Dear Jon Klein: If Aaron Brown can write as well as he rebounds, you're screwed

Ungraciously-dispatched former CNN anchor Aaron Brown had lunch with the NY Post's Liz Smith, and was apparently way tan, rested, and ready--and optomistic and sociable as all get out. Basically, the man's back on the professional market. And good for him: the whole time he was at CNN, it was hideously obvious that he was miserable there. It made him painful to watch; unhappiness will turn the nicest, most talented person into a bitter, sleepwalking nerd. Now, reading the Smith item, one gets the sense that he's experiencing the opposite of a midlife crisis: freed from his miserable little nest on NewsNight, he might possibly enjoy being a journalist again.

Aaron arrived looking younger and more handsome than he ever does on-air. With an Arizona suntan and flashing white teeth, the 50-odd-year-old looks about 39 or 40. He was very "upbeat" and vital in a blue V-neck sweater over an open-collared shirt. We got right down to it. What does he think of CNN's negative move on him?

"Of course, I think they made a mistake," laughed Aaron. "But . . . they're entitled."

He assured me that his long contract will be paid off while he and his wife finish building a house near Scottsdale, Ariz., and his daughter enters college. Also, he thinks he has many options in his future.

"I don't know exactly what I will do," he mused as a succession of media visitors came to interrupt us and ask where they might register their outrage at his "NewsNight" cancellation — among them ABC veteran visionary Av Westin and Fox TV's Roger Ailes. Aaron expressed admiration for the manner in which Fox beats the pants off its competitors. "They are the most on-target, disciplined bunch I've ever seen!" he told Roger.

Over beef stroganoff, our talk ranged from Dan Rather's problems at CBS to how much he admires Walter Cronkite and Barbara Walters to working with the late Peter Jennings. We both expressed admiration for the lure of live TV news.

"Well, yes, there's nothing like it," said Aaron "and I would like to go on covering news every single day. I like to work. But I might write a book. I know it takes a lot of discipline."

What, oh what, might he reveal about Jon Klein's management style, or lack thereof? Aaron, it's a brave new world for you, clearly. Start writing!

A French CNN? The better to see their government surrender on live TV by the light of a burning car, I guess

Reuters Business Channel reports on President Chirac's plan for a French version of CNN, to be known as CFII:

France's government gave the green light on Wednesday for an international TV news channel to start broadcasting in French by the end of next year, with the aim of spreading the country's vision to the world.

The brainchild of President Jacques Chirac, the 24-hour news channel is expected to beam into homes, hotels and newsrooms in much the same way as U.S.-owned CNN, Britain's BBC World and more recently Qatar's Arabic-language al-Jazeera.

"France must ... be on the front line in the global battle of TV pictures," a spokesman quoted Chirac as telling the cabinet, which approved the establishment of a company to run the French International News Channel (CFII).

"The aim is to bring France's values and its vision of the world to everywhere in the world," he said.

The last time I checked, "France's values and its vision of the world" had four major components: 1) Food & wine 2) Sex 3) High Fashion 4) Hating America and blaming America for everything that's wrong in the world. So basically, it sounds like CFII will be an very well-dressed, slightly drunk, and horny version of Al-Jazeera. Can't wait.

Craig Crawford: The truth as the liberal media sees it should be good enough for you

Helen Thomas (warning, warning) writes on InsideBayArea.com on MSNBC contributor Craig Crawford's new book,"Attack the Messenger--How Politicians Turn You Against the Media":

His thesis is that "the role of the news media as an honest broker is shattered."

He claims a lot has gone wrong with the profession and blames the "spinning lies" from the government, what he calls "media wimps" and what he sees as "fear in the newsroom."

Back up. When was the last time that the media were an "honest broker"? Oh, yes, I remember now--back in the days when Dan Rather was riding high. Riiiight.

What Crawford is doing here, in an incredibly unsubtle way, is pandering to the MSM--trying to pretend that when the old guard, old school, liberal media were on top, those were the glory days. Aaaaah, those were the good old days, right? When the public knew their place as those who should shut up and accept the wisdom of "old media's real journalists," as Crawford calls the MSM.

But what's most breathtakingly dishonest about Crawford's book (and in this book, the eye-rollers compete for mention) is Crawford's supposed rationale for writing it--that the public's being taken for a ride by politicians allowed to run amok by a scared media. On page 139 Crawford writes that if only old media could make a comeback, "they could get back to where they belong, holding politicians accountable." Oh, and by the way, regain all the power, prestige and pay they squandered! Yeah, that too.

And Crawford's not being shy, even as he's being disingenuous, about the failings of his crowd. But his staggering sense of entitlement, and by proxy the MSM's staggering sense of lost entitlement, still blows me away. Check out page 17-18, where he writes:

"Despite their faults, those who once set the national news agenda were committed to telling the truth. Maybe it was the truth as they saw it, and sometimes they delivered it with a left-leaning bias. But they did not deliberately spread lies...the old gatekeepers of real news are gone...but what's replaced them presents a challenge, if not a threat, to democracy."

BOO! Get the biased lefties back in power or the republic crumbles! Panic! Panic! I'm sorry, but....what a jerk.

Oh, and don't forget the rank self-promotion in the form of scholarly reportage, namely this timeless gem on page 134. MSNBC contributor Crawford praises the flaming Ford Pinto of the cable news nets:

"MSNBC often can get the most information and more quickly...MSNBC began anew in 2004 under the management of network veteran Rick Kaplan." (Now sit! Speak! Play dead! Good boy.)

So we can infer that Crawford's a honest broker himself, hmmm? That's like saying that the butcher's an honest broker between the cow and the knife. Crawford calculatedly chooses not to acknowledge the now-permanent reality of the new media, and one of the main reasons it came into existence: the public was sick of being fed the same old MSM liberal party line. Crawford can write all the books he wants, but history, ultimately, writes itself, and the final chapter will surely say that Crawford's beloved "old media" is dead. For good, and to somewhat-ironically borrow liberal language, for the greater good, as well.

Football prodigy Tiki Barber joins FNC

FNC has signed New York Giants running back Tiki Barber as a general contributor, announced Bill Shine, Senior Vice President of Programming. Starting next week, Barber will appear Tuesdays on Fox & Friends First (weekdays, 6-7AM EST), where he has frequently guest co-hosted.

In making the announcement, Shine said, “Tiki’s wide-ranging television experience makes him a natural addition to the Fox & Friends franchise. He’s a remarkable talent whose knowledge far exceeds the goal line.”

Barber added, “I'm ecstatic to officially join Fox News and look forward to contributing to their successful line-up as I segue into the next part of my professional life.”

Named to his first Pro Bowl after the 2004 season, Barber was drafted by the Giants in 1997. He holds numerous Giants' records including All-Time Leading Rusher and Leader in Receptions and was also voted the team’s Most Valuable Player in 2004, 2002 and 2000.

MSNBC's Flavia Colgan's sour grapes

There's more to MSNBC contributor Flavia Colgan's seemingly out-of-nowhere comment about FNC in a recent Philadelphia Daily News opinion piece than meets the eye. After making a kind of weird guess as to what President Harry S. Truman would think about the current state of news ("One can only assume that if Give 'Em Hell Harry was around today he would blow a gasket when he realized that not only do American's [sic] rely on a single news source, but whatever particular source of the news they depend on is most likely slowly coagulating into one mega-news corporation,") Colgan wanders off:

Investigative reporting is expensive, but talk is cheap. Very little investigative journalism is done by television news anymore. When is the last time you heard of Fox News Channel breaking a story, for example?

But it turns out there's a more interesting story behind her non-sequitur: Colgan's contract wasn't renewed after her year-long stint at FNC. According to a Fox News insider, "There was always a collective groan in the control room when she was on the air--she had no command of the screen, no presence whatsoever. She belongs behind a desk, not a camera."

Flavorless Flavia, anyone?

Mediaweek: CNN execs not fumbling for the Valium "just yet"

Mediaweek's Anthony Crupi writes that CNN's Anderson Cooper gamble has only been slightly disastrous:

The network argues those who suggest that 360° has yet to catch fire in its new slot are missing the point.

First, the hard data: Through Nov. 21, or 11 days into its new time slot, 360° averaged 568,000 total viewers, with the balance tuning in for the program’s first hour (685,000). Cooper’s average audience is down 19 percent relative to Brown’s final week behind the NewsNight desk, and while it isn’t retaining its Larry King Live lead-in, losing 32 percent of the suspendered one’s audience, that’s still 4 percent better than Brown’s retention over the same period a year ago.

And a new masterpiece of spokesperson nothingspeak emerges:

If the buzz generated by Cooper’s Katrina reportage hasn’t translated into big ratings, CNN execs aren’t exactly fumbling for the Valium just yet. For one thing, 11 telecasts is far too brief a track record, said CNN spokesperson Christa Robinson. “It’s premature to discuss ratings,” she said. “We can’t really extrapolate much from the data thus far, but having said that we’re extremely pleased with the quality and performance of the show.”

Fox News' Shep Smith on Elvis' death, Katrina, and Ole Miss football

Back home for an Ole Miss game, FNC anchor Shep Smith talks to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution about growing up in Mississippi, finding his calling in TV news, covering Katrina, and of course, football:


It's been quite some frenzied stretch for Smith, 41, the Fox News Channel anchor who was born and raised in nearby Holly Springs. During nine semesters at Ole Miss, he missed only three football games --- home and away. But this sunny mid-November afternoon marks the first time he's been here all fall. And even then, it's only on his third try.

Hurricane Wilma. The Iraq constitution vote. (Insert major national or international story here.) Breaking news had been upending his schedule for weeks, weeks in which he --- like so many folks down South and around the country --- was still dealing with the shock waves sent out by Hurricane Katrina.

The ferocious storm that leveled large swaths of Mississippi and New Orleans may have affected him deeply --- "If it were up to me, I'd still be there," Smith says --- but it's also heightened his profile, earned him his best reviews and led some to suggest he'd be the logical choice to anchor a fourth network newscast should Fox Broadcasting ever decide to launch one.

Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity long have been the big names at cable news' No. 1 network, but increasingly, Smith is the big-gun anchor viewers expect to see when a big story breaks.

"If you're talking about a major story, major news --- certainly Shep is the face of Fox News," says Bill Shine, the network's senior vice president of programming. "He has that rare combination of being very smart and also very talented. You can put him out there, and if the prompter goes down, you're not going to be in trouble. If news breaks unexpectedly, you're not going to be in trouble."

The anchor of two highly rated weekday newscasts (at 3 and 7 p.m.), Smith had been known primarily for his blisteringly paced, nonpartisan lineup of stories delivered in a deep bass as smooth as tupelo honey. Yet there he was on the Wednesday afternoon after Katrina hit, shirttail hanging out as he stood among throngs of stranded New Orleanians and politely, yet persistently, giving voice to a nation's growing sense of confusion and horror.

He realized the impact [his] coverage had only when he returned to New York and strangers began asking how he was doing.

"They were like, 'Are you OK?'" Smith relates. "It was just not a question I'd ever gotten from anyone. Viewers. On the street. In Manhattan. 'Are you OK?'"

Smith vividly recalls the day he first swooned for TV news. Elvis had died some 45 miles away in Memphis, and everywhere the young teenager looked, everyone was going live with the story.

"I just remember the technology of it --- a local Memphis station was live in Memphis," says Smith, shaking his head in wonder. "'I might be able to come up with this industry' --- that's what it felt like. It just was like all you had to do was go somewhere, find out what was happening, and then tell people about it. And that's all it is now."

Cable news, the antidote to totalitarianism

So North Korea is furious at CNN for showing the country for what it is: a murderous Stalinist regime. So for as imperfect as cable news is and can be--MSNBC, FNC and CNN can't and don't make everybody happy all the time--it's that very imperfection that makes it great. The facts as they stand won't make those with an agenda happy--especially if you're, say, the DPRK, a country with a definite agenda against a free press or freedom of any kind.

But it all makes me think of Edward R. Murrow and his seminal television show, "See it Now." I've said it before and I'll say it again: news is the original reality television, but with one major difference: the news has consequences. Murrow, recently immortalized in the modern mainstream in the George Clooney movie "Good Night and Good Luck," was one of the first to recognize the hard reality--and the appeal--of hard news that you can bear witness to with your own eyes, not somebody else's. So CNN has done a good thing, in the tradition of Murrow, in airing its North Korea documentary, complete with footage of the execution. And if North Korea doesn't like it, well, they've just proved CNN's point.

Couric & Lauer, reporting only news that's as perky as they are

The Today Show's Katie Couric and Matt Lauer are really getting slammed for their inexplicable inability to report news as it's breaking right in front of them, and rightly so. Writing on how Couric and Lauer totally ignored/were unaware of the news that a balloon had crashed into a light pole during the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade during their live coverage, injuring two sisters, NorthJersey.com's Alfred P. Doblin makes the best point--why are Couric and Lauer in the TV news business if they can't or won't report the news?

The Friday edition of The New York Times explained the situation. The three Today Show anchors, Katie Couric, Matt Lauer and Al Roker were - at least to viewers - unaware that an accident occurred. When the M&M balloon was AWOL at the finish line of the parade, they cut to videotape of last year's parade.

According to The Times, Couric told the audience this was an old clip, citing the wind as the culprit for the balloon's no-show. Lauer and Roker appeared to follow the printed script of what should have been happening. They made a few M&M jokes and then cut back to the live parade. Santa was not on videotape.

If Couric, Lauer and Roker didn't know about the accident, what were their producers doing in the control booth? If other networks had reported there was an accident involving a balloon and there were injuries, how can any station go ahead and show footage from last year? Even as "reality TV" goes, this was lame.

If the argument was that families were watching the parade and the "news" would have been a downer, well that's what happens with news. The careening balloon and the resulting injuries upset families watching the parade in Times Square, where the accident occurred.

How credible can Couric, Lauer and Roker be as interviewers on The Today Show if they aren't trusted to go live with an accident during the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade? It is just another blot on the media.

It also shows the problems of mixing personalities and journalists into one stew. If The Today Show were just an entertainment show, the reputations of its anchors would matter little. Nobody expects Regis Philbin's perky sidekick to cover breaking news. But The Today Show aspires to be much more. On Thanksgiving, aspiration gave way to expiration.

If the three anchors were kept in the dark about why the M&M balloon didn't make it to Herald Square - and that is entirely possible - some heads should roll. Making fools out of the talent doesn't add credibility to a network. Newsgathering is fraught with potential disasters. Print journalism is a race against the clock. From the moment a story is filed, the reporter and editor hopes that nothing happens between filing, printing and delivery to change the report's substanceSometimes that works. Sometimes it does not. Television has more flexibility - it can adapt immediately.

Maybe it's fitting that it was an M&M balloon; M&Ms are candy-coated. That's apparently how NBC chose to report breaking news at the parade.

It's actually a plus when chocolate melts in your mouth. When it's your credibility, it's goes down with a bitter taste.

CNN switchboard operator not surprised by X-ing of Cheney, is surprised anyone else is

Drudge reports on the firing of the CNN switchboard operator who told a caller protesting the X-ing of Cheney, "we did it just to make a point."

What I find most interesting--telling, really--about the operator's response is that he naturally assumed the X was a deliberate political statement that accurately reflected an institutional media bias against the Bush administration at CNN. This is CNN, indeed.

A CNN switchboard operator was fired over the holiday -- after the operator claimed the 'X' placed over Vice President's Dick Cheney's face was "free speech!"

"We did it just to make a point. Tell them to stop lying, Bush and Cheney," the CNN operator said to a caller. "Bring our soldiers home."

The caller initially phoned the network to complain about the all-news channel flashing an "X' over Cheney as he gave an address live from Washington.

"Was it not freedom of speech? Yes or No?" the CNN operator explained.

"If you don't like it, don't watch."

Laurie Goldberg, Senior Vice President for Public Relations with CNN, said in a release:

"A Turner switchboard operator was fired today after we were alerted to a conversation the operator had with a caller in which the operator lost his temper and expressed his personal views -- behavior that was totally inappropriate. His comments did not reflect the views of CNN. We are reaching out to the caller and expressing our deep regret to her and apologizing that she did not get the courtesy entitled to her. "

MSNBC: The captain's not going down with the ship; he's not even on the ship

Is this any way for the head of a, shall we say, struggling cable news network to spend his time?

President of MSNBC Rick Kaplan is to visit the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign to work with journalism students from Monday until Wednesday.

He will specifically work with the Television Journalism II class with their newsbreak projects that will air on UI7. He also will speak at Dean of the College of Communications Ron Yates' Reporting I lecture, focusing on what's next for cable and network news and how MSNBC is covering news in Iraq. Kaplan will also hold one-on-one discussions with graduate students and seniors in broadcasting.

"He manages to contact lots of students by guest lecturing or talking with other classes," Yates said. "He's one of the most creative people in the broadcast news, and we feel very fortunate to have this kind of relationship with him, and more than anything else, a great opportunity for our students."


Since the mid-'90s, Kaplan comes to the University once or twice a year to work with students, providing them with knowledge, opportunities and internships.

"It was his idea to do this, and we're glad that he does," said Lynn Holley, academic programs coordinator of the College of Communications. "It benefits (the students) immensely. They get to hear from a man who is successful in every aspect of his career, and it's best to hear from someone successful because they have the key to be successful and the motivation he can pass to students."

And, um, ahem. Is this really the man journalism students want to be taking advice from? MSNBC is failing at the cable news business, to put it mildly. This is like asking Jack Kevorkian to teach a CPR class.

Look, it's certainly nice that Kaplan is teaching and sharing knowledge. In a perfect world, it's good to reach out and share knowledge to those just starting out. But if your house is on fire, as Kaplan's is, you should probably be paying attention to getting some water in the buckets.

The only reason TCG can possibly see that Kaplan's doing this is that he figures he's not long for MSNBC, and is Ivy-ing up, as it were, to get his credentials in order for a job at an institute of higher learning somewhere. Where will President Kaplan end up as Dean Kaplan? TCG can't say. But it's a pretty safe bet that MSNBC is no longer high on his list of priorities.

CNN's American Morning hosts, taking a stand against breast implants for women they don't like

Discussing last night's American Music Awards ceremony on CNN's American Morning today, host Soledad O'Brien, whom I ordinarily like a lot, commented on some footage of very revealingly-clad singer Mariah Carey with a contemptuous "Oh, she says she hasn't had any work done!" Much derisive laughter ensues on-set.

Let me clue them in to a little something. Most women of child-bearing age in the entertainment business have breast implants. Just trust me on this one. The game that media elites play is only pointing them out in women they don't like. Angelina Jolie has them, but even when she gets close to naked in her movies she never gets criticized for them, because she adopts orphans and gives a ton of money to charity. No matter how you feel about the Brad stuff, I personally love her for all the good things she does for people who have nothing. But I digress. Now, on the other hand, we have Mariah Carey, who lives to be a singer, entertainer, and diva. What's wrong with that? Nothing, baby. It takes all kinds in this world. Maybe Mariah's not deep and a tad nuts. All the best bombshells are, by the way. Maybe she doesn't campaign against land mines or for Democratic political candidates. So what? We have Angelina to take up the slack. Again, it all works out. But media elites think Mariah's a dumb slut because she doesn't address the UN on a regular basis and sings about puppies, shopping and cute boys and not, say, suicide bombers or Alan Greenspan. So what? Her vocal cords are enough to make anybody believe in God. A voice that ethereal is not an accident.

My problem is when Soledad O'Brien, a card-carrying member of the most mainstream faction of the MSM, joins the totalitarian faction of modern feminism and starts holding (certain) women up to ridicule for--oh, the irony!--doing what they think is best for their own personal bodies. And Mariah's personal body is a big part of how she makes her living (say, I think I just nailed another reason why the MSM hates her. But some of us have to look good for a living; we can't all have big brains that we put to use drawing video graffiti on the Vice-President's face on national television.) So, Soledad, unless you're going to start randomly commenting on female public figures with an equally-irrelevant and unfair observation like "Hey, she looks like she's had a few abortions in her time," leave women you consider socially and intellectually beneath you alone, or at least lay off the mean comments about their bodies. That's why Howard Stern exists. Much as many modern feminists hate to admit it, we're all in this together.

Ted Koppel's last "Nightline," in perspective

Ted Koppel hosted his last "Nightline" last night, and I'd just like to note that American presidents have been buried with less fanfare. Koppel reported the news. He's a nice guy, sharp, dry wit etc. Viewers got used to having him in their living rooms every night. Fine. I'm sure he'll still visit from time to time. Can we all move on now?

NewsHounds.us, alone at the lunch table again

NewsHounds.us, that collection of, how shall I say this, self-sentenced-to-house-arrest social convicts, has jumped the shark with their "we live to hate FNC" schtick. Actually, NewsHounds hasn't so much jumped the shark as they're now just wiggling to attract the shark's attention. In criticizing Fox and Friends host Steve, E.D. and Brian this morning, the best the NewsHounds can come up with is that the trio are good-looking, upbeat, and have it together. This is exactly like being in high school, wearing a lot of black, skull-festooned clothing and making everybody nervous because you never speak, you just caress your "Guns & Ammo" magazine a lot, and then wondering why the smart, kind, well-groomed kids are so happy and popular:

This morning the oh-so-cutesy, oh-so-sleek and bubbly hosts of FOX and Friends - Steve Doocy, Brian Kilmeade and E. D. Hill - announced that the London Daily Mirror has reported that it has obtained a copy of a top secret memo which reveals that President George Bush wanted to bomb al Jazeera in its home country of Qatar.

That's it. Transcript follows. What seems to be NewsHounds point here? Something along the lines of, I guess, The nerve of those three, being so happy, successful, and good-looking! Hasn't anybody ever told them that misery loves company? Wait, I think I just gave NewsHounds their new slogan....

CNN's CYA manuever

So CNN emailed Drudge with their latest Jon Lovitz-y "yeah, yeah, that's the ticket" explanation for marking the VPOTUS for death or at least contempt on national television:

CNN spokeswoman Laurie Goldberg emails: "We concluded this was a technological malfunction not an issue of operator error. A portion of the switcher experienced a momentary glitch. We obviously regret that it happened and are working on the equipment to ensure it is not repeated."

Allow me to parse CNN's shifty-eyed um, um, um of a statement... A theoretical technological malfunction is what allowed a deliberate operator error to be explained away as a glitch.

Also in the Drudge flash:

A rival network news director asks: "When has an 'X' ever aired on CNN before? Who had the graphic sitting in the key signal? Who generated the 'X'?"

Uh oh, CNN! Other people in the news biz who know from technological aren't buying it! As Drudge would say...developing...

CNN, marking the Vice President with an X for...something

Drudge has it--CNN finally stops pretending and lets the viewing public know how it really feels about the administration. Now, this is such a bonehead, juvenile jerkface move that I'm hoping whoever's responsible at CNN gets a little visit from the Secret Service, inquiring exactly why the Vice President was marked with such a big, ominious X during statements that run exactly counter to the political beliefs of most people at CNN.

Look, the people at CNN aren't protesters on the street exercising their First Amendment rights. They are, along with the other major news nets, the face of the US to the world. And when some basket case in the control room at CNN pulls something like this for their own private amusement, (yes, I know CNN's calling it a "technical glitch." I wasn't born yesterday) it looks to the rest of the world, frankly, like CNN's been taken by guerillas that plan to assassinate the VP and take the White House in a military coup. Am I being a tad overheated? Sure. I'm angry. But I'd still love to know what Tom Clancy's imagination is doing right now. And like I said, the Secret Service would be well within the parameters of their duty to make Jon Klein sweat a little bit.

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX MON NOV 21, 2005 21:25:35 ET XXXXX

CNN MARKS CHENEY: NETWORK FLASHES 'X' OVER VP'S FACE DURING LIVE SPEECH

**Exclusive**

At 11:04:45 AM ET Monday CNN was airing Vice President Dick Cheney's speech live from the American Enterprise Institute in Washington -- when a large black 'X' repeatedly flashed over the vice president's face!

The 'X' over Cheney's face appeared each time less than a second, creating an odd subliminal effect.

As this DRUDGE REPORT screen capture reveals, while one 'X' flashed over Cheney's face CNN ran a headline at the bottom of its screen: "CHENEY: I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS WRONG TO CRITICIZE."

One top White House source expressed concern about what was aired over CNN.

"Is someone in Atlanta trying to tell us something?"

A CNN spokesman did not return repeated calls late Monday night.

Kevin Sites on TV cameras in Iraq as judge, jury, & executioner

The sharp, provocative Yahoo! News foreign correspondent Kevin Sites (who, as I've blogged before, I believe will be a big part of the future of news--Editor & Publisher is all over this too) has posted his latest dispatch from Iraq. Reflecting on the battle for Fallujah one year later, Sites recalls the moment when, as he put it, he "forgot his humanity":


Coming down the street with the Marines I saw an old Iraqi man lying on his back near the curb. He was wearing a white T-shirt that highlighted the stream of crimson blood that was flowing behind him.

At first, I couldn't see his wound, but as I came closer, peering over him I could see that the right half of his skull had been blown away. It was a sniper shot, clean through his eye. I've seen plenty of death and destruction, but this image shocked me for a moment.

I think it was because the man's chest was still rising and falling. He was alive, still breathing. There was no weapon nearby, but it may have been cleared by advancing Marines.

A Marine in a Humvee saw the man and yelled at the two Marines I was walking with, "somebody put a bullet in that guy."

I assume he was talking about a mercy killing. The man was definitely going to die. The trauma of the injury was too great. He was already bleeding to death.

One of the Marines looked at my camera and asked me if I was going to videotape it if he shot the old man. I nodded yes, that I had to. He said that he wasn't going to do it then, and walked off to join the other Marines, leaving me there with the old man.

I looked at him for a long moment, wondering what I should do. Should I try to bandage him up, even though he was dying, and quickly? Should I hold his hand for a second, a small comfort from one human being to another during his last moments?

Ultimately I couldn't bring myself to do either. Bandaging him, I thought, was futile, and holding his hand, I believed, might make me seem weak or sympathetic in front of the Marines.

Instead, I left him there and caught up with my unit, looking back once, but soon forgetting about the old man for the next six hours as the Elizabeth Street battle raged.

I made a choice to do nothing for the old man -- not even a reassuring touch.... Helping the old man in my mind was fraught with peril. I was alone. What would I accomplish? There would be a cost to my action.

And now, I know, there is also a cost for my inaction.

These are the realities -- the choices we make -- black and white plumes of smoke, mists of gray that haunt you like furious phantoms, until you accept their truths.

Here, back on Elizabeth Street a year later with a different group of Marines, I can still feel the phantoms, but like the street itself they have quieted -- barking dogs the only reminder of their presence.

Sites, besides clearly having more physical courage in one eyelash than most people have in their entire bodies, has another kind of courage that's just as rare: the ability to describe and account for his actions or inactions, no matter how terrifying to himself that may be. I have no opinion on whether Sites did the right or wrong thing. I've never been shot at, never been in a war zone. I limit my opinions on the ethics of battle to the belief that only those who've fought them or lived/borne witness through them can really have an opinion on right and wrong in wartime. And I always remember what a Marine I know likes to say: "No plan survives first contact with the enemy."

It's just worth noting that the news, and the way the news is reported, is changing. To the Marine who walked away without shooting the old man after weighing the decision on the scales of worldwide media exposure, Sites' videocamera was as dangerous and as loaded as a gun. War is like the poor: it will be with us always. Suffering is nothing new. But Sites' story hammers one thing home: that the unstoppable change that war reporting is experiencing has repercussions beyond ratings. Because of the power of the news, that Marines' life wasn't ruined by being brought up on murder charges. Because of the power of the news, the old man and Sites both suffered, in different ways. There's no real answer here, but as long as Sites and those like him keep reporting, and honest, at least we'll be able to figure out which questions to ask.

Christiane Amanpour: My hero, according to Glamour magazine

In its continuing quest to consign women to irrelevancy in the guise of empowerment, the women's magazine Glamour has chalked up another victory. Its December issue's cover story is "Women of the year--the heroes who inspired you most!" Sandwiched between Venus Williams (great athlete, no question, but I would have chosen Ironman triathlete Heidi Musser, who happens to be completely blind) and wrap-dress criminal Diane von Furstenberg (she's smiling in the picture because she can't believe she's managed to stay in business selling her hideous dresses from the 70's yet another year,) Amanpour is held up yet again as the only intelligent, brave female journalist of note in the entire world. Christiane, let someone else have a turn! CNN prez Jon Klein comments in his usual saying a lot while saying nothing way: "She's unbeatable at getting the story, but she's also unmatched in how she tells it." Well, duh. Journalism is a cult of personality, at least at the celebrity-journalist level that we're discussing here, so yeah, you'd better have some panache, or at least the same British accent that makes many easily-impressionable Americans swoon. (You'd think we'd never fought a War of Independence, the way we emotionally curtsy to imperious Brits with a microphone.)

Anyway, since Glamour won't go out of the Amanpour comfort zone, and only likes objectivity when it's not objective (the magazine gushes that "known in Italy as La Passionata, Amanpour imbues every broadcast with an unusually bold moral perspective..'Objectivity,' she once said, 'can almost border on immorality,'") I'm going to nominate an alternative. FNC's Jennifer Griffin is fearless, indefatigable, an utter badass without the attitude. If she's ever scared, and she does nothing but report from the most frightening, dangerous, dark nights of the soul on earth, she doesn't show it on camera. Every time I see her, whether she's interviewing armed terrorists at close range or standing over dead bodies in tsunami-devastated areas, I think the same thing: I really admire and respect her. She's incredible. I do not think, "wow, what a cool and glamorous job she has" (which is how Amanpour is celebrated in the MSM.) Yes, Griffin's job is cool and glamorous, but she's so clearly committed to bearing unflinching witness to terrible things other people wouldn't get close to in a bulletproof hazmat suit, that she transcends the fluffy accolades constantly tossed at Amanpour. Jennifer Griffin is real, she operates in actual trenches, not just the figurative ones, and if there's any justice in the world, she's the next Amanpour.

Tom Brokaw in the Bergdorf Goodman catalog: "We elitists....worry about the democratization of news"

In an effort to make its readers feel less guilty about spending $10,000 on a cotton Chanel skirt (page 122), the Bergdorf Goodman Holiday '05 catalog has enlisted Tom Brokaw to boost the collective self-esteem of the very rich news consumer.

In an interview printed at the front of the glossy 200-page book, Brokaw sits down with Bergdorf Goodman's paw, American Museum of Natural History president Ellen Futter, at the NYC restaurant the Four Seasons. Brokaw discloses that the new and democratic sordidness of TV news is deeply worrisome, and fondly recalls the days when the viewing public knew its place:

BG: Somehow, people have come to accept that showmanship and seriousness of purpose can coexist. Yet, when you're watching television these days, it still sometimes seems to be an uneasy coexistence.

TB: There is obviously, depending on your point of view, either a richer menu to choose from or a more sordid menu...When I began, there were two networks, CBS and NBC. We had rules that we established--and the public liked it. But now, with the democratization [caused by] new technology, we have a lot more choices.

BG: This has been an amazing moment when, for a variety of reasons, the occupants of the three networks' anchor chairs have all departed. Big picture. Long view. What do you think?

TB: [Brokaw olds hands close together.] It used to be this. Now it's this. [He moves his hands wide apart.] People have so many more choices than they've had in the past.
We elitists worry about it and say it's a terrible thing, but it's a democratization that's profound...I worry because I think it's important to have a single place every night on over-the-air networks that people can turn to...it's not "eat your spinach" news any more.


Am I the only person who sees the funereal aspect in the MSM's discussion of the departure of the big three anchors? "Oh, they've gone to a better place now...they were too good for this world of bloggers, citizen journalists, Fox News, and six screens of information as the star of CNN's Situation Room, not the host...."

FNC beating ITV on its home turf in UK

Digital Spy reports that FNC is getting higher ratings in the UK than UK channel ITV. A spokesman calls it a statistical fluke, which is your basic oh-please eye-roller.

Between October 24 and November 9, FOX averaged a 0.14% share of viewing in satellite homes, versus 0.12% for ITV News.

Amongst all multichannel homes, FOX was ahead on October 24, November 3 and November 8, despite only being available on satellite. ITV News also has carriage on Freeview and cable but had its DTT hours slashed in half on November 1 to make way for new male-skewed channel ITV4.

Ben Rayner, editor of the ITV News channel, dismissed the figures as "statistical quirks" brought about by a quieter-than-normal period of domestic news.

Rita Cosby, Lobotomized & Direct

Rita Cosby tells the National Ledger that she was way too smart to not take a job at the lowest-rated cable news network in the country. Come again?


"It was never a question of my being unhappy at Fox, it was that I'd have needed a lobotomy not to take this offer. A major prime time show in a prime spot -- it was just a tremendous opportunity." So says Rita Cosby, whose nightly "Live & Direct" show has become MSNBC's top-rated program since its launch this past summer.

Let me get this straight. Cosby left the ratings-force-of-nature that is FNC--would have needed a lobotomy to stay, even!--to join an outfit that's a total, shall we say, NONO--News Outlet in Name Only. Suddenly her lobotomy statement makes sense--she had one anyway and she's just getting out in front of that news. And as far as having the "top-rated program at MSNBC"? Isn't that a lot like having the cell with the best view in prison?

Variety to CNN prez Jon Klein: Don't answer the phone for awhile

Variety's Brian Lowry writes on Anderson Cooper's introduction to the career speed bump and has some advice for CNN management:

Cooper enjoyed perhaps the shortest honeymoon in recent memory. No sooner did he supplant Aaron Brown as the face of CNN then critics began to accuse the cable net of another seat-of-the-pants lineup shift, testifying to the channel's instability and seemingly knee-jerk programming philosophy.

Of course, CNN management bosses stoked the hysteria, foolishly proclaiming Cooper the tangiest flavor since New Coke. Then, after a slew of newspaper profiles, his first week averaged less than 600,000 viewers, failing to generate appreciable curiosity despite the media swarm.

As for Cooper, try focusing on the work, don't sweat the numbers and, along with your bosses, don't answer the phone for awhile.

Monica Crowley, Disconnected

So MSNBC just pulled the plug on"Connected Coast to Coast" with Monica Crowley and Ron Reagan.

Broadcasting & Cable reports:


No word yet on what will fill Connected’s noon timeslot, but an internal staff memo from MSNBC President Rick Kaplan promised “exciting new programming at noon” would be announced soon.

"Exciting new programming"? I have an idea! How about an exciting new reality show called "Survivor: MSNBC" in which marginally talented, nominally intelligent contestants compete to see who can keep their painfully boring show on the air longest. Losers get screamed-at at close range by the infamously non-Zen Rick Kaplan, but keep smiling in hopes of holding on until Keith Olbermann does something really stupid again and takes the heat off them for a while.

Meanwhile, back at the studio, Anderson Cooper's getting his bell rung bigtime by O'Reilly and Greta

In the flurry of trademark Aaron Brown inanities in Gail Shister's column--did you know that he's the "king of lunch" now that he's unemployed? Please, leave these softly depressing, Death-of-a-Salesman-ish turns of phrase to Arthur Miller--it's important to note that Shister, as always, gets right to the point:

Coop clobbered. Speaking of CNN's Anderson Cooper, his first week at 10 p.m. was lukewarm, ratings-wise.

Cooper's two-hour 360º averaged 593,000 viewers from 10 to midnight last week, compared with 1.47 million on Fox News Channel for Greta Van Susteren's On the Record and reruns of Bill O'Reilly's The O'Reilly Factor.

In the first hour, Cooper clocked 730,000 viewers to Van Susteren's 1.75 million. From 11 to midnight, Cooper had 455,000 viewers; O'Reilly, 1.20 million.

FNC reporters: It's what's for dinner

FNC's Adam Housley audio-blogs on the Fox Fan site about his recent experience cage-diving with Great White sharks.




Housley made his loved ones very, very nervous 150 miles off the coast of Baja, California, near an island called Isla Guadalupe, which is apparently the Ritz-Carlton for gigantic sharks--very popular among the giant-set-of-multiple-rows-of-teeth crowd.

It's a fun listen, and guilt-free too, since Housley still has all his parts intact. And all kidding aside, Housley makes the important (and unfortunately, made too rarely) point that sharks are misunderstood creatures and we're just now starting to understand the impacts humans have on sharks, not the other way around.

Having said all that, Housley's voice carries the unmistakably thrilled tone of someone who's been shot at, so to speak, uneventfully. Give a listen!

An Aaron Brown tell-all? Ponder, muse, rinse, repeat

Profoundly irrelevant former CNN anchor Aaron Brown tells the NYP's Cindy Adams that he was the least of CNN's problems:



SO, no longer on CNN, what's Aaron Brown going to do? "Be home for a while," he answered. Then: "CNN in the old days had a clear vision. It knew what it was. It's lost its way today." Watch for a book from Aaron Brown . . .

A reader points out that it's pretty interesting that Brown disses CNN to Cindy Adams, considering that he refused to talk about his experience at CNN to the real television writer, Gail Shister:

There are several subjects Brown won't discuss: his feelings about CNN and its president, Jonathan Klein; whether the move caught him by surprise; if he and Cooper have spoken.

"I'm not unaware that in the TV universe, something big happened," Brown says. "I get that. In terms of my life, I'm just enjoying this phase - being Dad and the family cook, and dreamer of the next great dream."

Considering that what Brown called anchoring is what most people would call sleepwalking, the dream imagery is fitting. The question is, exactly who will let him count sheep live on the air next?

Rupert Murdoch: CNN trying to become "fair and balanced"

In a dialogue with The Hollywood Reporter, News Corp. chief Rupert Murdoch sums up the struggle at CNN:


THR: You have revolutionized news: The newspaper scene in London has gone on to influence newspapers the world over, Fox News changed television news, and you have made a big impact on sports.


Murdoch: News -- communicating news and ideas, I guess -- is my passion. And giving people alternatives so that they have two papers to read (and) alternative television channels. In this country, Fox News has gotten a big, big audience that appreciates its independence. There's passion there, and it's pushed. ... It has taken a long time, but it has now changed CNN because it has challenged them -- they've become more centrist in their choice of stories. They're trying to become, using our phrase, more fair and balanced.

FNC'S Global Warming special: The group sulk continues

Movement conservatives continue to scream bloody betrayal over FNC's global warming documentary. Even the just-the-facts Media Research Center is getting into the emotion-over-facts game, resorting to criticism of FNC's production values and vague smears of the data in an attempt to evade discussion of the scientific facts set forth in the special:

It began with all the hype of a Hollywood movie trailer. Flickering scenes of smokestacks, trucks and cars whizzing down the highway and dead fish in a stream were overlain with this ominous message: "The earth is sending out a desperate alarm."

That's how Fox News began its self-described "special on climate change and global warming." "The Heat Is On" went downhill from there, piling on a steady stream of left-wing activists, Hollywood celebrities, inaccuracies and exaggerations to paint a picture of a global climate apocalypse.

The "left-wing activists" and "Hollywood celebrities" the MRC's talking about? Why, these dangerous folks: RFK Jr. and Laurie (wife of Larry) David, aka conservative public enemies #1 (whatever happened to the good old days when Republicans rallied against Shining Path communists who lived to kill and torment people, not against a livable planet?) Let's be honest here. The words "Hollywood" and "Kennedy" always have, and always will, provoke a visceral response in certain individuals on the right side of the spectrum, in much the same way the words "President Bush" will always give the hard left a rash. It's not rational and it's not right, but it sure is predictable.

The whole global warming debate is fast becoming the new Third Rail of conservative politics--touch it with anything but derision and dismissal and prepare to be zapped. Free-market organization The Competitive Enterprise Institute is among the first to clutch its pearls in an open letter to Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes:

The host for the special, Rick Folbaum, writes in a Foxnews.com article that “the vast majority of the scientific community says we’re witnessing a unique and troubling kind of climate change” and that “no one can argue with this.” Many scientists have gone on record disputing this, many of whom are readily available to tell you that science does not support global warming alarmism, and that no one can credibly predict climate change over the next century.

Well, here's my problem with the CEI's heavy breathing: they're resorting to the last refuge of scoundrels. Contrary to popular belief, the last refuge of scoundrel's isn't patriotism--it's good old-fashioned lying. There is, to put it mildly, a ton of hard science to support the existence of global warming. Ideologues have always hated scientists, though, for one simple reason: scientists have a very narrow range of interest. Scientists like science, not political d