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.

I Knew It!

On Tuesday, I posted on an interview that E.D. Hill gave to Fort Worth Star-Telegram, in which Hill mused aloud about doing more journalism outside of the "Fox & Friends" format. I should have guessed that something wuzzup. And in fact, something must've been in the works. Now I learn that E.D. is going to anchor the 10 am to 12 noon slot, and that Gretchen Carlson is moving to "F&F."

Change is good! But if I had gone more with my gut, I might've speculated that E.D. was hinting at something. And had a great scoop! Oh well.

Fair & Balanced--But Don't Take My Word For It -- Check This "Out"

The Broward-Palm Beach New Times, has made a crucial discovery: Fox News really IS fair & balanced. As the paper writes, in its latest issue, "Maybe there's some truth to that 'fair and balanced' slogan after all." Yup. Actually there's a lot of truth in that slogan, as the article makes plain. FNC plays it down the middle, which is enough to make everyone mad, at one time or another--in this particular case, that someone is Peter LaBarbara, of the conservative Americans for Truth, which is mad that FNC gave a small grant to the liberal-leaning The National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association. Talk about man bites dog--that's the story line of the New Times piece.

The point has always been, for 10 years now, that much of the rest of the media are so tilted toward the left, and toward the p.c., that they all think that FNC is a bunch of vast-right-wing-conspirators just because FNC is not like the MSM.

FNC is FNC. It plays it down the middle. Nobody's perfect, of course, but this incident demonstrates that FNC is independent, and no slave to any particular ideology.

As Brit Hume likes to say, FNC is "fair, balanced, and unafraid." Let's hope that never changes, no matter who's happy, or unhappy. The truth doesn't have to hurt, but it doesn't have to feel good, either. The truth is just the truth, period, and fair is fair, and balanced is balanced.

MSNBC's Muncie-Eyed View?

According to "Inside Indiana Business," MSNBC has reached a deal with Ball State University to provide the network with programming content.

TCG is all for everybody trying lots of new things, especially if it involves reaching out to folks in red states, but at the risk of seeming like an old fogie, one must remember that the goal of a cable news network is to cover the news, not to air student videos. So yes, let's give this reported deal a chance, to see how it works out, if it works out. But unless Hollywood, or Hezbollah, or high tech, moves to Muncie, we don't see much chance that the focus of news is going to be much in Indiana. No offense, Hoosiers! One of the reasons we like your state is that it is wholesome, even if "wholesome" is sometimes a synonym for dull--er, make that quiet and peaceful!

The news should always be a function of where the news is, not where the newsgatherers might be attending college.

Speaking of new ideas in media, Jim Cramer--who is not a buffoon, even if he plays one on CNBC's "Mad Money"--has a shrewd piece
piece on the future of Viacom in the current issue of New York magazine. There're a lot of good ideas for Sumner Redstone in here, all of which have to do with the future convergence of the media. Hint to Sumner: Think video games.

CNN Headline News Payola?

Here's what The Buffalo News' Thomas J. Dolan is reporting this morning. It seems that a local government authority in upstate NY paid $19,000 to some outfit to get a segment placed on CNN HN. So far, the segment hasn't run. So there's plenty of time for CNN HN to clean up its act--before a very messy situation spills out on to national TV.

Newsbusters Busts CNN, Again

CNN's Michael Ware practices opinion, not journalism. Once again, free country/free press, but others, notably Newsbuster's Noel Sheppard, are equally free to take down Ware's words and let everyone judge them.

Media Matters Discovers an Immense Conspiracy--the News!

David Brock's Media Matters takes special delight in attacking Fox News. Of course MM hates Fox, because George Soros and the rest of Media Matters' lefty funders hate Fox. That's OK, it's a free country, everyone should be able to hate whoever they wish. However, the problem with living a life as a professional left-wing hatchetman is that eventually, you become consumed by your "work." That is, David, you become so busy hating, over there on the far fringes of portside, that you can't even see straight--it's just hate, hate, hate.

Hence this item, in which Brock's Media Matterers discover that virtually the entire media are in on a vast right-wing conspiracy to pump up Bush. And what conspiracy is that? That Bush is rising in the polls, and that it is being covered as news. And it's true: Bush is going up, according to a variety of news sources.

And since it represents a change from W's low ratings of the past year or so, the change in Bush's poll ratings can fairly be called... news.

But for MM, there's no such thing as news. There're only conspiracies.

See It Now, Really

TCG likes the Cable Game, of course--that's the point of this blog. However, as much as TCG enjoys the ups and downs of ratings, and the ups and downs of careers and all that, TCG tries to never forget that the real point of the news is to tell us about the world. And so TCG salutes anyone who does such telling. And so, for example, this interesting report
found on CNN.com. TCG didn't know of CNN's Henry Schuster, but he gets credit for being with the GI's in Afghanistan, and bringing back the story.

Convergence, cont.

Lost Remote reviews the new FNC site and asks: "Why is it that national news channel websites are apparently going to be the last to implement embedded video players on their front pages? Newspapers are even going with embedded video. Why the holdup at the national TV sites of all places?"

Good question.

Newsbusters Busts CNN's John Roberts

Read Scott Whitlock's incisive posting here, to see another take on Iran, much different than FNC's Bakhtiar. Which makes TCG think: Why should CNN represent the American point of view? How parochial! How boring!! It's much better--or at least more in keeping with the Turnerian ethos of CNN--to represent the world point of view. Don't go changing, John, just because you've left CBS for CNN.

Hear it Now

FNC's Rudi Bakhtiar, an Iranian-American herself, offers an enlightening and sobering report
today on Iran, on Fox radio with Brian Kilmeade and Andrew Napolitano--thanks to Johnny Dollar.

Ted Turner, on the record--and off his meds

Verbatim from a wire story yesterday: "The founder of CNN also defended the right of Iran to have nuclear weapons and the effectiveness of the United Nations."

One wonders what else Ted Turner might wish to do to help Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Kofi Annan help America.

Wow. I knew that Reuters was a lefty radical chic outfit masquerading as a news organization, as abundantly documented by Little Green Footballs here, and here, and here, but TCG didn’t know just how far over Reuters was till we read this from Reuters’ Ray Richmond:

“While there is no argument that Olbermann can at times be self-indulgent, somewhat arrogant, over the top and stridently passionate, he is also the most compelling news personality of his generation. Love him or hate him, he is a charismatic, righteously indignant force of nature who is inspiring fervent cheers and detesting jeers in equal measure.”

It’s a free country, of course, and so Reuters is free to tout Olbermann for sainthood, as if he is some sort of successor to Edward R. Murrow or maybe Bobby Kennedy. OK, fine. But by the same token, the rest of us are free to know Reuters for what it is.

Ten Years That Shook the World

Johnny Dollar reminds TCG that Fox News is about to celebrate its 10th anniversary on the air, and even rounds up some old screen grabsfrom from 1996. Have we really changed that much? I know I haven't :-)!

But seriously folks, it's been a wild ride, this past decade. I can remember that the big buzz of 1996 was MSNBC: how the genius visionary Bill Gates (true!) of Microsoft and the equally genius visionary Bob Wright (not so true) of NBC were going to come together in a grand collaboration that would herald the New Media future. So MSNBC got all the buzz after it premiered in August of '96, while Fox News seemed like sort of an afterthought.

Gee, the world has changed since, huh? Roger Ailes, who gets credit, even from his detractors , for being a genius, looms as one of the transformative figures in American life in this past decade.

Which reminds me: Where's Ailes' memoir, anyway? It would be a Jack Welch-like publishing sensation.

FNC and Foxnews.com convergence update

Foxnews.com unveils its new look. The process of convergence continues, as the separation between TV and the Net continues to narrow.

E. D. Hill on Iraq, Immigration--and Bad Hair

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram's Alyson Ward scores a revealing interview interview with FNC's E.D. Hill. The co-host of "Fox & Friends" will be known forever as one of the cutest moms on cable news, but in fact, she is direct and blunt in her opinions and her views.

Asked what story she would like to cover, Hill says, directly, "If I had my druthers, I would be in Iraq right now. I would be in the Sudan. I would be traveling the world and reporting on stuff. I would be in Saudi Arabia, trying to figure out what to do about our oil crisis.” But, she continues, such world-jaunting “wouldn't give me the chance to be the kind of mom I want to be."

What's the hottest issue for viewers? One word: "immigration." Not exactly what one would expect to here from the host of "Today," or "GMA."

Still, E.D. has girly problems, too: "If I've got a bad-hair day, [viewers] will e-mail to say I look bad. Including my mother -- when I've got a bad-hair day, my mother will e-mail [co-anchor] Steve [Doocy]. He'll read it, and he'll tell me, ‘Your mother just e-mailed and said “Fix your hair.” Your mother's right.'"

Sean Penn + CNN = 1/2 of Fair and Balanced--or just half of fair

So Sean Penn goes on "Larry King Live" and accuses George W. Bush of "fascism."

How clever Sean is! How insightful! And how agreeable Larry King is during Penn's rants!

But of course, let's also note how quick CNN will be to come back and show that they are eager to showcase someone who will refute Penn.

Oh wait.

Still waiting.

An Old but New Novitiate for Fox News?

Joker-blogger Andy Borowitz spins a tale this morning that Fox News is hiring Pope Benedict XVI for a show. I realize that Borowitz is kidding--and besides, it's not clear to me that the former Cardinal Ratzinger speaks English!--but the Cable Gamer kinda likes the idea, anyway.

Yes, Fox has the cool Father Jonathan--who knows what heights he's destined for, within the church?--but why not go right to the top, right now?

"Shut Up, Nancy Grace"

The Orlando Sentinel's Lauren Ritchie pulls an Emile Zola on Nancy Grace, with this
J'Accuse. Here're the strongest quotes concerning the case of Melinda Duckett, the late woman from Leesburg, FL who killed herself after being grilled by Grace:

"The real issue is Grace's bizarre behavior and why her employer allows her to run wild.

"Leesburg police didn't hire CNN to solve the case. Nobody asked Grace to prosecute Melinda Duckett. The nastiness she pulled with Duckett, who shot herself before the interview aired, seems to be just the former prosecutor indulging in histrionics that never would be tolerated in court….

"Most news organizations think that reporting the facts is their mission. CNN, in an effort to top the formidable Bill O'Reilly on Fox News in the 8 p.m. ratings -- Grace is nearly always running second or third in that slot -- apparently thinks it must make the news. Grace's performance so far is only a slim cut above TV-show host Jerry Springer's antics. Springer, however, doesn't masquerade as respectable.

Bill Schneider Joins the Grassy Knollers?

Hats off to Michael M. Bates of "Newsbusters" for catching CNN's Bill Schneider joining the conspiracy fantasists.

This Wolf has Teeth

Kudos to Wolf Blitzer. Interviewing the world-federalist billionaire, George Soros, on "Late Edition," Blitzer pressed Soros on the Hungarian-American's claim that George W. Bush was like Hitler or Stalin. Blitzer pressed and pressed and pressed, and Soros conceded that he had gone "overboard" in his choice of words. That was a small concession from Soros, but nonetheless, it was a big step forward to having some sort of rule of civility, and rule of reason. So the CNN man gets credit for de-coarsening the dialogue.

Convergence, cont.

Real Clear Politics and FNC do a deal. As noted, the moment when all information comes from one screen is coming that much closer. It took a while for George Gilder and other visionaries to be proven right, but one day, we will be watching, say, Fox News My Space You Tube, all at once. The business model is unclear, of course, but that's not my problem.

Absolutely Desperate People

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That’s a truism. But it’s also true that desperation corrupts.

Let’s consider three cases in point: Nancy Grace of CNN Headline News, Tucker Carlson of MSNBC, and Joe Scarborough, also of MSNBC.

First, on Fox “News Watch” last night, Neal Gabler—a self-declared liberal who routinely savages on-air cable news personalities, including FNC’s Bill O’Reilly
and Sean Hannity, found occasion to take note that the “bottomest bottom feeder” of them all was Nancy Grace. Neal was referring, of course, to the case of Melinda Duckett who was hounded into her premature grave by Ms. Grace, all for the sake of sensationalism and ratings. OK, maybe that’s an overstatement: maybe “hounded” is too strong. Maybe I should simply say “pushed.” As Jim Pinkerton said on the same show, “As they said when were kids, ‘It’s all fun and games—until somebody gets hurt.” Well, somebody got hurt; Melinda Duckett is dead. And yet as Neal said on the show, it says everything about CNN Headline News, as well as Grace, that the Duckett segment ran anyway, even after the distraught young woman had taken her own life.

Second, as for Tucker Carlson, he made a fool of himself on “Dancing With the Stars.” Of course he made a fool of himself. He is a fool. His entire career is a tribute to the naïvite of liberals—at CNN, PBS, and now MSNBC—who think that Carlson represents conservatism. In fact, he represents smugness and opportunism, and nothing more. Eventually his liberal bosses will figure that out, and then Carlson will have to go back to living on his trust fund income.

Third, Joe Scarborough proved that he, too, is an opportunist and a phony. Blogger Howard Mortman caught this item
in which Scarborough attempted to turn the 1986 terror bombing of a Berlin discotheque into a joke at George W. Bush’s expense. Yeah, it’s a strange joke to make: a 20-year-old tragedy, into contemporary political humor. As noted, desperation makes people do desperate—and pathetic—things.

Movers & shakers, FNC edition

Johnny Dollar has the audio: Jane Skinner calls in to Shep Smith about her new duties as permanent member of the Fox News Live(2-3pm ET) anchor team, starting Monday, September 25...also on September 25, Martha MacCallum's very cool-sounding new show "The Live Desk" debuts at 1pm ET. "Dayside" has been cancelled but it's all good: Mike Jerrick and Juliet Huddy are busy getting ready for their new morning show to debut next year on Fox Broadcast.

Cuchi Cuchi Cavuto

Breathes there a babe with more charm and personality than the perpetually entertaining pop culture icon Charo? Nope, she's one in a million, and she's bringing her "Cuchi cuchi" to Fox News Channel's "Your World with Neil Cavuto" today at 4pm ET. (And for the record, while her trademark "cuchi cuchi" is nothing dirty--it was her nickname for the family dog--10 to 1 she makes him blush today!)

Real Clear Politics gets Foxy

This is a must-bookmark: check Fox News Channel's new Opinion Buzztracker, the new partner site of the definitive political opinion resource Real Clear Politics. According to TechWeb, the new offering on FoxNews.com "tracks conversations, news articles and analysis in more than 5,000 politically focused blogs and Web-based media resources. The site identifies and organizes the most linked to stories in the last 24 hours."

If it's true that we get the government we deserve in a democracy, then staying informed with resources like this is the best way to ensure we don't shoot ourselves in the foot in the voting booth...

News vet on CNN's airing of Duckett interview: "despicable"

CNN Headline News host Nancy Grace is the truest, most tragic example of parental wisdom in childhood: that it's all fun and games until someone gets hurt. Grace has had a great time pounding her desk as the avenging television host, but now someone's dead, and it's not fun anymore.

Read C.W. Nevius' excellent column on this nadir of sleaze in today's San Francisco Chronicle.

...Grace's grandstanding, badgering interview was bad enough. But the idea that her producers at CNN elected to go ahead and run the interview, even though they knew Duckett had killed herself, has veterans of television news shaking their heads.

"Look, Nancy Grace does what she does. She's an act,'' said Judy Muller, an Emmy-winning former ABC correspondent who now teaches at USC. "But to go ahead and air it -- that's despicable.''

Check out former FNC-er Jeff Cohen's self-aggrandizing backseat (cable news) driving in an interview with the Phoenix's Dan Kennedy, but keep this in mind: when you cross-pollinate sour grapes with a rant, you get a new kind of fine whine. But "Cable News Confidential" is also speckled with just enough vivacious gossip for Cohen to deny charges of bias and demagoguery with a straight face. Right, Jeff? Cheers!

HLN's Nancy Grace: Judge, jury, and cross-examiner of the guilty 'til proven innocent

Hold up. Wait one freaking minute here. The suicide of Melinda Duckett, the mother of missing child Trenton Duckett, who killed herself after being grilled by Headline News host Nancy Grace, is not merely an "extremely sad development," as Grace said in a statement today. An "extremely sad development" is when your dog needs to be put down. Melinda Duckett's suicide is a tragedy that should make the boutique criminal-justice vigilantes of the media take a good hard look at the potential consequences of their actions. It's pretty obvious that Melinda Duckett, whether or not she had anything to do with her son's disappearance, was a troubled individual and for any one television host to press her mercilessly outside of a courtroom is megalomania of the highest order. Did Grace think perhaps she could get Duckett to confess live on the air? Melinda Duckett should have been treated by the media and by Grace as a precious piece of evidence--that is, as the last person to see Trenton alive. But it's too late now--Melinda Duckett's not around. Now what?

Keith Olbermann's rant from Ground Zero: no shame, no marbles either

In an email, "Olbermann Watch" founder and blogger Robert Cox writes that MSNBC "Countdown" host Keith Olbermann's unholy political rant fron Ground Zero crossed the kind of line that can never be uncrossed:

Keith Olbermann's 9/11 Screed from Ground Zero has generated tremendous support among the blue blogs which are besides themselves in praising Keith's "courageous" "Murrow moment". Too bad Keith's "hole in the ground" meme falls apart on even a cursory glance. As usual, Keith does not let the facts get in the way of an opportunity to pander to his nutroot base in the vain hope of garnering a TV audience or selling his new book.

In the past, some folks have dismissed the need for a site like Olbermann Watch. I trust the traction Keith has been getting from the far-left blogs for his attacks against the administration are waking a few people up to what MSNBC is really up to with Countdown. The best remedy to KO's lies are the truth....

Want to get good and mad? Read Cox's full response to Olbermann. (And I'm talking to you too, NBC brass. The day Olbernut really and truly melts down on live television is going to be the day you rue yourselves for not pulling his card sooner. And trust me on this: it'll happen.)

Dancing "Today" Away

OK, so I am watching Meredith Vieira as she debuts on “Today” this morning. Admittedly, NBC is not cable, but Cable Game is always interested in news, wherever it is found.

And of course, CG is also perpetually interested in what people are wearing, and in the new studio high-def-friendly 1-A at Rock Center, and whoever else might be dancin’ and jammin’ on the Plaza. It’s also fun to see the paradox of the way that the morning news-talk shows—and “Today” is the grand-daddy of them all, reaching back half a century—handle family values, on the one hand, and tabloid-sensationalism on the other hand.

On the family-values side of the equation, Meredith is intro’d by Matt Lauer, and we meet her family, watch a slick montage of her childhood, and then go live to her alma mater, the Lincoln School in Providence, RI. Oh, and speaking of f.v.’s, let’s not forget the “Today Throws a Wedding” competition: can’t get more family than that. (And yes, it’s a little cruel, too, in its “Survivor” non-survival mode, as Meredith said, “I love you all, but one of you has to leave today.”) OK, that’s all sweet, part of making us all feel like we’re one big happy family—Matt and Meredith and Al and Ann, who each make a couple mil a year, or more, and all of us, the folks at home who have our humdrum jobs, but at least get to visit, for three hours every morning.

Meanwhile, Matt does an interview with Debra LaFave, you know the Hot Teacher who went to jail because she couldn’t keep her statutory-raping hands off of one of her students. LaFave is under house arrest for three years, but she got permission from a judge—thanks, judge!—to come and do the ‘view with Matt. For which she was utterly dolled up; that’s probably not the right message to send on the punishment-and-contrition front, but oh well. CG has always been fascinated by LaFave, because she is such a media creation herself. Don’t get me wrong: what she did was wrong, and she should be punished. But she’s so slick and so pretty—to borrow from Voltaire, if she didn’t exist, the media would have to invent her.

And so here she is, in all her glory, to goose the ratings of Meredith and her—oops, make that “our”—TV family.

Whose "Scarborough Country" Is It, Anyway?

So is Jon Stewart good or bad for democracy? That is, does his kind of humor make people—especially his prime audience, the young—more cynical? So cynical, in fact, that they are turned off from the political process? Maybe they don’t even vote, never will vote? Could a comedian really do that much damage?

Well, ideas are powerful. And powerful ideas, true or not, oft-repeated, have an effect. That’s certainly been proven across history. So it was interesting to see Joe Scarborough take up the question tonight on MSNBC’s “Scarborough Country.” Interesting, yes, but ultimately disappointing; somebody needs to explain to Citizen Joe that the essence of a good segment on cable news is some sense of conflict, or at least drama. To put it more simply, the talking heads have to disagree with each other. Not for the sake of having a food fight—although sometimes that’s fun—but for the sake of a spirited discussion that sheds light on the issues of the moment, or the problems of our time. That’s not too much to ask!

Meanwhile, plenty of academics and either Deep Thinkers are wrestling with the Stewart Question. And while some of these worthies are no doubt motivated by the spirit of legit academic inquiry, one can’t help but wonder if some of them aren’t in love with the idea of getting publicity for themselves by studying a hot topic. That is, it’s more fun to “examine” a TV show on Comedy Central than it is to examine, say, voting patterns among Scots-Irish in 19th century Kentucky. A professor who comes up with a hot study on Stewart can, himself, expect to get booked on cable news to talk about his findings.

But at another level, the complaint about Stewart has some validity. It’s been a criticism, not without merit, that the culture of mockingness, of knowingness, comes at a cost to the cultural fabric. Thirty five years ago, The National Lampoon burst on the scene, and it startled everyone with its raunchy nihilism. Then came “Saturday Night Live,” during which Chevy Chase was given to saying things like, “I’m Chevy Chase and you’re not.” Translation: “I’m cool, and you suck.” People thought that was funny. This style of humor was oftentimes superficially on the left, in the sense that it made fun of Richard Nixon or big corporations, but in fact, it was just as often making fun of minorities, bureaucrats, Third World peasants, and other liberal pieties.

Then came “Seinfeld.” Unlike The Lampoon and “SNL,” Seinfeld wasn’t nasty, but he was, without a doubt, a product of his mocking times. Above all, Seinfeld was amused with himself—that was the key to distinguishing him from the masses.

Today, like the Seinfeldians before him, Stewart is in on the joke, although he was willing to share that joke with his audience. But at the same time, it’s understood that dufuses and rubes will not “get” Stewart. They’re just not cool enough. And that was fine—that’s one reality of cable culture overall: the goal is a niche audience, and in seeking such a niche, it’s often seen as wise to “go negative” against other niches.

There’s been something of a backlash against all this “in” humor. A few years ago, a young man from West Virginia named Jed Purdy wrote a book in reaction to Seinfeld. It was entitled For Common Things: Irony, Trust and Commitment in America Today, and it went after the alleged “solipsism” and “selfishness” of the popular culture. It was easy to make fun of the Purdy book, and plenty did, but at the same time, it was obvious that he had something of a point. That’s not to say that we should all go out and vote for Walter Mondale or John Kerry, but we should go out and care for each other more. Caring, being caring, and being seen as being caring. Those aren’t bad things for people in either party—or for people in no party.

Stewart has all the solipsism of the “Seinfeld” crowd, and some but not all of the edge of the “SNL” crowd. And he has lots of impact. So Scarborough had the right idea in doing a segment on him. But, as we shall see, he needs better execution.

Scarborough put the “Is Stewart bad?” question to his panel: Mort Zuckerman, neoconservative owner of The New York Daily News, Rachel Sklar, liberal blogger for The Huffington Post, and Bill McGowan, a conservative commentator, and author of Coloring the News: How Political Correctness Has Corrupted American Journalism.

OK, OK, so a reasonably good crew. But here’s the problem: All of the talking heads, including Scarborough, basically agreed with each other. Yes, Stewart is kinda cynical, but hey, he’s talking about politicians—whaddya expect? And in any case, pols deserve the abuse that they get. That’s what Zuckerman said, first, to which Scarborough said, thinking like a Comedy Central producer, “It’s all about going after the demo…maybe this is a good thing.” OK, fine. But then Sklar said pretty much the same thing. McGowan was a little more contrarian; he allowed that Stewart was a “mouthpiece for the Moveon.org people,” but he didn’t hit the point that hard, and Scarborough barely picked up on it.

Once again, it’s fine to have a civil discourse, but it’s never fine to have a boring discourse. It wouldn’t have been that hard to put Purdy on the show, or someone from outside of the media world—say, a preacher—to really rip into Stewart. But evidently, Scarborough is too inside the elite for that. “Scarborough Country” consists, it seems, of NYC and DC.

Coming Soon to a... Box Near You

So AT&T is offering 20 cable channels, including Bloomberg News, via computer. And Apple is offering movies on its next-gen iPods. Convergence just got that much closer.

FNC's Catherine Herridge: "I feel more fearless now"

The Orlando Sentinel's Hal Boedeker writes a really nice profile of Fox News Reporter Catherine Herridge post-liver donation to her baby son, Peter:

On June 6, doctors took 20 percent of her liver in a seven-hour operation and transplanted it into Peter in what was a 10-hour operation for him. Peter, who is 9 months old, spent a month in the intensive care unit.

"He's really doing well," Herridge says. "The first year after a transplant is a tough year. Any family in our situation knows that. The drugs they're on make their immune systems weak. You're more likely to get sick. He hasn't had any real problems."

...she praises colleague Greta Van Susteren of On the Record for spotlighting Peter's plight.

"She deserves a lot of credit for telling the story," Herridge says. "Doctors heard from people who didn't know this was an option. This helped a lot of people."

Van Susteren says she followed the story for two reasons: One, transplant surgery has sustained life in miraculous ways. Two, the story was a change of pace.

"Most days, we in the news talk about death and destruction, and I get oversaturated with the bad," Van Susteren says. "I crave the good. I love rubbing shoulders with a mother showing unconditional love for her child."

FNC's Shep Smith on Katrina's revisionist history--and his duty to fight it

This Times-Picayune profile of Fox News Channel's Shepard Smith is probably the most interesting Polaroid of his mind and personality this fan has seen to date. On Katrina's aftermath, he says:

"It all happened, and there's an attempt to revise history going on around us, and I think part of our responsibility as witnesses to this calamity and this disaster of disasters that followed the natural disaster, we have an obligation and a duty to not allow revisionist historians to minimize the catastrophe that was, and I would say in large part, still is New Orleans."

For some of the disconnect, Smith blames himself.

"This to me is the biggest thing to happen to this nation in my lifetime," he said. "And that's including 9/11, because of the size and scope and scale of it, and the fact that's outside of a major media market and isn't getting noticed in the way that it should.

"It's neglected, and I feel that if people knew, they'd be lined up 150,000-deep to help New Orleans.

"We've clearly done a horrible job of explaining it to them. Or the politicians have twisted the message.

"It just seems to have set my part of the world back so far, and I don't believe that people don't care. I will not believe that. I know better.

"So that just says to me that they don't know and that has to be partly my fault.

The Dave Walker piece calls Shep "the template for a next-generation evening news anchor." Hear, hear--and hopefully for this generation.

Rick Leventhal remembers Ground Zero: "It felt like we'd landed on the moon"

Johnny Dollar has compelling video from Fox News Channel's "Dayside" today of correspondent Rick Leventhal talking about his experiences reporting from Ground Zero when the towers fell five years ago today. Rick also writes a truly riveting remembrance on his "Rick's Rambles" blog on FoxNews.com:

I needed to stay focused. I found a payphone, called the newsroom, and then went looking for a photographer and our satellite truck to document the tragedy unfolding before me. I found Fox engineer Pat Butler just around the corner, already establishing a satellite signal and plugging in the backup camera on the truck. He and I are forever bonded by what followed.

For the next 50 minutes, the two of us witnessed up close and personal the kind of horrors you only see on film. People screaming and running for their lives, right past us, chased by a 400 foot tall cloud of debris from the first tower's collapse that enveloped us and left us in the dark wondering if the world was coming to an end. Were we about to die?

When the smoke cleared and we ventured out of our truck, it felt like we'd landed on the moon. Everyone and everything had a thick coating of ash, and the stories they told, of watching planes smash into towers or people leap to their deaths or climbing down 70 flights of stairs in a panic or barely escaping the collapsing mass of steel and glass. The stories were gripping and tragic and hard to believe, but it was worse because we knew they were true.

CNN's Nic Robertson is grossing me out

Not content to rest on his laurels as Hezbollah's personal doormat in the press, CNN correspondent Nic Robertson blogs today on the Anderson Cooper 360 site that helicopter rides in Afghanistan on somber occasions remind him of great sex:

It doesn't matter how many times you do it -- taking a ride on a helicopter is as about as close to good sex as it gets...

...After touching down at the forward operating base, I watched my colleague Anderson Cooper begin a live broadcast with troops from the third brigade of the 10th Mountain Division, who were gathering for a minute of silence for the dead of the 9/11 attacks... (...and quickly devolves into "It's all about Anderson! Anderson IS the news!" But we knew that already.)

Ah, Nic, you geopolitical studmuffin, you. You sure know what viewers DON'T want to hear.

The Cable-d Wars

I won’t defend the forthcoming ABC TV movie, “The Path to 9/11,” because I haven’t seen it. But of course, it appears to be the case that even those who have seen it—haven’t seen it. That is, the film appears to be in a state of constant re-editing now, as Clinton Administration alumni, including Bill Clinton, weigh in with their demands that this scene and that scene be changed.

So who knows what the final product will be? I am curious to see what, if anything, actually airs on the Alphabet Network on Sunday and Monday. And then I will wait around for the “director’s cut” version of the film, and maybe the “liberal cut” and the “conservative cut.” Maybe ABC could show all those different versions, plus others, to see which one gets the highest audience. Call it a combination of the “Rashomon” and “Create Your Own Adventure”!

But a few comments about cable news’ role in this story do seem in order:

First, all considerations of the film’s merits aside, this is a great made-for-cable-news story. The broadcast news covered 9-11, of course, but only cable has stuck, reliably, on the overall “Global War on Terror” for these past five years. It was cable news that followed the whole of the 9-11 Commission hearings, for example, back in 2004. And I will wager that the 9-11 Commissioners have had at least 10 times more airtime on cable than on broadcast. So while the broadcasters have been treating upon this movie-troversy, it’s really a cable story.

Second, the mere fact that this movie even got this far in the production process is a reminder that the politics of Hollywood, like the politics of America, have changed. Two decades ago, made-for-TV movies could lionize JFK, or demonize Joe McCarthy, and that was that—there was no recourse, no appeal. The media were so stacked against conservatives that the liberals could climb into the ring, throw their punch against conservatives, and then climb out of the ring again, with the media “referee” not saying boo. But then came the “new media,” including cable, and now, that’s no longer possible. Fox News, in particular, has been a hero of providing a “fair and balanced” reference point for the news, but the mere fact of greater media diversity has helped, too. MSNBC has Pat Buchanan, for example, and even CNN Headline News features Glen Beck. So when CBS tried to air that hit piece on Ronald and Nancy Reagan, the new-media outcry forced the Eye Network to back off, and pull its own show. That was a sign that the power relationships are changing. And now comes this new film, which puts much of the blame for 9-11 on the Clinton Administration. As noted, I can’t really comment, although I suspect that one of the reason that the Clintonians are so upset is that they feel betrayed--they were expecting ABC to put the knife in George W. Bush, not their Bubba. But the mere fact that “Path” got greenlighted at all tells us something about the changing politics in the US.

Third, the fight over 9-11 will, of course, continue, and much of the fight will play out on the long form of cable news. I see that CNN is planning on re-running its entire day’s worth of 9-11 coverage on Pipeline. Good for CNN. But even more important than such backward-looking coverage is the forward-looking coverage—about what’s ahead, for all of us. That’s important, and so we should all stay tuned.

Katie Plays It Safe--and Dull

The Cable Game strives, of course, to cover mostly, well, the cable news game. But TCG is curious about all news, including the news that Katie Couric is now “up” on CBS News. Indeed, the fact that her broadcast is available on streaming video further accelerates the trend of news convergence: some day soon, all news, of just about all kinds, will be available on your computer screen. That is, TV news, broadcast as well as cable, will be “streamed.” And websites such as Yahoo, of course, have substantial video capabilities; TCG is a fan of Kevin Sites’ “Hot Zone” coverage. Indeed, more newspapers—led by the deep-pocketed New York Times—also have increased streaming capability. And let’s not forget bloggers, who are now becoming v-loggers.

So the river of news is running wide and high—and running right into all of our computers. Cool!

So what to make of Katie Couric’s debut last night? A few thoughts on a perf that certainly wasn’t bad, but certainly wasn’t overly good. It’s not her fault, she’s nice enough, and certainly perky enough. However, she has chosen to live within the pre-existing paradigm of news, as opposed to trying to change it.

First, she didn’t do anything bad. How could she? The TV nightly news format has been around for almost 60 years now. How could one make a mistake? The playbook was written decades ago.

Second, as the flip side of the first, she didn’t do anything really good. Once again, how could she? If you start with, as a given, that the show is going to consist of a starring anchor, sitting at a big desk, backed up by a supporting cast of reporters and talking heads, and that you must wrap up in half an hour, minus commercials—how much room is there for genuine creativity?

So they redesigned the studio, giving Katie a nice new desk, and then moved her over into a chatty-chair format for a brief interview with columnist Tom Friedman. Are these big changes? Of course not. Yet at the same time, in a lucrative market where each ratings point is worth hundreds of millions in advertising dollars, if Les Moonves & Co. can tweak the venerable newscast into a higher Nielsen bracket, then the whole exercise is well worth it. But making more money is not the same as utilizing more creativity.

Third, real creativity would call for a “paradigm shift” in the news. Why not “pop up” commentary—remember “pop up” video on MTV? That was fun—and even informative. Anything to punctuate the usual pomposity, in the vein, even of the “Joe Isuzu” ads of 20 or so years ago. OK, those weren’t serious, but neither today is Jon Stewart, and he’s so cool he’s hot. What about animation? There’s more visual creativity in the average college coffee shop, where kids toil away on their Macs, than on the nightly news.

The only witty spark came at the end of the show, when Katie allowed that she was still debating how to sign off. She ran clips of various news luminaries, including Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather. And then added, too, Ted Baxter and Ron Burgundy—that’s a joke, of course. Ted was the insufferably full of himself, insufferably funny anchor on the “Mary Tyler Moore” show, and Ron was the play-it-for-laffs star of the recent film “Anchorman.” Something tells me that such flashes of humor will be scarce in the Couric Era to Come.

There’s no law that sez that CBS has to do anything other than the same ol’ same ol’. But by the same token, there’s no law, then, that sez that I hafta watch news at 6:30 pm ET that I could watch any time on cable news. If broadcast wants to be special, it must, in fact, be special. If not, not.

A Deadly Game

Why is it so dangerous to be a reporter these days? I am thinking, of course, about the ordeal of Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig—and they, happily, survived their kidnapping in Gaza. But many reporters have been kidnapped in recent years, and around 100 have been killed, according to the Freedom Forum in Washington DC.

And it would be naïve to think that the problem isn’t going to get worse. And cable news, running 24/7 as it does—and not just in the US, but in many different countries—is going to be right in the middle of it. More than in the middle, in fact. You could even say, grimly, “held hostage,” or “in the crossfire.” Oh, for the days when the news was merely about “hardball.” Now we’re talking real weapons, not just beanball-pitches.

Continuing with a sports-object-projectile analogy-seeking, it seems that these days, lots of different contending forces around the world see the media in general, and reporters in particular, as kind of a football to be thrown around, and to be spiked, stolen, grabbed, fumbled, etc. Or maybe a better simile, than “like a football,” to use in re: reporters is “like a hockey puck”—something to get slapped and slammed across a hard surface in search of points.

And what forces am I thinking of? Well, there are the usual suspects: governments. They always want to shape their message. And of course, the familiar apparatus of p.r. types and spin doctors. But in addition, just about everyone, these days, knows the power of shaping a story. Ordinary people in the US pretty much know what they should say when they get their 15 minutes of fame. And now the same media savvy extends around the world. In Third World countries, folks generally know how to strike a pose for the media—oftentimes, as they show themselves to the West, they are merely “agrarian reformers” or other stripes of non-threatening moderates, or aid-seeking victims, but at other times, they seek to strike a pose of “authentic” Muslim righteousness. The latest example of such radical-chic-ish admiring of Third World Revolutionaries is the CNN special on Osama Bin Laden, in which OBL was sort of a new Che Guevara. What a kiss-up that documentary was! As The New York Times, hardly a bastion of conservatism, observed in a withering review of the CNN special that first aired on August 23, “Parts of ‘In the Footsteps of bin Laden’ could almost double as a recruiting video for Al Qaeda.” Which is to say, even the terrorists have figured out how to play the media—and as we have seen, the media are easily played.

Not all media, of course. CNN and the BBC are perhaps the most famous for their trendy-leftism, morphing into apologizing, of covering up for, Third World dictators—viz. Eason Jordan’s now notorious April 2003 Times op-ed in which he admitted (actually, bragged would be a better word) that he had withheld information about Saddam Hussein’s abuses to guarantee CNN’s access to the old Iraqi regime. A corrupt bargain, and after it was revealed, Jordan was rightly forced to resign. But of course, other media outlets have their own biases: How does one define, for example, Al-Jazeera? Is it left, in the sense of CNN or BBC? Or does Al-J represent another kind of ideology together, that doesn’t fit very well in our Western left-right typology—fellow travelers of Islamofascism, perhaps?

Al-Jazeera is a special case, because it has only come to prominence since 9-11, and mostly for its coverage of Arab and Muslim news. And while it is widely regarded, at least by many Americans, as being in league with the terrorists, it clearly has popular support, not to mention a pretty good-sized budget. Which is why it keeps expanding. And yet at the same time, some of its reporters have been killed in the line of duty, too.

So that’s the harsh reality, folks. The stakes are high, because the battle for media-domination—the power to set the agenda, to light a fire in men’s minds—are high. And so it is that reporters are targets. And in irregular warfare, as seen in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan, where the enemy doesn’t wear a uniform, and where suicide bombers are everywhere, then all are vulnerable. So say a prayer for those who venture out in the field. They are risking their lives.

And it’s only going to get worse. One thinks, and this is only slightly a stretch, of the words that Raymond Chandler used to describe his fictional private eye, Philip Marlowe: “But down these mean streets a man must go who is not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid.”

Well, not all reporters fit that description. Although I think, of course, that Steve Centanni, whom I have watched for years, fits that description. And if Olaf is good enough for Steve, and Steve vouches for him, then settles the question about him, too.

Kyra Phillips makes as good a comeback as one can hope for, considering...

...and proves, on David Letterman, that she still has her sense of humor, if not her dignity.