In Which Scott Pelley Does Us all A Favor....

You've probably seen the video clip from Saturday night's Republican debate by now. CBS "moderator" Scott Pelley attempted to lecture Newt Gingrich on the “rule of law” regarding American citizens who join with enemy forces in order to wage war against the US.  Pelley thought he had embarrassed Gingrich, and elevated himself, when he (Pelley) declared that killing terrorists overseas is not consistent with the aforementioned “rule of law”.

Just look at Scott Pelley's face after launching his verbal attack on Newt Gingrich:

The smug, self-satisfied look of a liberal who feels they have all the answers.  Note the head tilt, slightly askew and towards the audience, as if he expected a thunderous ovation to follow his inane utterances.

Well, he got some scattered applause.  The thunderous ovation was reserved for Newt's smackdown of this little liberal bitch:



And yet it seems that Pelley did us a favor, by revealing to any remaining Americans still unsure on the issue that yes, the media is exceeding liberal,  as well as exceedingly hostile to all viewpoints countering their own.  The Corner's Michael Walsh:

The MSM just did every conservative, including the candidates, a huge favor by letting the mask slip and flashing its true ugly face for the cameras....

But let’s also understand how they look at it. By Pelley’s lights, he was only doing the Lord’s work, holding the Right’s feet to the fire on basic principles in a way that journalists generally would never do for the Left.

That’s because they’ve internalized the Left’s Manichean world view — not simply that Right=wrong, but that there’s no real discussion to have regarding the other side’s basic philosophy, which they regard as outmoded and/or malignant.

What Newt is doing — finally — is showing the Right how to fight back, by turning the Left’s own weapons (in this case, of sneering disdain) back on them.

Peter Wehner is less kind:

Unlike his able and informed co-moderator, National Journal’s Major Garrett, Pelley came across as schoolmarmish, smug, arrogant, unlikeable, clumsy (he tried to cut off Mitt Romney when Romney still had plenty of time left to answer his question) and at times ignorant.

...Pelley doesn’t understand — as, say, Jim Lehrer does — the role of the moderator is to take a back seat in debates, to move the discussion along as seamlessly as possible, to illuminate rather than hector, and not to become a focal point or advocate for a particular point of view.

In addition, and in general, Pelley treated the candidates like they were unruly children. As for the audience, he didn’t instruct it not to applaud; he lectured it.

Scott Pelley, then, came across as unprofessional and biased, tendentious and out of his depth, and he confirmed many of the stereotypes conservatives have of the press.


Disrespectful of the candidates for the highest office in the land, scornful of the audience who had come to view a debate between the candidates, not involving the moderator, and completely out of his intellectual depth. That's Scott Pelley, representing CBS before America.

And do you know what? He did it perfectly.