RELATED: The Obama/O’Reilly Super Bowl Interview With No Questions Out Of Bounds

“We’re the only guys wearing coats, you’re wearing a tie,” the President joked to Lauer about the Super Bowl, adding that he believed it was going to be a “great game” but that “I can’t call it” because it was simply too close. Lauer tried to get him to express some support for a team by noting that the Giants had won in 2004 and 2008– the years President George W. Bush and the President himself were elected, but President Obama retorted that “you’re not going to get me” and kept his lips sealed on the matter (though he did note that the women of the White House are aware that Tom Brady is “a good-looking guy”).

They then went on to politics proper, starting with reports earlier in the week of a possible Israeli attack on Iran. “I won’t go into the details,” the President responded when asked whether he believed America would receive prior warning from Israel were they to attack Iran, “but we have closer military and intelligence consultation than we ever had with Israel.” As for the possibility of retaliation from Iran on American soil, the President argued that he believed Iran did not “have the capabilities” for it, and that while he was seeking a diplomatic solution to the tension, “we’re not taking any options off the table.”

The last major category of questioning (excepting another interview Lauer recorded for tomorrow’s Today show) was about the economy, a question Matt Lauer put simply: “Do you deserve a second term?” The President answered that of course he did, “but we’re not done,” and that the economic turnaround was visible but still incomplete.

The full interview (via NBC) below:

Yes, it’s a blatant promotion for every single show on NBC. Yes, they have cameos from some of the network’s, shall we say, less popular programming. But Alec Baldwin belting into song while Tina Fey looks on awkwardly is just something you absolutely cannot be cynical about. With cameos of everyone from Brian Williams to Jimmy Fallon, this may have been one of the best marketing decisions NBC has made in quite a while.

WARNING: the following video may contain awesome. (Courtesy of NBC)

RELATED: The Biggest Shock About Tim Tebow’s Super Bowl Ad? It’s Uncontroversial

Activist Randall Terry, who is actually running on the Democratic ticket against President Obama and was the subject of an attempted gay conversion by Vermin Supreme, was told by a Chicago NBC affiliate that they would not be airing his campaign ad during the Super Bowl. Terry immediately filed a complaint with the FCC to demand that WMAQ air his ad. The ad will be airing in NBC affiliates in other states, but the FCC decided that WMAQ had the right to deny Terry’s request.

The law requires stations to carry the ads of candidates who are either on the ballot in the state or if they make a “substantial showing” that they are running a legitimate campaign as a write-in candidate…

The commission pointed to a letter from the Democratic National Committee claiming that Terry is not a “bona fide Democratic candidate.” The DNC argued that Democratic candidates must demonstrate they are “faithful to the interests, welfare and success of the Democratic party” and that they will participate in the nominating convention in “good faith.”

“Based on the record before us, we conclude that it was not unreasonable for WMAQ to conclude that Terry had not made a substantial showing that he is a bona fide candidate for Democratic nomination for President in the State of Illinois,” the FCC wrote.

The commission also noted that candidates “do not have the right to air ads whenever they want.” The ad in question, according to the Christian Science Monitor, the ad featured images of aborted fetuses, and Terry said before the FCC made the ruling that if it was decided against him, he would consider taking them, the NBC affiliate, and the Democratic National Committee to court.

h/t The Hill

“Based on the public’s response,” said Del Rey, referring to the backlash, “I must have [...] clubbed a baby seal while singing the Taliban national anthem.”

RELATED: Was Lana Del Rey’s SNL Performance Really An Elaborate Kristen Wiig Prank?

Addressing criticism that she changed her name and image as a “marketing gimmick” after failing to find fame under her real name, Del Rey apologized. Plus, she added, it’s not like other stars ever change their names in their pursuit of fame. Right?

When asked what had made people so angry, Del Rey guessed it must have been the fact that her performance was stiff, distant and weird… likely a result of her being stiff, distant and weird.

“In this age of dangerous school bullying, you have set an important message,” she pointed out. “If you think someone is weird, you should criticize them as much as possible.” Almost as powerful as the time SNL made a sketch addressing Ashlee Simpson’s many critics.

Have a look, via NBC:

RELATED: Jon Stewart On Newt’s Moon Base: He Wants To Leave The Earth ‘For A Younger Planet’

Let’s join Gingrich and Callista as they — with the help of the Reagatron3000, a crater-hopping Herman Cain and a Mitt Romney in disguise — as they strive for a better future… future.

Along the way, we’ll meet a pageant winner who, as per Gingrich’s decree, is a student by day, student janitor by night. “The people of South Carolina wanted you to be president,” the young girl reminds him. “Not all of America is as forward-thinking as South Carolina,” Gingrich replies. “A good moon to you!” she says, bidding him farewell. “And may divorce be with you,” he responds.

Is Romney really a robot? Will the Earth survive an attack by Iran and North Korea? Are we all going to ignore the fact that this guy sounds nothing like Newt Gingrich? Watch and find out, via NBC:

Fortunately, we don’t cover sitcom ratings here at Mediaite so I can pretend to live in a fantasy world where people on the street walk around with Parks and Recreation merchandise instead of the sad world I live in where I literally see people everywhere wearing…sigh…“Bazinga” shirts. So, to continue to fuel my fantasy, I’m going to pretend that there are people out there who are really excited to watch this hilarious 30 Rock webisode!

Hooray, delusion!

Anyway, these webisodes, which star Alec Baldwin’s Jack Donaghy character, have featured some great guest stars in the past, but this one takes the cake. I don’t want to ruin any surprises, but I will say that it includes a cameo from Donald Glover (who, trivia fans, used to write for 30 Rock) and features Michael McDonald covering the Saved by the Bell theme. That moment alone is better than 90% of TV.

Enjoy the video from sad, sad, sad NBC below and try to remain in fantasy world for a few minutes longer:

(h/t Entertainment Weekly)

She also shared that, for her birthday, her mom baked her a red velvet cake (it really is the best kind of cake, folks — the “secret” ingredient is vinegar) with the help of First Daughters Sasha and Malia. The First Lady admitted that, sure, the cake is high in calories. But when you’re dancing along with Beyonce or on Nickelodeon, the cake melts right off. Plus, she runs, lifts weights and kickboxes. And punches Al Roker, apparently.

RELATED: Michelle Obama’s iCarly Appearance: Hamsters, Robots, And Dancing

When Leno later expressed dismay that, for the first time ever, the country has a president who is younger than he is, the First Lady was quick to note that “oh, he’s aging!” But still “gorgeous.”

She also shared that the President sings to her all the time. (Although their daughters, she shared, are less than enthused with their parents’ musical inclinations and would rather they just be “very quiet.”), adding that she found Mitt Romney‘s recent rendition of “America the Beautiful” to be “beautiful.”

Another thing we learned: The girls have to earn computer privileges and aren’t allowed to use it during the week.

Watch to see what else happened — including Michelle Obama knocking Al Roker’s block off. Yup, you heard right:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Yes, they’ve decided to pull the episode of Fear Factor where contestants drank donkey semen.

Clearly, this is the most important stay of cultural execution since ABC canceled Work It.

Last week, TMZ broke the news of the upcoming episode, posting a picture sent to them of two pitchers (one of urine and one of semen), apparently taken when the “stunt” was filmed last summer. As the picture hit the Internet, the entire country let out a gasp! Wait, I’m sorry. It wasn’t a gasp. It was a groan and a sighing exclamation of “I’m surprised they haven’t done that already.”

Anyway, apparently someone at NBC heard these sighs. Today, The New York Times reported that the episode, which was set to air tonight, will not be shown. This is a good thing. Seriously, if NBC had found time to air this but not time to put Community on their mid-season schedule, they’d deserve to be the last place network.

You want to know what the funniest part of this story is though? Somewhere, there’s a Fear Factor contestant reading this news and realizing they drank donkey semen for nothing.

Watch the initial report of the story from TMZ below:

(h/t AV Club)

RELATED: Mike Huckabee: Gingrich Ad Starring Me Is ‘Disapproved Use Of Copyrighted Material’

Politico notes that Brokaw himself released a statement, saying he was “extremely uncomfortable with the extended use of my personal image in this political ad. I do no [sic] want my role as a journalist compromised for political gain by any campaign.” In the meantime, NBC News has released its own statement on what it intends to do about this:

“The NBC Legal Department has written a letter to the campaign asking for the removal of all NBC News material from their campaign ads,” NBC News said in a statement, which added, “Similar requests have gone out to other campaigns that have inappropriately used Nightly News, Meet the Press, Today and MSNBC material.”

Given that much of what is used in campaign ads are statements that candidates make on television shows, the impact of NBC winning these legal battles– perhaps not something like the Brokaw ad that does not actually build upon the clip, but other ads that use rather than display without comment– on what campaign ads look like could be massive. That said, for journalism purposes, fair use requires an application rather than mere repurposing of material, so there may be a very good case here. The ad is still up on Mitt Romney’s site here, and you can watch below:



Update: The Romney camp tells Politico it is “reviewing” the claim, but considered the clip to fall under fair use:

Eric Fehrnstrom, Mitt Romney’s senior adviser, told reporters after a rally in Panama City, Fla., that the campaign has received NBC’s letter complaining about its recent ad featuring a 1997 broadcast but does not intend to take it down.

“We just received the letter. We are reviewing it. But we believe it falls within fair use,” Fehrnstrom said. “We didn’t take the entire broadcast, we just took the first 30 seconds of it.”

Of then-anchor Tom Brokaw, who personally issued a statement of protest about the ad, Fehrnstrom said: “He’s a very respected newsman but we believe that the use of that clip falls within fair use standards. We respect him as a newsman who has a lot of credibility but we believe this falls within fair use standards.”

Pelosi, as we reported earlier today, told CNN’s John King last night that she is confident Gingrich will never become Commander in Chief because “there’s something I know.”

RELATED: Nancy Pelosi Says Newt Gingrich Will Never Be President: ‘There’s Something I Know’

Gingrich found this literally laughable:

Who knows? I mean, she lives in the San Francisco environment of very strange fantasies and very strange understandings of reality. I have no idea what’s in Nancy Pelosi’s head. However, if she knows something, I have a simple challenge: Spit it out. Tell us what it is. I have no idea what she’s talking about.

Have a look, from NBC:

h/t Hot Air

Echoing comments made earlier today by Newt Gingrich, Hasselbeck felt the network had been trying to stifle the debate’s Republican audience:

RELATED: Newt Gingrich Blasts Brian Williams For Silencing Debate Audience: ‘The Media Doesn’t Control Free Speech’

The American people deserve something better than a crappy debate. That was the worst debate I’ve ever seen, and I’ve watched all of them. Number one — I love this — like, dare we not let anyone applaud for a Republican. [...] I don’t like that idea. I think the American people sitting there to say, or express, how they believe peacefully. Number two, I am annoyed that they didn’t even get to the topic of jobs until near fifty minutes into that debate, when we are in the most devastating job situation in our nation.

Have a look, via ABC:

RELATED: Newt Gingrich Catches Mitt Romney Flat-Footed In Freddie Mac Tussle

Adam Smith of the Tampa Bay Times asked Romney to explain something in his immigration plan– the fact that he wanted to get people out of the country to apply for entrance legally, but also did not call for deporting anyone. How would he get them out of the country?

“The answer is self-deportation,” Romney replied, “they decide they can do better by going home because they can’t find work here because they don’t have the legal documentation to get work here.” He added that he would be willing to give them a transition period.

The moderator repeated the word. “Self-deportation? Isn’t that what we have now?” Romney replied that “we have a card that says who is here legally,” and that he understands the plight of illegal immigrants, but “I don’t think it’s fair to the people who have loved ones waiting on line to get here.”

The segment via NBC below:

Gingrich emphatically denied doing any lobbying when Williams brought up the issue, before Williams tossed the ball to Romney, asking Gingrich whether he had ever “peddled influence,” vocabulary Romney used at the beginning of the debate. “There’s a point in this process where it gets unnecessarily personal and nasty, and that’s sad,” Gingrich replied (Yes, this is the sort of debate where Freddie Mac is the “unnecessarily personal and nasty” topic). “I think it’s pretty clear to say that I have never, ever gone and done any lobbying,” he confirmed.

Since his name was spoken, Romney was allowed to jump in, and he called Gingrich’s title at Freddie Mac “chief lobbyist,” arguing that the company doesn’t pay the millions Gingrich received “for you to be a historian.” He also noted that Gingrich was speaking publicly in favor of government sponsored entities.

“As a business man, you know that the gross revenue of Bain was not your personal income,” Gingrich corrected, suggesting that those millions weren’t his personal salary, but rather, “my share annually was about $35,000 a year… based on my knowledge of history, particularly the history of Washington.” He then flipped the question on its head: “What was the gross revenue of Bain at the time you were there?” Romney fell into the trap of actually answering the question, and mumbled a bit before responding, “very substantial, but I don’t see how that’s relevant.” He finally got out by switching the topic to Gingrich supporting Medicare Part D.

“Let me be very clear, because I understand your technique– you used on McCain, you used on Huckabee, you use it consistently,” Gingrich responded. “I have always publicly favored and openly advocated… Medicare Part D, it saves lives.”

The segment via NBC below:

The debate, the 19th so far, will begin at 8pm EST and be moderated by Wolf Blitzer. It is being hosted by CNN, the Republican Party of Florida and the Hispanic Leadership Network.

***THIS LIVE EVENT HAS ENDED***

In the joke, which aired on January 19th, Leno showed a news report on the various GOP candidates’ residences and, when it came to Romney, there was a spliced in image of a giant, golden palace. However, when the Tonight Show graphic department did their Google image search for “expensive looking castle” or whatever, they accidentally chose a picture of India’s Golden Temple, the holiest of Sikh shrines. And now, Indians are furious.

From NDTV:

“The visiting Overseas Affairs Minister Vayalar Ravi yesterday ‘objected’ to the remark and said he has directed Indian Ambassador to the US Nirupama Rao to take up the matter with the State Department.

‘It is quite unfortunate and quite objectionable that such a comment has been made after showing the…Golden temple,’ Mr Ravi told a group of Indian reporters.

‘Golden temple is Sikh community’s most sacred place. Even our Prime Minister went there for praying in the New Year. I believe that the person who has shown is not that ignorant. The American Government should also look at this kind of thing,’ the NRI Affairs Minister said.”

Or, at least, some Indians are furious. Many think the whole thing is overblown and silly. The Huffington Post caught this great quote from Indian media commentator Suhel Seth told the AFP his theory of what was really going on:

“Jay Leno is a comedian, take him with a pinch of salt. But our politicians do not want to address real issues, like getting clean water to people. They would rather talk about silly issues.”

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Wait a second. India’s politicians sometimes feign outrage over a late night comedian’s jokes so as to avoid talking about issues? That sure sucks. Nothing like that ever happens here in America…

Watch the original Leno joke below:

(h/t HuffPo)

Curry kicked things off by asking Gingrich about news that it was actually Rick Santorum, and not Mitt Romney, who won the Iowa primary. Doesn’t this make Santorum, and not Gingrich, the obvious alternative to front-runner Romney? Well, recent polling shows, “I’m clearly within five points now of beating Romney,” or, as of last night, beating Romney by two points, said Gingrich, calling himself the only effective conservative vote.

Gingrich also said, although he ran a “positive campaign” in Iowa, he soon discovered that he’d have to match Romney’s “willingness to be very, very clear.” He also denied playing “the race card,” so to speak, in South Carolina in order to win more votes.

RELATED: Drudge Gets Exclusive, But When Will ABC Air Interview With Marianne Gingrich?

He then addressed his former wife’s upcoming interview:

Look, I’m not going to say anything negative about Marianne. My two daughters, Cathy and Jackie, have sent a letter to the president of ABC News saying, from a family perspective, they think this is totally wrong. They think ABC should not air anything like this, and that intruding into family things that are a decade, more than a decade old, are simply wrong. Now, I’ll let my daughters speak for it; I’m sure they’d be glad to come on and chat with you about it. I’m not going to comment beyond that because I’m focused on the big issues that concern the American people, which are the current challenges we have, largely because of the failure of the Obama presidency.

Have a look, courtesy of NBC:

Here’s the original email:

“ND:

I hope you’re well. Happy New Year. A big congratulations to the new freelance weekend guy, Taylor Bernam. He’s done some good posts right out of the box. I do wish the main page featured more TV coverage (Brooklyn hippster [sic] Lana Del Rey had one of the worst outings in SNL history last night — booked on the strength of her TWO SONG web EP, the least-experienced musical guest in the show’s history, for starters). In my humble opinion as a loyal customer (you know I love you but the Blog View button will be the eventual cause of my death) and while I know you’re in the midst of an editor change, weekends have been allowed to go awfully fallow — and it was a fallow holiday period for those of us who check your shit 10 times a day by iphone. I know you’ve been watching NBC Nightly News religiously each evening and I’ll no doubt be getting a withering, detailed critique from you straight away.

BW”

What?! Self-proclaimed Brooklyn expert Brian Williams can’t spell “hipster?!” I am stunned. Williams’ reputation has been irreparably sullied!

Oh, also that whole dissing a performer on an NBC show and cheekily talking up your love of a divisive gossip blog isn’t a great thing either. Yeah, network PR people don’t love that. So, one from NBC sent Gawker an email to remove the letter. The site decided to just promptly publish that letter too.

“Kevin — can you please have the post of Brian Williams’ email to Nick Denton taken down immediately? That was sent in confidence as friends and absolutely never intended to be public. A speedy removal would go a long way in maintaining the trust and respect we have for your site.”

I’m going to take a wild guess that the “trust and respect” levels may have dropped a bit today.

Anyway, there’s one big problem with this story and I’m just gonna come out and say it;

Come on, Brian. If you hated Lana Del Rey so much, you could have just checked out our site, duh.

Not that I’m jealous or anything. I get emails from famous TV people telling me how often they check my shit all the time. Like daily. In fact, I probably got like four in the past hour. And from bigger people than Brian Williams too! I totally do! No fooling! So, no, I’m not jealous because that happens to me all the time. I just…don’t post about it because…I have better ethics than Gawker.

Yeah, ethics…that’s the ticket.

But what about the giant media conglomerates? Well, we know where they stand. OpenCongress lists all the big companies that support the bill, including the following:

• NBC Universal
• Comcast
• News Corporation
• Time Warner
• Disney
• CBS Corporation

Et cetera. The list goes on. But what’s particularly notable about these companies is that they own news organizations. And with SOPA being the big story that it is, one would expect news organizations to start picking up on it. And to a certain extent, you could say they have.

A CNN.com search for SOPA reveals the site has run two stories about the bill, and the bill is mentioned in a third one titled “Doh! The top 10 tech ‘fails’ of 2011.” But in none of these stories is it disclosed that Time Warner, parent company of CNN, supports the legislation. MSNBC.com covered the bill in a November article, which did not disclose its parent companies’ support of the bill. FoxNews.com features more coverage of the bill than its two rivals, and in one article it does mention News Corporation’s support of SOPA.

Now, it’s quite possible the authors of these articles were not aware they had any such disclosure to make. But all the media companies listed above attached their names to a letter sent to members of Congress in September, urging them to pass the SOPA bill into law. And what about the on-air presence on these networks? Surely this important piece of legislation must have warranted at least one story on the nightly news.

Well, apparently not, because according to a study conducted by Media Matters, there has been a virtual media blackout on the airwaves over the past few months in regards to SOPA. The study used LexisNexis figures to calculate just how many times the bill has been reported in the primetime hours on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, CBS, and NBC. None of these networks gave any nightly news coverage to the bill, with the exception of CNN, where it was brought up briefly during a segment on The Situation Room. Media Matters notes the study does not, however, take into account these networks’ daytime programming, nor is Shepard Smith‘s nightly broadcast factored in.

RELATED: I Can’t Haz SOPA? GoDaddy.com Withdraws Support Of Online Piracy Bill After Threats Of Boycott

A quick perusal of statistics from the website TVeyes also finds that in the past week, the biggest networks to give any mention to SOPA were Bloomberg and CSPAN. In fact, the co-founder of Reddit (a website that has quickly mobilized SOPA opposition) was interviewed on Bloomberg just a few days ago. But still, the major news networks are silent on the issue.

And before you start crying foul that this is a Media Matters study, keep in mind that SOPA not only has bipartisan support, but bipartisan opposition. In fact, RedState’s Erick Erickson proposed a bipartisan coalition to take out any member of Congress who supports the bill. As Erickson succinctly put it:

This battle is so important — and is one of those rare fights where the left and right are united against Congress — that I suggest the left and right unite and pledge to defeat in primaries every person named as a sponsor on H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act.

Normally, this is the kind of legislation that might rile up Rachel Maddow or Bill O’Reilly, so why is there such a deafening silence on this issue that both liberals and conservatives have found common ground in hating?

There are one of two possibilities at play here. Either the network brass is pressuring the news division to not cover the legislation at all (the more conspiratorial point of view), or news anchors are simply avoiding their stories so as not to put their jobs on the line. Some will argue that, perhaps, news anchors are avoiding the story because there is so much more on their platter– why spend an entire segment explaining the serious consequences of a convoluted bill when you have a ten-second soundbite of Rick Santorum maybe saying the work “black“? Whether the possibility exists or not, it does not exonerate reporters from their responsibility to report. And so, of the first two, the latter seems to be the more realistic one. As Eric Boehlert explained to The Register on Media Matters’ findings:

“I don’t think there’s been a top-down edict on this, but the data is interesting… People are smart when it comes to their careers, and may feel that raising the story isn’t a good way to get along with their parent companies.”

Fox News’ lack of coverage is particularly remarkable, because last week Rupert Murdoch personally came to Capitol Hill last week to lobby members of Congress to pass SOPA and its Senate counterpart, PIPA. One might then, logically, expect Fox News to cover SOPA with the best positive spin since, as its critics say, the network gets its marching orders and sticks to it. But what we’re witnessing here is complete silence on the issue. I suspect the networks are smart enough to understand that no matter how much you try to put a smiley face on it, alarm bells go off in people’s heads when they hear the phrase “regulate the internet.”

Luckily for those of us who care about media dissemination of critical information, several big websites are considering a one-day complete blackout to raise awareness about the bill so more people can be informed about it. Now, you might be asking yourself, “Well, what are the chances a few websites are going to make a big impact on public opinion?” Actually, quite large. Here are the companies on board for a possible blackout:

• Google
• Facebook
• Twitter
• Wikipedia
• PayPal
• Zynga (creators of Farmville, Mafia Wars, etc.)
• eBay
• LinkedIn
• IAC, which owns these websites:
  • Dictionary.com
  • Ask.com
  • Dictionary.com
  • Match.com
  • CollegeHumor
  • Dorkly
  • Dictionary.com
  • Vimeo

If all those sites were taken away from people for a 24-hour period, you’d better believe there will be riots in the streets to stop SOPA from passing.

But I’d bet that if the mainstream media had been doing their jobs on this from day one, there would be zero talk of a blackout. Earlier today, I wrote about Rick Santorum‘s comments on the SOPA bill and online piracy. The YouTube video of Santorum was posted two days ago. A Google News search shows Santorum’s remarks were picked up by only two websites: NewsOK.com, which only mentioned SOPA in passing, and Death & Taxes, which uses over half the article to connect the story somehow to Santorum’s Google problem.

RELATED: Rep. Paul Ryan Becomes Latest Target Of Anti-SOPA Activists, Democratic Opponent Gets Fundraising Boost

Media organizations no longer have the luxury of pretending certain stories don’t exist. More and more people get their news via online news sources, and avoiding a story because the people that own you wouldn’t like it gets noticed these days. Absence makes the heart grow more pissed off, basically. These people in the media who gladly embrace controversy on a regular basis (hell, Lawrence O’Donnell hasn’t had a problem with ruffling a few executive feathers before) need to explain why they’re staying so silent on this issue. There’s nothing wrong with having an honest debate on a topic like this.

But then, perhaps you have better things to do, like insulting people you disagree with and laughing at viral videos of confused animals. You know, news.

The debate, the 19th so far, will begin at 8pm EST and be moderated by Wolf Blitzer. It is being hosted by CNN, the Republican Party of Florida and the Hispanic Leadership Network.

***THIS LIVE EVENT HAS ENDED***

The premise of the “show” is that “actor, comedian, and noted lothario” Brand corrects the headlines of US Weekly. For one, he takes objection to being called “crazy” over Perry, who routinely wears chunks of cheese as hats. Then there’s the claim that he was a “bad boy,” when in reality he dresses like a “Game of Thrones character who shops at J. Crew.”

He also takes time to read the non-Russell Brand parts of the magazine though, mocking Justin Timberlake for getting engaged and the entire concept of Mischa Barton trying to read.

The segment via NBC below:

Fox News anchor Uma Pemmaraju had St. Anselm University Professor Dale Kuehne on her program today to discuss New Hampshire’s history as a primary state and what to expect from the voters. She put to him a question about its demographics, namely that “it’s got a population of little over a million and the voters tend to be primarily white… and it’s one of the least populated states in the country.” With that in mind, Pemmaraju asked whether “those who suggest that it is not truly representative of the rest of the country” have a point. Kuehne responded that “there is not state that’s truly representative of any other,” but that the charm of New Hampshire was that it was small enough for retail politics to matter.

RELATED: NBC’s Andrea Mitchell: The Rap On Iowa? ‘Too White, Too Evangelical, Too Rural’

If the question about being overwhelmingly white sounds familiar, that’s because some on Fox News, notably Bill O’Reilly and Bernie Goldberg, spent the better part of last week being outraged that some reporters, among them Andrea Mitchell of NBC, had raised the same concerns about Iowa. Yes, Mitchell actually used the term “too white,” and said that Iowa had a “rap” among some, rather than using the term “there are those who suggest.” There are semantic differences in the way the issue is presented, and the connotation of a population being “too” much of an ethnic or racial group is far more negative than that of one being “primarily” composed of said group. In Goldberg’s initial review of Mitchell’s report, he actually notes that her claim that Iowa is not representative of the national demographics was “absolutely correct,” and highlights the word “too” as the problem with the report.

But the crux of both arguments is similar, in part because the demographics of Iowa and New Hampshire can, on paper, look similar, when you remove religion from the equation: compared to other states, there aren’t that many people and most of the people are white. Again, in the O’Reilly Factor segment, both anchor and guest argue that New Hampshire gets the same critiques as Iowa. And yet Goldberg counters that no one would say South Carolina is “too black,” and in the context of a colleague asking similar questions about New Hampshire that someone on another network did about Iowa, it is very easy for the casual observer to assume a double standard from Goldberg. Why is it a question from Mitchell about the racial composition of one state unacceptable, while Pemmaraju’s similar query is not?

RELATED: Bernie Goldberg On Iowa: Mainstream Media Would Never Say ‘South Carolina Is Too Black’

Goldberg and O’Reilly may answer that, in fact, neither are acceptable, though I doubt they would. And the answer for why is not that there is a double standard, but it lies in that one word, “too,” that assumes that a state can surfeit on a certain type of person, on an immutable trait. The devil in this case is in that one adverb. And while Goldberg makes the point in his commentary, it does get somewhat lost once he says that no one would claim South Carolina is “too black.” He’s right, but what he does not follow up with– because it wouldn’t come up without the context of today’s report on Fox News– is that people would say that South Carolina has a higher black population than the national average, or phrase that fact in a neutral light without using the word “too.” If black Americans in South Carolina (and nationally) have voting patterns that can be traced by their membership in that racial group, then it is a salient fact in discussing South Carolina– just as the predominantly white population of New Hampshire is for that state. But the nuance in tone is worth clarifying, as it is easy to assume that there is no difference between the attitude present in Mitchell and Pemmaraju’s questions, particularly for the casual observer.

Pemmaraju’s report via Fox News below (and for comparison, Andrea Mitchell’s here):

RELATED: NBC’s Andrea Mitchell: The Rap On Iowa? ‘Too White, Too Evangelical, Too Rural’

The comment prompted a fair bit of discussion and criticism. Last night, for instance, Bernard Goldberg expressed something like distaste for the observation, telling Fox News host Bill O’Reilly that the mainstream media would never say, for example, that “South Carolina is too black.”

RELATED: Bernie Goldberg On Iowa: Mainstream Media Would Never Say ‘South Carolina Is Too Black’

Now, as The Atlantic Wire reported this morning, the network is clarifying Mitchell’s statement and addressing the criticism (which came, primarily, in the form of accusations of editorializing) that stemmed from it. Here’s what NBC spokeswoman Erika Masonhall had to say:

That line was part of her report from last night’s “NBC Nightly News” on why Iowa does matter. As Andrea mentioned, when she said “The rap on Iowa…” she was referencing critics who argue that the state shouldn’t carry so much weight because it doesn’t proportionally represent the rest of the country. She then interviews analysts and Iowa voters who explain why the state is so important in the election cycle.

The discussion surrounding Mitchell’s comment points to an interesting time in the news industry, when reporters are almost expected, by the more jaded among us at any rate, to inject their own points of view into their coverage, even while we stand at the ready to call them them out and admonish them for it. (Which, admittedly, can comprise about 93.2% of the fun of watching certain news programs.)

In its write-up, The Atlantic Wire contrasted my reaction to those of others weighing in on Mitchell by describing me as a “less partisan observer.” (For the record, I’m pretty partisan. I just tend to save it for columns and the Thanksgiving table.) But that’s what happens when we observe, isn’t it? We view through a lens. Indeed, so much of the information we consume is filtered through the (sometimes clearly and openly, sometimes less so) biased and even agenda-laden viewpoints of bloggers, reporters, editors and talking heads. It’s not so much, perhaps, that we expect the news media to tell us what to think, but we do anticipate it to have a bias. (Unless we agree with that bias, of course. Then it’s truth.)

Was Mitchell editorializing in what was expected to be a straightforward news report? I don’t think so, personally. While what a reporter chooses to say or leave out of a report may certainly reflect a bias, I read Mitchell’s comment as merely providing a framework on which to hang her findings. She was providing context, background and maybe even a little bit of seasoning to demonstrate how some view Iowa versus the reality of the state. And while I didn’t take away that Iowa is, necessarily, “so important in the election cycle,” the report did reflect that it played a role that is unique and noteworthy exactly because of the discussion and disagreements surrounding its role in the election process.

—

Update: Exciting! Bernie Goldberg, whom I referred to and quoted earlier in this post, took to our comments section to offer his reaction to my analysis of his statements regarding Mitchell. (And, yes, Mediaite verified that it was indeed Mr. Goldberg himself, and not someone in Golbergian costume.)

Mr. Goldberg took issue with my having described his comments as expressing “something like distaste” for what Mitchell had said during her report, specifically when she characterized “the rap on Iowa” on the state being “too white” to accurately represent American voters.

Here, for your reference, is what Goldberg had to say:

Alex Alvarez writes that I “expressed something like distaste” for Andrea Mitchell’s comment on NBC that “the rap on Iowa” is that the state is “too white, too evangelical, too rural.”

Where Alvarez finds my distaste is way beyond me.

I was on Bill O’Reilly’s program on FOX when he asked what I thought of Ms. Mitchell’s comment. I said I thought she was “absolutely, 100 percent correct.” I further said that “everything” she said in a sound bite Bill played on the air was correct. I even said that some conservatives think this is an example of media bias, “but it isn’t.”
From this Alvarez concludes that “I expressed something like distaste” for Ms. Mitchell’s observation. Really?

As an afterthought, I said that despite the fact that she was completely right, you won’t find any mainstream journalists saying South Carolina is “too black.” Alvarez quoted me correctly on that one. But that’s about the only thing he [Ed. note: Mr. Goldberg later wrote back to us noting he'd found that I am, indeed, a "she" and not a "he."] got right pertaining to me.

How can a commentator be so sloppy? Here’s how: It’s a safe bet he didn’t watch me on The Factor, that he didn’t hear a word I said on that program and that he didn’t even take the time to watch a video of the show. It’s also a safe bet that he read something somewhere on the Internet that characterized my comments as unfavorable to Ms. Mitchell, so he ran with it. Nice going, Alex! This gives sloppy a bad name.

Let’s be clear: This isn’t simply my “version” of events. This is precisely what happened. Mediaite owes me and its readers a formal “clarification.” I understand that commentators are entitled to give their opinion, but even commentators have to be fair. Alex Alvarez wasn’t. He got it wrong and now he and his editors — if he has any — need to make it right.

Bernard Goldberg

Mr. Goldberg, I did watch you on The Factor prior to writing my commentary. In fact, I linked to a video of your appearance in this very post, immediately after quoting you, so that our readers could listen to your exact statements for themselves and, thus, have all the context and information they’d need to come with their own conclusions.

While I welcome and thank you for your comments and take these into consideration, I stand by my original analysis of your response as I read it when I was putting together this column. If, as we agree, Mitchell was not expressing a bias but, rather, providing context when stating that the “rap” on Iowa was that it was “too white, too evangelical, too rural,” why then bring up the idea that one “won’t find” a journalist characterizing, say, South Carolina as being “too black” to provide an accurate depiction of our country’s voters? If this was an issue of context and a multi-layered look at a voting population’s culture and background, why then focus on the racial aspect of Mitchell’s comment? It wouldn’t have been any more or less incorrect or inappropriate had she described, say, Miami as being “too Latino” to offer accurate representation, or perhaps Chicago as being “too Catholic,” or New York City’s Manhattan as being “too urban.” She’s discussing statistics, not making a value judgment. Why would a journalist not also refer to statistics when it comes to black voters? That you mentioned race (even as an afterthought) showed, to me as a viewer and a commentator, that you found something, yes, “like distaste” for her having specifically included race in her characterization of Iowa.

If you believe I misrepresented you in my analysis of your comment, well, then, I do apologize. That was never and would never be my intent. What you meant to say was evidently distinct, as you’ve noted, from how I interpreted your comment.

And, once again, I thank you sincerely for taking the time to weigh in.

h/t The Atlantic Wire

If I get 25 percent, if that turns out to be the case, that will most likely be the highest number, so winning is just fine. I’m not predicting a win. Maybe I get 20 percent, someone else gets 25 percent.

His aides were quick to note that Romney’s earlier decree that “we’re going to win this thing” was in reference to the nomination, and not to Iowa specifically.

RELATED: NBC’s Andrea Mitchell: The Rap On Iowa? ‘Too White, Too Evangelical, Too Rural’

As many have pointed out, Iowa is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to sealing the nomination, and the state hasn’t exactly demonstrated a proven track record of electing presidents.

Romney also responded to recent comments made by rival candidates Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, thanking Santorum for his previous support and commenting that he doesn’t quite know why former Speaker Gingrich is so “angry.”

RELATED: Newt Gingrich On Mitt Romney’s Attack Ads: ‘I Feel Romney-Boated’

Have a look at Romney’s comments, courtesy of NBC:

h/t Politico

“The rap on Iowa,” she said. “It doesn’t represent the rest of the country… too white, too evangelical, too rural. Still here, politics are personal.”

RELATED: Chris Christie Threatens To Go ‘Jersey Style’ On Iowa If They Don’t Vote For Mitt Romney

After noting that Iowa Republican caucus-goers don’t really have a “very good track record for picking presidents,” Mitchell spoke with network political analyst Mike Murphy, who described the Iowa caucus as being part of a sort of “winnowing out” process when it comes to candidates.

RELATED: Rachel Maddow On Ron Paul: ‘Iowa Republicans Don’t Pick Presidents; They Pick Huckabees’

Would the media, then, do well to ignore any headway a candidate makes place in any state housing a Pizza Ranch?

Have a look at Mitchell’s take on the “rap on Iowa” below, via NBC:

h/t Real Clear Politics

RELATED: This Exists: Elderly Couple Caught On Webcam Trying To Work A Computer

For those who don’t remember, Bruce and Esther Huffman became Internet celebrities after they tried to take their picture with a webcam and accidentally recorded themselves for three minutes. The video is amazing and will bring a renewed joy to anyone who spent the past weekend struggling valiantly to teach the seniors in their lives how to use a new smart phone or laptop.*

*Hello, Grandmother! If you’re reading this, I’m glad you finally got past your iPad’s “Create a Password” setup screen!

During the interview, it was revealed that Bruce Huffman is a ping pong champion back home which led to a competition between he and Lauer. Lauer employed perhaps the best intimidation (kudos to the man for being likable enough to get away with smack talking an 87 year old on live TV) when he strapped a webcam to his own head for the game because, as he put it, he knows “those things freak you out a little bit.”

The whole thing was pretty great. Watch the segment from NBC below:

(h/t Brian Stelter’s “Top of the Morning” blog)

RELATED: Mitt Romney: It’s Possible I’ll Take My Campaign All The Way To The Convention

Brokaw explained:

“(Romney) could draw this out. And we could get to a brokered convention. I mean, if this gets downstream in the current mode there are a lot of old establishment Republicans who are going to be going to the state house in New Jersey and saying to Governor Christie, you’ve got to get in on this. They’ve got to find somebody else who can be a player, or, I think, outside of that, you’re going to look at a lot of possibilities of third-party candidates jumping in.”

Watch Brokaw surmise Christie could still be a factor in 2012 below via NBC:

(h/t Daily Caller)

RELATED: Owned? Today Show’s Ann Curry Pretty Much Asks Jerry Sandusky’s Lawyer If He’s An Idiot

Gray has been covering the allegations against the former college football coach for NBC affiliates, MSNBC, and the Today show, most recently reporting on the trial for Dylan Ratigan‘s show on December 13th.

According to the New York Post, another “insider” says Gray “was on a family vacation,” and that the network has yet to make a decision regarding his coverage of Sandusky.

h/t TVNewser

RELATED: Update: NBC News Brass Reportedly Furious Over Handling Of Romney KKK Slogan Story

O’Reilly defended NBC for giving an apology, noting that “they did what they had to do.” Goldberg was less forgiving, though did praise Matthews, as he “showed courage and apologized for something he didn’t do.” But from those who run NBC, he admitted “the apology means little to me.” O’Reilly retorted that he appreciated the apology because he believed it was a product of Comcast having taken up new management there, adding, “they would not have apologized a year ago.”

“The management of a company sets the tone for what gets on the air,” Goldberg suggested. He then turned his aim towards the team who actually ran with the story, concluding that the only reason a thinly-sourced story like that would run is because it fits a predetermined worldview. “The chucklehead anchor and his braindead producer don’t even wonder… why would Mitt Romney want to intentionally associate himself with the Ku Klux Klan?” Goldberg asked, a “reckless mistake” he said he could never see MSNBC making with a Democrat.

The discussion then veered to a new special relationship MSNBC would have with the organization Pro Publica, which received praise from Goldberg despite him labeling it a “semi-news organization” for its ideological bent.

The segment via Fox News below:

The report notes that, following executive producer Lorne Michaels around the set, the topic of at least one sketch was fairly clear:

In the studio, a sketch was being blocked for the cameras: Denver Broncos quarterback (and famously devout Christian) Tim Tebow confronts Jesus in the locker room.

“It’s been rewritten since last night when we read it,” Michaels said. “We read 40-some-odd sketches yesterday, and narrowed them down to the pieces over there” — he pointed to a board with a tentative rundown — “and that’s about 15 minutes (too) long. By the time `(Weekend) Update’ gets done, the show will be maybe 25 minutes long, which is what we’ll go into dress rehearsal with.”

It is still a mystery who will take up the Tebow mantle on the SNL cast, if the sketch airs. Our sister site Sportsgrid predicts it’s either Jason Sudeikis (that’s “Mitt Romney” to most of you) or “this guy” amazing dancing Robyn aficionado/atrocious Jon Huntsman impressionist Taran Killam (and, if you can’t tell, your author’s favorite new cast member). But the odds that host Jimmy Fallon will play the role, if SNL isn’t planning on making him a recurring character, are just as likely.

Mediaite, as usual, will be up all night bringing you the best SNL clips as they air, so remember to give us a visit tonight if you’re not near a TV (or if you are and want to share comments on the sketches with other viewers).

RELATED: Rep. Michele Bachmann’s Anti-Gay Marriage Stance Baffles Jay Leno

After some chat about the appeal of his ideas to young voters (which he attributes to young people being “more principled”), Leno did his usual round of rapidfire answers for Rep. Paul about other candidates, which began diplomatic and got increasingly… let’s say, honest. “Maybe that’s what he should stay as, governor of Massachusetts,” he said of Mitt Romney, though adding that he was a “nice guy.” Of Gingrich, he answered similarly that he should “run for Speaker of the House again.” With Rep. Bachmann, he was less sympathetic. “She doesn’t like Muslims,” he said, shaking his head. “She hates Muslims, she wants to go get ‘em.”

As it was a quick round of questions, Leno moved on to “thoughtful person” Jon Huntsman before going on to Rick Santorum, who Leno noted that it appeared “gay people, it’s the end of the world for him.” “Gay people and Muslims,” Rep. Paul added.

The rest of the interview centered around Rep. Paul’s semi-feud with Donald Trump, who Rep. Paul noted, somewhat jokingly, that “he was very much offended [by me], so I’m getting a little bit worried,” and whether he would consider a third party run, a question he defined was “way premature.”

RELATED: Herman Cain Rates The Competition, Forgives Sarah Palin In Jay Leno Interview

Rep. Paul also ends up revealing who his favorite president in history is, and it’s rather a surprise: Grover Cleveland who, while a Democrat, “loved to veto bills and believed in the gold standard.”

The interview via NBC below:

[h/t Daily Caller]