached the Nicaraguan Contra leadership in how to lie to Congress. That's been . . .
MACARTHUR: They were also coaching . . .
HITCHENS: That's been documented.
MACARTHUR: . . . Iraqi helicopter . . .
HITCHENS: They coached them . . .
MACARTHUR: . . . pilots how to kill Kurds!
HITCHENS: . . . to lie. They coached them to lie. They told us that the -- that a tribal -- actually, now it's been proved, a cannibal leader in Angola was the moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers, and they were backing the bin Laden forces . . .
DONAHUE: So . . .
(CROSSTALK)
DONAHUE: What is your point? Chris, administrations lie! All right, so we knew that.
There he is, the only progressive talk-show host on TV, bored silly byguests who want to drive home a powerful point about the government lyingto trick Congress and the public into supporting war.
Since landing a prime-time MSNBC chat show last summer, Donahue hasflopped in the ratings and flopped as a promoter of his positions. He'sfast becoming toast, and the show's recent makeover -- including the addition of loads ofquestions and comments from an in-studio audience, callersand e-mailers -- has exacerbated the show's second-biggest flaw: too manyguests and not enough time. (The biggest flaw, of course, is Donahue himself.)
The nightly program isn't really an hour -- it's closer to 40 minutes, once you cut out thenewsbreaks, commercials, theme music and introduction andre-introduction of guests. Factor in eight minutes ofblather from the audience and callers and 12 minutes from Donahue andthat leaves just 20 minutes for six or eight guests.
Donahue opposes the rush to war, and perhaps he wants to discredit thecase for war by presenting its most incompetent and extreme advocates. If that's his thinking, he needs to think again. There's simply no benefit to treating respectfully theIraq-policy views of Jerry Falwell or former weapons inspector Bill Tierney,who says that Iraq already has nuclear weapons. The PBS science show Nova doesn't give airtime or credence to those who argue that the moon is made of green cheese, so why should Donahue give airtime to these guys?
On the Dec. 9 show, Tierney made this claim: "Iraq has nuclear weapons,folks. He's got them. You'd better sober up to the reality." Donahuereplied, "Where's the proof, Bill? I appreciate you and respect you,but you're making these announcements like you know."
Here's the question for Donahue: What is it about Tierney that you"appreciate" and "respect"? That he's a good father? A devotedlittle-league coach? No doubt there are many reasons to think highly ofTierney, but he was on Donahue to talk about Iraq, and everything hesaid on that topic points to one conclusion: He's clueless.
Donahue should be trying to enhance the stature and credibility ofcompetent critics of the war whom he has put on the air -- whether it'scareer diplomat Edward Peck, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) or scholarssuch as Phyllis Bennis and William Hartung -- by letting them debate honest,informed, thoughtful advocates of war, such as Kenneth Pollack. But by pitting his liberal guests opposite right-wing goofballs, he does progressives -- and the quality of his show -- a real disservice.
So, Phil, if you're serious about preventing war, quit forcing your progressives to share the stage with lunatics, keep your own yapping to a minimum and forget about balance, because most of Cable Land can't wait to attack Iraq. Do these things and you'd not only help to stop a war -- you might even gain an audience.
Dennis Hans is a freelance writer who has taught at the University of South Florida.
