An MSNBC Watergate?

Remember the "18 Minute Gap"?" That was a big deal in the Watergate investigation of the 70s; the gap on the Nixon White House tapes was taken as proof that the Nixon White was engaged in a cover-up, deleting vital information needed by investigators. And of course, as we all came to learn, the Nixonians were, in fact, cover-upping.

Well, now it seems as thought Keith Olbermann is determined to replay some aspects of the Nixon presidency on his sleazy show.

Let's go to the tapes, as some say. Specifically, in a story concerning the "n-word" allegations against Sen. George Allen (R-VA), two MSNBC shows handled news footage differently. "Hardball" noted that one of Allen's accusers was an avowed partisan Democrat, before allowing the woman to go on the air to make her charge. That seems fair: The woman had a chance to have her say, but Chris Matthews' show alerted viewers to her partisan orientation. What a concept: The network reports, giving viewers the facts they need, and the folks at home get to decide.

But that partisan-identificaion disclaimer was missing from Keith Olbermann's show, which aired just a little while later on the same network. In other words, Olbermann disserved his viewers by depriving them of valuable context as to where the accusing woman was coming from.

Not that hardcore Olbermannites care--it's obvious that they just want to see conservatives bashed, by any means possible, hook or crook.

Hats off to Olbermann Watch for a great catch.

Being a liberal means never having to say you're sorry--certainly not to Roger Ailes

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann presents himself as a public paragon of conscience and virtue--no doubt he communes nightly with the ghost of Edward R. Murrow, or tries to--but he proves, nightly, that he is just another nasty liberal. A case in point is his continuing stream of ad hominem attacks on Roger Ailes, specifically, Ailes' weight.

If Ailes were a liberal, of course, any number of "high minded" groups would rush to defend him against Olbermann's personal attacks. And of course, if Ailes were a liberal, Olbermann wouldn't dare in the first place. But since Ailes is a conservative--actually, I'm not sure where Ailes is, ideologically, since he did that global warming special last year, but he's no liberal, that's for sure--it's open season on him, and every aspect of him, including his appearance.

And so Olbermann feels free to flail away at Ailes, knowing that the p.c. police will be looking in the other direction. That's the double standard in action, and while Olbermann is obviously happy to be the beneficiary, he should know something: A one-sided system--conservatves get clobbered, liberals get rewarded--only serves to fire up the Fox audience, and that audience is ultimately much larger than Olbermann's liberal fan club.

Thanks to Brent Baker of NewsBusters for this cable game catch.

What Peggy Noonan saw at the media revolution

Peggy Noonan offers a fascinating take on the media, and how things have changed so profoundly in the last half-century. It's required reading for those who wish to understand the overall media landscape, but here's an excellent summary of Fox News, and its place in the media environment--and in the Left's diabolistic worldview in the wake of Bill Clinton's mugging of Chris Wallace:

"One can't exaggerate how large Fox looms in the liberal imagination. They see it as huge and mighty and credit it with almost mythical powers. It is a propaganda channel whose mission it is to destroy the Democratic Party. That's part of why Clintons' performance had such salience. Finally he was standing up to an evil empire."

As always, Noonan is right.

"Full-Court Charm Press"

Sometimes it must seem like the cable game is the equivalent of Stalingrad. That is, an all-war between two sides. A case in point is the epic battle that has erupted since Bill Clinton's surprise attack on Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" last week.

But at other times, we are reminded that the cable game also has its courtly, even whimsical side. For example, there's FNC's Shepard Smith. In the pages of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, reporter Jill Vejnoska detailed Smith's recent visit to Atlanta, in which Smith focused on topics heavy and light. Sure, he covered Chris Wallace and Iraq and all that, but the Mississippi-born Smith also talked about--what else?--college football and life in the South. A charmer, that Smith is.

Of course, Smith wasn't just on a charm offensive. He is also part of a TV offensive; he was part of Fox's "Thank You America" tour, as part of FNC's 10th anniversary. And it just so happens that Smith was there in CNN's backyard--make that front yard.

A coincidence, I am sure. A friendly fellow such as Shep would never be part of anything like Stalingrad. Chancellorsville maybe, but not Stalingrad!

A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Clintonisms

Tara Dooley, an enterprising reporter for The Houston Chronicle, has found an interesting fresh angle on the Clinton-Wallace "FNS" incident. Dooley talked to Karen Bradley, director of graduate studies in dance at the University of Maryland and a certified movement analyst, for her take on Clinton's behavior. Dooley's answer: "He was ready to do that battle."

Here's Dooley: "Pressing the 'mute' button, Bradley watched a video clip and saw Clinton's determination and Wallace's attempts to calm or neutralize the situation, she said. 'We can tell how people feel mostly through their body language.'"

That's persuasive to me. Clinton came to that interview ready to play--which is to say, ready to hit Wallace, no matter what, as a way of hitting Fox News, and thus scoring a hit with the anti-Fox audience out there.

Once again, that's free speech, as well as politics. The important thing is for all of us, in our turn, to be wise about the ways of the cable game. And in this particular instance, Maryland's Karen Bradley's research supports the argument that Clinton's hit on Wallace was premeditated. So kudos again to reporter Dooley and her Chron.

And speaking of the same excellent Houston paper, Mike McDaniel scores a revealing interview with Chris Wallace, in which Wallace begins, in his quiet way, by saying that he is tired of talking about himself--no good journalist wants to be the story, as opposed to covering the story--but then does he has to do, given the situation, which is defend himself. As Wallace told McDaniel, "The Clinton spin machine is in full-wash cycle right now."

Fair & Balanced...

Inopinion offers a roundup of opinion on Bill Clinton's perf on "FNS."

And,in the spirit of fair & balance--not that David Brock's outfit is ever itself fair and balanced--TCG offers this link to Media Matters' take, too.

"Clinton uproar is priceless for Fox chief Ailes"

That's the headline atop Phil Rosenthal's piece in The Chicago Tribune this morning.

"I would have paid him 100 grand to help us with marketing, just to get a half-hour of his time," Ailes told Rosenthal. "As it turned out, I got a half-hour of his time and he did it for nothing. We're very grateful. ... He's kept us in the news for six days."

As discussed here in the past, the weirdness of the cable game includes the reality that antagonists can end up as "objective allies," which is to say, helping each other.

But Ailes added an important point, when he noted, "We've been criticized by seven important people in the last week, attacking Fox News for bias. All of them attacked us on Fox News. We let them come on and say whatever they want. The odd part is here's the former president sitting on our air attacking us for not being fair, and he's saying whatever he wants. That's pretty fair. That's the point that every writer has missed."

But not Rosenthal, who got it and reported it. That is, he reported what was said, both for and against Fox, and now we the readers get to decide what we think, agree or disagree. That's the right way to do journalism. There's a phrase for that...

Art Imitates Life, and TV Imitates Cable

The Buffalo News' Alan Pergament offers a fascinating look at TV, citing all the shows in which the characters themselves are in the media. The portrait of TV from these TV characters playing TV characters isn't very flattering. But of course, the TV executives making these programming decisions don't care. They have thick skins, and besides, they need the money. (Although NBC honcho Bob Wright, skewered by Tina Fey on his own network's new behind-the-scenes show, "30 Rock," might yet draw the line at the sort of abuse he is getting--even if the former plastics man utterly conforms to Fey's stereotype of the clueless suit pretendng to "get it," creatively.)

The larger story is that TV has changed over the years. Once upon a time, TV was the source of entertainment: People would watch a show in the same way that they would go to the theater. But now, thanks mostly to cable news, people turn on the TV to see life itself. Their lives, on the news, other people's lives on the news. Yes of course, life itself is spiced up and dramatized, even on reality TV, even on the news. And people know that.

They expect, for example, the over-acting of, say, Nancy Grace, whom MSNBC's Joe Scarborough cuttingly referred to as Nancy "Disgrace." They might like it, they might not, they might watch anyway--the ratings are the arbiter.

But in the meantime, it is clear that the spate of shows featuring behind-the-scenes looks at TV and media, such as "Live on the Sunset Strip," "Brothers and Sisters," and "Vanished."

A great piece by Pergament.

Imus on Clinton: "A junkyard dog with a little bit of polish and a lot of hair"

That's how Don Imus, who is as free a spirit--OK, as loose a cannon--as anyone on TV, described Bill Clinton on his MSNBC show Wednesday, as Clinton's mugging of Chris Wallace continues to reverberate.

Interestingly, military analyst Jack Jacobs observed back to Imus, "Clinton's response to Chris Wallace was both pure fiction, and he used a very common technique of those who don't know what they're talking about, and that is the ad hominem argument. When you don't have any facts that support you, what you do is you attack the other guy and always talk louder."

Newsbuster's Michael Rule has all the details.

Ailes Stands Up--and Stands Out

Roger Ailes made a good point on Wednesday: "Why the silence? Where are the journalists on the Bill Clinton-mugs-Chris Wallace story?" You know, all those people who run committees and centers, and institutions and institutes, all dedidated to a free press, free speech, civil dialogue, etc. Where are they? They are as silent as the proverbial lambs.

It's fair to say that if a conservative had attacked a liberal reporter the way Clinton attacked Wallace on last Sunday's "Fox News Sunday," then these self-declared, tax-deductible guardians of public morality would've all been on the case defending the aggrieved liberal--demanding that the offending conservative apologize, admit that's he mean, etc.

And that's what Ailes said on Wednesday afternoon, in an interview with the AP's David Bauder. Clinton launched "an assault on all journalists," the Fox chief said, and he's right.

"If you can't sit there and answer a question from a professional, mild-mannered, respectful reporter like Chris Wallace, then the hatred for journalists is showing," Ailes added. "All journalists need to raise their eyebrows and say, 'hold on a second.'"

But if the journalistic establishment is raising its eybrows, it's doing so off the record, because the AP clearly failed to find anyone to take up for Wallace. But the wire service did manage to uncover Steve Rendell of the lefty Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, who sniped that Ailes was "whining." Thanks Steve; you really stuck up for a free press with that quote.

But fringe-leftists aside, the real question is whether or not the MSM establishment will stick up for Wallace. As noted, Wallace is one of them, by background, although he always distinguished himself by being neutral ideological and self-effacing to the point of being almost shy. In other words, Chris Wallace was, and is, a reporter of the type that most reporters say that they strive to emulate. (Whether those others succeed or not is another question.)

But now Wallace has discovered that a lot of his pals when he was at ABC aren't his pals now that he's at Fox.

But Wallace does have one pal where it counts: Roger Ailes, his boss. Ailes has never run from a fight in his life. Nor shirked the principle of press freedom.

That makes Ailes a hero. Sadly, he's a rare hero in this lib-lopsided media world. Unique, in fact.

Fair, Balanced -- and Free Speech, Too!

I missed it when it aired, but now I learn that Bill O'Reilly had Bill Maher on his show last night.

As you may know, Maher was supposed to be on the new CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, in their "free speech" segment, but somehow, the segment got yanked. Maher says that CBS changed its mind when Maher told them that he wanted to free-speechify about religion. For its part, CBS said no, we didn't censor Maher. And there seemed to be some confusion, as to the real truth, in between the two sides. Yet of course, the fact remains that Maher hasn't been on CBS.

Enter Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly is no fan of Maher's political views, but he is a fan of free speech, and he does, of course, like a good rating. So he had Maher on last night, and let Maher have his say. Maher said, for example, that "We have preachers like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who in my view say crazy things, but nobody takes them that seriously here." That's Maher being Maher, love it or loathe it.

O'Reilly stuck up for his side, of course, but the point is that Maher got his chance. Maher got free speech, and FNC gets credit for promoting free spech.

Why We Need Fox News

Everybody likes to criticize, and nobody's perfect. But there is such a thing as a perfect idea, that's beyond criticism. One such idea is "fair and balance." That is, if one is dealing with a contentious idea, let the contenders each have a "fair go." That's democracy, that's free speech, that's the American Way. Yes, there should be rules and decorum, but the basic idea of letting everyone have a voice is profound, and, well, perfect.

That was the heart of Fox News a decade ago, and it was a radical departure from the liberal paradigm of news being "administered" down to us hoi polloi by the likes of Dan Rather. Over at Fox, Roger Ailes said, in effect, "You might not trust us to cover the news. So to build your trust, we will be 'fair and balanced.' That is, we will cover both sides of an argument--or all sides." Over time, Ailes was confident, viewers would appreciate the idea of "we report, you decide." And Ailes was absolutely right.

That's a great model to stick to, and if you a journalist does stick to it, he or she is unlikely to go too far wrong. In American politics, of course, most of the time, arguments take place on one of two axes: liberal vs. conservative, Democratic vs. Republican. So there's a simple rule: If you put on a liberal Democratic talking head, make sure that he or she is rebutted by a conservative Republican talking head. That seems so fair, so elementary.

But not over at NBC. Everybody knows that Meredith Vieira is a liberal; she has spoken out against the Iraq war, among other political causes. OK, fine, it's a free country. But if she's going to do politics on "Today," she should be extra careful to be "fair and balanced"--the phrase may be copyrighted, but the idea is freely universal.

So did Vieira do that? Did she trust her viewers to listen to both sides? Did she let the fair-and-balanced presentation of the news play itself out. She could have, she should have. As Steve Martin would say, "BUT NO!!!!" Instead, Vieira and her producers stacked their show yesterday with not just a second liberal Democrat, James Carville, but a third, Paul Begala. That's correct: It wasn't one on one, left against right. It was three against zero.

Happily, NewsBusters was there, doing its job, ready to bust NBC. Thanks to NB's Geoffrey Dickens for catching this abuse of the public trust, this violation of the most elementary standards of fair & balanced journalism.

Oh wait, I forgot: Not everyone signed on to the "fair and balanced" idea. Some in the MSM still like to deliver news the old way, the liberal top-down-take-your-lefty-medicine way.

And that's what reminds me to say, "Thanks again, Fox News!" Maybe eventually the rest of the media will get the idea of being fair and balanced. But until then, thankfully, we have FNC.

A Weird Kind of Unwanted Win-Win

That's the emerging reality of the Bill Clinton vs. Chris Wallace confrontation that aired on Fox on September 24.

There's no question that the interview helped both sides. Over at the liberal blog Huffington Post, Bill Press spoke for many liberals and Democrats when he described Clinton's performance as
"magnificent". It would seem that Press-types don't really care whether or not Clinton was accurate or honest--why start caring now? Instead, what they really want is to see Clinton blast enemies; they want to see him scoring on some "red meat" on behalf of partisan Democrats. One might say, in the interests of fairness, that it would be a little different if they chose to blast, say, Rush Limbaugh, as opposed to the nice-guy Chris Wallace, but that's politics--you target the target that you can target. Wallace works at Fox, ergo, Wallace has to be attacked. So be it. It's not a very uplifting spectacle, such systematized manipulation; I guess that's why they call it politics.

But at the same time, Fox News has been helped, too. Most obviously, ratings for the Wallace show, "Fox News Sunday," are up, and the buzz is up even more. Here's Variety with the details. Alas, registration is required, but here's the nut of the piece by Michael Learmonth: "The skirmish between Chris Wallace and former President Bill Clinton on 'Fox News Sunday' gave the show its best ratings in nearly three years. ... The contentious interview helped 'Fox News Sunday,' normally the fourth-place Sunday show, to victories over at least one of its three network competitors in 35 metered markets." Not bad.

So to sum up, Clinton and Wallace/Fox may be antagonists, but they helped each other. To borrow a term from political science, the two foes are "objective allies." That is, two antagonists can oppose each other on the battlefield and yet each can find itself strengthened within its respective camp. The classic example of "objective allies" is the feud hard-line Israelis and hard-line Palestinians. Each time that Jews go to war against Arabs, the respective hardliners, each in their respective camp, are made that much stronger. The losers in such a situation are the moderates. And so it is with Bill Clinton and Chris Wallace, and Fox.

Now one can and should have slightly ambivalent feelings about these sorts of hostile-but-beneficial relationships, because Fox isn't elected to anything--although come to think of it, Clinton hasn't been elected to anything in a while, either. I am sure that Wallace, for one, wishes that it hadn't happened, because no newsman likes to be the story himself. But at the same time, I am sure that Clinton is glad that it happened, and so you can bet that there will come other such media-moments in the future, in which Clinton turns on the anger, in order to turn on the Democratic base.

It's a strange situation in which two of the top actors in an ongoing political war, Bill and Chris, aren't even elected figures. But that's politics for you, including the politics of cable news.

"Fox News correspondent Catherine Herridge is fearless..."

"...Not because she's covered wars in Iraq and Yugoslavia.

"No, her courage comes courtesy of a rosy-cheeked little miracle named Peter."

The rest of this true--and truly inspiring--story can be found in The Pittsburgh Post-Review, here.

The gift that keeps on giving...

...Strictly speaking, "Fox News Sunday" does not fall within the purview of The Cable Game, since it's a broadcast show--but oh wait, it re-runs on FNC, and Chris Wallace, Brit Hume & Co. are all seen frequently elsewhere on FNC.

So TCG feels justified in updating various angles concerning the show:

For example, it proved to be a ratings boost for "FNS." I am sure that Wallace didn't enjoy being mugged by Bill Clinton, but at least the Foxman has high ratings to comfort him.

And CNET observes, "Not since Colbert did the D.C. Press Club has the Web had such a hot political video."

But that video is a bit "hot," in more ways than one. Here's an interesting angle on the copyright issues inherent in all this video footage floating around on the web.

And now for something completely different...

MSNBC zeroes right in on the big story of the day: The state of Bill Clinton's socks. I don't make this stuff up: All my material comes from others.

But if this is what MSNBC wants to cover, I say, "Let's have more 'Datelines'"

"Churlish, childish, and boorish"

That's Ed Bark, former TV critic for The Dallas Morning News, now a blogger--welcome to the 'sphere, Ed!--assessing Bill Clinton's purple-faced perf on "Fox News Sunday." Read the whole story here, in which Bark refers to Wallace as "the fairest in the land at Fox." As noted, Wallace is a nice guy--which is maybe why Clinton thought he could bully him. In fact, Wallace held his own during the interview/ambush, but the Democratic Left is making this into its version of the Gettysburg, an epic fight. So it's up to us in the 'sphere to rally to our friends, and to fairness.

And James P. Pinkerton, of Newsday, weighs in, too, on Clinton's attempted Orwellian spin.

The Last Straw...

...although, of course, for Keith Olbermann, there will no doubt be many more last straws--because he has so left straws left!

The invaluable Olbermann Watch caught Olbermann uttering epithets that would likely get a mere mortal TV talking head fired, or at least castigated. But Olbermann is immune, because he's been sanctified by the left. That's correct: because Olbermann is so p.c., he can get away with not being p.c. He can be downright nasty, in fact; the opposite of "kumbaya," and be cheered all the more from his lefty cheering section.

So when Olbermann referred to Fox News as "hyenas," it's safe to predict that KO had nothing to fear from the next day's New York Times. And even when he referred specifically to Chris Wallace as "a monkey posing as a newscaster"--well, he knows that nothing bad will happen to him. The usual-suspect self-declared "guardians of civility" will be silent, of course, because they don't object to the "coarsening of the culture" when it's a conservative speaking up or speaking out. If it's Olbermann throwing around nasty personal insults, well, that's just "hardball."

Update: the must-read Inside Cable News makes a similarly valuable point about Olbermann's over-the-line rhetoric.

"Grace's Interview Left a Stain on CNN"

That's the headline of an editorial in TV Week, a no-nonsense trade publication. Unfortunately, registration is required to see the whole editorial--worth a read!--but here's the stinging conclusion:

"But the decision by Headline News and Ms. Grace to televise the interview after the woman's death was dumpster diving of the lowest sort.

"The sad fact of life is that ratings grabs are natural when a show isn't at the top of its heap competitively. We hope that next time, someone in authority will intervene before Ms. Grace can disgrace herself-and the network-again."

Pow!

He said it, I'm just quoting him

"Our tone should be crazed." That was Keith Olbermann on Monday night.

And in addition, TCG reader Alison Gedney makes a good catch, recalling that on Friday's show, Olbermann ostentatiously handed Bill Clinton a check, just as their interview was starting, saying, "Here's eight more schools in Kenya." Now that's great, that Olbermann is making a charitable donation, seeking to use his own money for things he believes in, as opposed to other people's tax dollars.

But still, there's something decidedly strange about Olbermann doing it on the air. Strange, even by Olbermann standards! Observes Alison: "What a self-serving, self-promoting ego-maniac if you ask me. Anyway, other than the conflict of interest that I think that move represented, there are also questions about journalistic ethics and checkbook journalism that could be raised by this stunt if you ask me. Then again, maybe it's just me."

No, Alison, it's CG, too. The best charity, the Bible tells us, is done quietly. And maybe the worst form of charity is that committed on TV, in a desperate quest for ratings. But that's just our opinion; here's the transcript--decide for yourself.

MSNBC, RIP?

Broadcasting & Cable's Max Robins has some scoop.

Chris Wallace, before he was mugged by Bill Clinton

Johnny Dollar remembers Chris Wallace defending Bill Clinton, and his administration's record fighting terror, on September 8, 2006, just before Clinton mugged him on the air.

The topic was the ABC movie, "The Path to 9-11." And Wallace made the totally fair point that it's not fair to make up words and put them in the mouth of a real historical figure. That is, it's fair to assert that Clinton, or whoever, did a bad job in office, if that's what you think, but it's not fair to pretend that something happened when it didn't happen. That is, you can't just make stuff up. That's not OK.

Wallace recalled the movie "The Insider," in which his own father, CBS legend Mike Wallace, was fictionally portrayed as saying and doing things that didn't happen. And if the rules of fairness should apply to Mike Wallace (even though, in that particular instance, they didn't), then they should apply to Bill Clinton. As Chris said, fictionalizing words and pretending that they're real is "unethical, it shouldn't happen, they should take the scene out, it's just wrong."

So that was Chris on September 8. Now, two weeks later, I wonder if he is as eager to defend Clinton. He's a relentlessly fair-minded guy, Chris is, so he probably is content to keep to his principles and defend Clinton against unfair attacks, even if he himself has been unfairly attacked by Clinton. But if it happened to me, on the other hand? Well, that might be a different story...

"They Wanted To See Clinton Bash Fox"

As always, Johnny Dollar gets it right, with help from Jim Pinkerton.

The Battle of The Bill Continues

"Bill Clinton's Meltdown and Deception on Fox"--that's the header atop The Conservative Voice today. This is a megawar, folks, and blogger Jim Kouri, himself a well-known police chief, gets it.

But of course, the fight is being carried on by the other side, too: Howard Dean praised Clinton, of course; here's the headline atop Raw Story today: "Dean applauds Clinton for standing up to 'Fox News' right-wing bullying and propaganda machine."

As Orwell explained, "He who controls the past controls the future." So if Clinton wins this fight, he will win the fight not only for his own legacy, but also for Hillary.

Something to think about, as this battle continues to rage, as it will.

The Smoking Gun on Nancy Grace

Nancy Grace. Kind of an ironic name for the not-so-angelic would-be avenger on CNN Headline News. She sees herself as some sort of justice-crusader, but she is more of a bottom-feeder, as Neal Gabler called her on FNC a couple of weeks ago.

Meanwhile, this morning we get a look behind the TV glamour and the Nielsen-ratings money facade shows a bleaker, sadder reality. The glitz doesn't conceal a grave reality.

The glimpse behind the glitz comes from this morning's edition of
The Orlando Sentinel, which has gained access to a suicide note of sorts, from the late Melinda Duckett, in which the young woman wrote, in words that seem mostly aimed at the media, "You created rumors and twisted words...I only wish you do not push anyone else."

Duckett, of course, committed suicide on September 8, the day after being "interviewed" by CNN Headline News' Nancy Grace--an interview that was more akin to an inquisition--certainly that was Duckett's view, as The Sentinel story makes plain. Amazingly, shamelessly, gracelessly, CNN HN ran the interview with Duckett anyway. That is, CNN HN figured it was good television, to feast upon death.

And so, by comparison, what small value is Duckett's life to CNN, or to Nancy Grace, or to Time-Warner? So Duckett snapped, in their view--too bad for her. Maybe she'll find some peace in her own death.

But of course, Melinda will have a second life, of sorts, whether she wants it or not, in the permanent empyrean of media speculation. And no doubt the Shameless Grace will continue to push her ghost around.

We need a vigorous press to keep officialdom on its toes, but it's pretty clear that Grace was just trying to exploit this obviously troubled woman for her own purposes.

But perhaps there is justice, of a kind--if not on TV, then eventually. One takes comfort in the thought that the smoke from Duckett's suicide gun, however metaphorical, will eventually find its way to Grace and surround her, psychically, if not physically. You know what kind of smoke I am thinking of--the smoke that comes from down below. And then we won't have to watch the graceless Grace--we won't be able to see her, in fact.

I Report, You Decide

Is Fox "on the defensive," as "Think Progress" claims?

Or did FNC's Chris Wallace simply have "the temerity to ask a question that seemed to be uppermost in viewer's minds," as "Red State" observes?

The Cable-Game battle continues!

Fox Fires Back

Chris Wallace clearly understands that Bill Clinton sandbagged him on the interview--thanks to Johnny Dollar for grabbing the video.

CG is glad to know that Wallace and FNC are fighting back on this, not letting Clinton get away with throwing a punch and then rushing to claim the media-mugged victim mantle.

Bill Clinton's Faux Outrage at Fox--Liberals Love It

"FOX TRIES TO SMEAR BILL CLINTON...CLINTON BLASTS FOX..."

That's quite a charge from left-leaning Huffington Post this morning. Quite a storyline, in fact, to juice up an otherwise slow-newsing Saturday morning. But is it a fact? Let's take a look, starting with this link from the similarly left-leaning Center for American Progress (CAP).

It seems that Bill Clinton sat down for an interview with FNC's Chris Wallace, and when Wallace asked him a question, Clinton blew up. Youtubers were quick to point out, of course, that Clinton is a master of unleashing contrived cold fury when he wants to be unleashedly cold and furious for the cameras--even if, in truth, he is lying through his teeth, as he was during the Monica Lewinsky year of 1998.

Anyway, Wallace asked Clinton a question, revolving around this basic fact: Osama Bin Laden survived the entire eight years of Bill Clinton's presidency. Clinton came back with a long nasty response, in which he accused Wallace of not only bias, but also ambush: "So you did Fox’s bidding on this show. You did you nice little conservative hit job on me." So take that, Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, and all the rest of you v.r.w.c.'s, Clinton was saying.

Now Wallace does work for FNC, of course, but not many think of him as notably ideological either way--in any way. One of Wallace's strengths is that, well, he's a newsman. So does he ask tough questions? Very well, he asks tough questions. That's called newsgathering. And I guess one thing we learned is that Clinton still loses his cool, especially when he wants to.

For his part, Clinton affected the pose that he only wanted to be asked about his Clinton Global Initiative, his do-gooding effort that was showcased in NYC last week. One can't blame Clinton for preferring to talk with Richard Branson about global warming than with a newsman about his presidential record fighting (or not) terrorism, but at the same time, one also can't blame Wallace for doing his job. That's the difference between a newsmaker and a newsgatherer. The newsmaker has his message, usually on one particular topic, but the newsgatherer has a different goal--to ferret out some truth.

But the plot thickens. According to CAP, Clinton "was told the interview would focus on his nonpartisan efforts to raise over $7 billion to combat the world’s biggest problems." Which is to say, CAP, presumably echoing Clinton's spin--CAP is run by John Podesta, a former White House chief of staff to Clinton--which is that Wallace and FNC ambushed him with the choice of topic.

For its part, TCG finds it hard to believe that Wallace would do that. A reporter is only as good as his or her reputation, and Wallace has built a sterling rep over 30 years. Moreover, it's simply hard to accept that Wallace would offer, or Clinton would think, that there could be an interview with the ex-president in which philanthropy would take precedence over terrorism--especially at a time when Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are all in the news so much, what with the UN General Assembly meeting and all.

Here's what I think: Clinton saw a chance to bash Fox. He saw that if he smoked Wallace, he would be a hero to his troops; the reader comments on the CAP website prove that Clinton succeeded. CAP-ers and liberals want to see FNC being attacked, and so if Clinton does the attacking, there's a huge audience.

FNC didn't ambush Clinton. Clinton ambushed FNC. It's a free country, of course, but everyone should be on notice that even if an ex-president, striving to be remembered as a statesman, is still capable of sucker-punching a target.

CNN Headline News Update

It looks CNN HN is in the clear. There's some smelly muck here, for sure, but it doesn't appear to be connected to CNN HN.

Now, of course, if CNN HN can only clean up Nancy Grace.

The Big Picture

"We're not shooting for CNN, we're shooting for the networks." Roger Ailes giving Jane Skinner, newest FNC anchor, her marching orders . Thanks to Tim Cuprisin of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Nancy Grace, With No Apologies -- And No Shame

The AP offers a useful
update
on Nancy Grace.

The AP notes that she is rarely right, but never in doubt, and always gaining in the ratings, especially against fellow CNN-er Paula Zahn.

Media Matters on Matthews

Chris Matthews is entitled to his opinions, and he is entitled to change those opinions. But at the same time, he is not entitled to rewrite history--his own history.

Media Matters caught Matthews "getting rewrite"--for himself--on Imus on Friday. That is, Matthews asserted asserted that he had opposed the Iraq war "from the beginning," when, in fact, he was cheerleading for the war; as he said on May 1, 2003, as President Bush landed on the deck of the aircraft carrrier USS Abraham Lincoln, "I think we like having a hero as our president." MM comes up with more stuff, too, showing that Matthews took various hawkish positions on the war, not just one dovish position.

Again, Chris, and all the rest of the cable newsers--take any position you want, so long as it's labeled as opinion. Change your position if you want, so long as the changed opinion is noted, too, just so viewers can keep track.

And in any case, recognize that others will be noting what you say--that's the strength of the blogosphere!

MSNBC, NewsBusted

Newsbusters' Greg Sheffield makes a
great point: MSNBC "talent," including Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, and Keith Olbermann, are all seeking to "punch up" on FNC--that is, "punch up" to higher ratings. This punchy strategy, which Sheffield attributes to new MSNBC honcho Dan Abrams, doesn't seem to be working, but Abrams has to do something to justify his new job, right? So maybe this is worth a try--and what better "talent" to expend in this ratings-quest than Carlson?

It was fun, and then it was over

Johnny Dollar, as always, gets all the good stuff on Fox--in this case, Mike & Juliet's last daylast day with "Dayside."

I hear that M+J are headed for syndication...

Olbermann, watched

If Keith Olbermann is going to unfairly hound George W. Bush, it's only fair that Olbermann Watch fairly hound Keith Olbermann.