Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Everyone--except CNN--agrees Kerry flunked


The flap over John Kerry insulting the intelligence of US troops in Iraq is roaring through the media--even the traditionally liberal MSM have had to agree that the Massachusetts senator made a huge mistake. NBC's Tim Russert, a former Democratic staffer, said on Nightly News Tuesday night that Kerry's fellow Democrats were "not very pleased" with Kerry. And over on ABC, George Stephanopoulos, who served Democrats both on Capitol Hill and in the White House, went further, offering this vivid quote from an unnamed Democratic Congressman on the alphabet network's Tuesday night broadcast: "I guess Kerry wasn't content blowing 2004, now he wants to blow 2006, too." Even the BBC, not exactly a hotbed of opposition to liberals and Democrats, labeled Kerry's words a "surprise gift" to Republicans.

So is anybody in the media going to stick up for Kerry? Well, Kerry should give thanks for CNN, which went to bat for him on Tuesday. As recorded and analyzed by NewsBuster Noel Sheppard in a blog-post bluntly headlined, "CNN Shills for Sen. Kerry," Ed Henry, Kyra Phillips, and Andrea Koppell all went out of their way to plead Kerry's case. Concludes Sheppard, "Can you imagine a Republican making statements such as this right before an election, and CNN helping to explain it so?" Well no, I can't imagine CNN helping Republicans--and nobody else can, either.

"I don't want to lose to him"



Those are Sumner Redstone's pained words, complaining about Rupert Murdoch (pictured left), who bested him in the rivalry to gain control of Myspace.com.

We pause from the latest in cable news to think about the future of cable news, which will include, of course, a larger web component. So here's a snippet from Bryan Burrough's fascinating profile of Redstone in the December issue of Vanity Fair, in which Burrough describes Murdoch's snatching of Myspace.com out from under Tom Freston and the rest of Redstone's gang at Viacom:

"His anger only grew after Murdoch, upon completing the MySpace deal, won back the purchase price and more by selling the right to advertise on MySpace to Google for a stunning $900 million. In Redstone's mind, it was bad enough that Freston had let the world's hottest Internet property get away, but losing it to Murdoch was just too much. 'No! Not him!' Redstone bellows, wagging a finger in my face. 'I don't want to lose to him. Just like he wouldn't want to lose to me. It was a humiliating experience.'"

It's no shame to lose to Murdoch, of course, since he is one of the giants of 20th--and 21st--century business. However, it was a huge victory for The News Corporation, and a reminder that Murdoch & Co. are going to be serious players in the new media, as well as the news media. And of course, Fox News will be right there on the cutting edge!

David Bauder and CNBC, K-I-S-S-I-N-G


AP's David Bauder holds some kind of weird torch for CNBC. That is, it takes some real effort to find anything admirable in the fact that CNBC has run the same documentary on Wal-Mart 44 times over the last two years. That's right: 44 times. That's more times than Bill O'Reilly has called someone a "pinhead," more times than CNN has declared the Republicans to be "broken." And revealingly, that much-rerun doc still rates as one of CNBC's highest-rated shows. Now what does that tell you about the quality of CNBC's programming?

That's a wicked question that Bauder does his best to avoid answering, as he slops praise over various obviously liberal-leaning documentaries being cranked out by Josh Howard--the same Josh Howard who, it will be remembered, was one of those fired from CBS in the "Rathergate" scandal of 2004. Howard might not have much of a reputation as a legitimate journalist, but he still has a following among liberal journalists.

Of course, it's not just Bauder, sittin' in a tree with CNBC. Others, too, in the MSM are in love with CNBC; consider this puffjob on Pamela Thomas-Graham--you could read the whole thing and never know that she got pushed out of CNBC, on account of low ratings.

So what is that's so great about CNBC in the eyes of the MSM? Actually, maybe nothing, except for this one thing: CNBC & Co. ARE NOT FOX NEWS! Which is to say, in the minds of Bauder et al., how bad can they be?

That's the best lens through which to evaluate MSM coverage of the cable game: If it's CNBC or any of the rest of those liberal peas-in-the-same-pod, then they are likely to be seen gently through rose-colored glasses. But if it's Fox, well then, the MSM-er is likely just to see red.

Haddad Out at MSNBC?













FTVLive (subscription required) tells of a "storm brewing between NBC executives and MSNBC’s resident DC veteran Tammy Haddad just as the network approaches Election Day." The must-read zine adds, "FTVLive hears she’s being forced out despite her new deal."

Wow. The gist of it is that Haddad is unhappy with her MSNBC gig and that she wants more power at NBC. But TCG reckons that Haddad won't get anything if she gets fired first.

Undeniably, Haddad is talented. But just as undeniably, she is turf-conscious, aggressive, and difficult to work with, or for. Indeed, her enemies are legion among former employers, which include both CNN and FNC. So when FTV reports, "Tammy spends half her days bad-mouthing [DC Bureau Chief Tim} Russert to anyone who will listen in hopes of grabbing some power at the network level"--plenty of TV veterans say to themselves, "Yup, that's Tammy's m.o."

And of course, this is the wrong time to be rocking the boat at NBC, which is in downsizing mode. Sources tell TCG that part of Haddad's problem is that she is not in tune with the new mood at NBC, which is cut-cut-cut, including cuts at those two over-costly and under-performing step-child networks, MSNBC and CNBC. Perhaps Haddad needs to understand that empire-building is even harder and riskier when the overall NBC empire is shrinking so dramatically.

With more cuts looming in the future, TCG hears.

DNC Chairman Howard Dean said today from Philadelphia...



...taking note of challenges facing the Republic, the Democratic leader recalled: "Test after test of the balance of powers laid out in the Constitution, adopted here in Philadelphia's Independence Hall 219 years ago, written by men, who, for all their brilliance, could not have imagined jet aircraft, let alone jet aircraft used as weapons. Nor could men determined to find the lasting antidote to tyranny have imagined the Internet, spy satellites, other technological advances now so central in the war on terror. But they did warn, in this hall, time and time again of too much presidential power, creating a careful system of checks by the Congress and the courts, lines the Bush administration, in the name of protecting Americans from another attack, has repeatedly stretched, rewritten, and sometimes just ignored."

Oops! That wasn't Howard Dean, or even Bill Moyers--that was CNN's John King slamming W. My mistake. But I blame NewsBusters. When blogger-transcriber Scott Whitlock headlined his incisive piece, "CNN Spews Democratic Talking Points," I got a little confused.

Juan Williams Busts CNN on Bias


Juan Williams is a complicated figure. The author of three books on the civil rights movement, he is not exactly a traditional conservative. And he is a strong opponent of the Iraq war. On the other hand, he is no leftist either--he is very critical of much of the lefty establishment, starting with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Which is to say, he is an interesting guy, fearless in his opinions, always worth listening to.

And so when he said on Fox recently that CNN "is in the tank" for the Democrats, people paid attention. Although NewsBusters had the story in detail. Thanks to Dave Pierre for his alert blogging!

Viva Van Susteren!


Greta did Vegas, baby, with Celine Dion tonight. The FNC interview took place in Celine's multi-million dollar backstage suite at Caesar's Palace Coliseum, where she talked about the demands of her Vegas show, understanding the depth of her international stardom, and being a mother.

Monday, October 30, 2006

"Wolf Blitzer Democrats"


This from The American Spectator:

"In fact, CNN producers, with the approval of more senior executives, intend to run the highly politicized, pro-Democrat Party 'Where the Right Went Wrong' in the days leading into Election Day. The series uses original reporting, as well as materials, including statistics and research developed by the DNC, MoveOn.org and the labor-funded 527, Americans Coming Together, though the those sources are never mentioned in the segments."

I report, you decide.

More B&C Buzz on FNC Biz


The same mag has the latest on Fox's long-rumored business channel, to be run, reportedly, by FNC insider Kevin Magee, who has masterminded the rise of of Fox Radio.

Update: Here's the writeup on the same Magee item from MediaWeek.

Two FNC-related stories from Broadcasting & Cable


The always must-read insider publication Broadcasting & Cable features an interview with FNC's Sharri Berg, senior VP for news operations, who provides an update on FNC's never-tiring effort to stay ahead of the competition. Sharri also traced some of the astounding changes in the biz: "Fifteen years ago, to get pictures out of Baghdad, it required sending in a two-ton flyaway unit. Then five years ago, for overseas war coverage, it was a 15-pound video kit. Last week, we're talking about a crew getting to a location and powering up and pointing the camera while immediately beginning a stream over a PDA." A breathtaking amount of change, that's for sure--but Sharri and FNC are determined to set the tech-standard for the cable game.

And as if to prove that techno-point, the same issue of B&C features an update on FNC's "Treo-blazing" journalism during the recent NYC Cory Lidle airplane-crash tragedy.

Fox in a Flash



Fox has more going on than I can keep track of--
The Hollywood Reporter beat me to this story about Fox News Flash, a new webcast.

"CNN Promotes Bush Assassination Flick- For Free!"


That's the harsh-but-accurate assessment of NewsBuster Scott Whitlock, who scrupulously blogs CNN's long and friendly segment on the British presidential snuff film "Death of a President."

Only on CNN would an anchor--in this case, Miles O'Brien--say to the film's director, "All the buzz surrounding this, I guess that might be good for business, huh?" Right, Miles! Outrageousness sells, especially if it's outrageous Bush-bashing, especially on CNN. And if the topic at hand is a near-criminal encouragement to presidential assassination? Well, as Wolf Blitzer said in regard to the sniper video, when it comes to depicting Americans being killed, CNN sees no reason to apologize.

Next on Fox?



Johnny Dollar takes in the Sean Hannity special on FNC last night and speculates that this is a new show in the making. Nobody knows FNC better than J$, so place your bets accordingly!

Sunday, October 29, 2006

Chris Matthews Sanctifies the Dems


It's unbelievable, but believable, the things ex-Democratic staffers say when their kneejerk campaign instincts are stirred up.

C'mon Media Matters: Take up the Julie Banderas/Johnny Dollar Challenge


Fox News' Julie Banderas and super-blogger Johnny Dollar pose a challenge to lefty blogs, such as MediaMatters.org. Banderas criticized Rush Limbaugh and praised Michael J. Fox re: the stem cell issue. (And Julie mentioned, in passing, that that her father has Parkinson's Disease--our prayers are with you!)

Now, as Banderas and Dollar ask, will MediaMatters and all the rest even take notice? Or is the left-blogosphere only programmed to criticize FNC, never to take notice when FNC proves that it really is fair and balanced--presenting all sides?

So far, nothing from MediaMatters, thus tending to confirm, so far at least, all of our suspicions about the unfair and unbalanced nature of MM.

UPDATE On October 30, MM posted an item on Julie's "dare," and they played it straight--they even gave Johnny Dollar credit for first noticing the item. So I give MM credit for this much, and maybe more: when they're really being watched, they do the right thing. And so that's my goal, to really watch 'em, like a hawk!

Saturday, October 28, 2006

This is Fox: 10 Years After--And Still Growing Strong!


Fox's "Thank You America" tour across America is one part road trip and one part triumphant crusade. Everywhere, big crowds, big ratings, and welcoming officialdom. On Friday, FNC arrived in San Diego, aboard the USS Midway, playing host to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Happily, the live audience, thick with active-duty Navy men and women, got to ask questions. And at a VIP party following the show, San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders presented Hannity with a proclamation declaring "FOX News Channel Day" for the city.

Fox next hits Vegas, baby, on Monday, with Shepard Smith and Greta Van Susteren.

This is CNN... Being Protested in Atlanta on Monday!


The Cable Game hears that a big protest is being planned out in front of the CNN Center in Atlanta, at Centennial Olympic Park on Monday at 3 pm. And that Denny Schaffer, a top talker at local station WGST, will be on hand for the event, which will focus on--but is not limited to--CNN's atrocious exploitation of that "snipergate" video.

For those not familiar with the soon-to-be-notorious incident, here's the take of National Review Online's Steven Spruiell.

"NBC's '2.0' may be a zero"


That's the headline atop Verne Gay's piece in Newsday, which takes a hard look at NBC's future.

Gay begins by calling into question the idea that there is any such thing as "NBC 2.0." He writes: "Everyone - that is to say, the press and analysts - bought this with all the gap-toothed gullibility of a first-time tourist at Times Square.

Then Gay delivers his punch: "Welcome to Times Square, suckers. It was all a shell game, designed to divert attention away from the real issues at hand, which are a troubled prime-time schedule and a muddled top management succession plan. Throw away the press release. NBC is still 1.0."

In particular, Gay takes note of the decision to close down the MSNBC studio in far-away New Jersey--remember when NBC chief Bob Wright heralded MSNBC as the key to the digital future? Remember when MSNBC was, in effect, NBC 2.0? Adds Gay: "This is effectively the correction of a mistake made 10 years ago when NBC built a cavernous new studio-office facility in Secaucus that (to this day) sits largely empty. NBC could have built an MSNBC studio in Manhattan 10 years ago, but - for reasons of tax avoidance and labor issues - trekked across the river instead. Magnificent studio aside, viewers still didn't watch MSNBC. It was a white elephant then, and a white elephant it remains."

Will game shows take over MSNBC and CNBC, Too?


Some might say that those two struggling cable newswers would use some new blood--from the likes of Howie Mandel--but in truth, what MSNBC and CNBC need are compelling and non-condescending news packages, presented in a fair-and-balanced way. And yet it seems that NBC would rather cut back than change its basic we-liberals-know-best style. That's the conclusion one draws from this excellent piece, headlined, "Cost-cutting NBC counting on game shows to revive its fortunes," by Charlie McCollum, writing in The San Jose Mercury-News. McCollum politely refers to the "faltering" MSNBC. Of course it's faltering--because nobody watches!

But overall, how bad are things at NBC? McCollum records Jay Leno quipping about his own network on "The Tonight Show" last week: "Things are so bad... our interns are calling Mark Foley, looking for work."

"Lynne Cheney asks tough questions when interviewing CNN"

OpinionMill blog makes a great point: "If the press is going to be an active player in elections (Rathergate) and global policy (CNN Sniper videos), candid but respectful questions to the media about their position on issues need to be asked."

Hewitt on Blitzer: "He ambushed her"


That's Hugh Hewitt's summary of Wolf Blitzer's attempted mugging of Lynne Cheney on Friday's "Situation Room." The fact that Mrs. Cheney handed it right back to Blitzer doesn't obviate Blitzer's duty to apologize, says Hewitt.

Friday, October 27, 2006

Lynne Cheney socks it to CNN--on CNN


Lynne Cheney let the Clinton News Network have it on Friday. Here's John Eggerton's report from Broadcasting & Cable:

"In an interview with Situation Room anchor Wolf Blitzer, Cheney said the network's Vote 2006 specials contained 'terrible distortions of the president's and vice president's positions on many issues.'

"She suggested CNN was working from Democratic talking points, and took issue with the negative tone of the title 'Broken Government,' suggesting it betrayed CNN's bias and countering that the administration had inherited a recession, been through some tough times like 9/11 and Katrina, but that the economy was healthy. 'That's not broken,' she said, 'this government has acted very well... I shouldn't let media bias surprise me.'"

Eggerton's story continues, "Blitzer said the series was 'probably' meant to be provocative, 'to get people to think, to get people to discuss these issues.'" (One might note that it is not the proper mission of a news network to be "provocative," at least unless the segment is labeled "provocation.")

Then the wife of the Vice President zeroed in CNN's biggest single vulnerability these days: "Cheney turned the tables on Blitzer, becoming the questioner: 'what is CNN doing running tapes of terrorists shooting Americans,' she asked more than once, repeating a question CNN had been asked: 'Do you want us to win?'"

Blitzer answered yes, CNN does want America to win (maybe we should take a poll to see whether most Americans agree with Blitzer's self-assessment), but then volunteered of the video, "We make no apologies for showing it."

Ladies and gentlemen, CNN stands by its airing of the sniper video. So now the American people rest their case against CNN.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

CNN's Broken Record -- on Malaise



Howard "Extreme" Mortman is bummed out by CNN. As he writes, watching CNN's "Broken Government" series is like taking a trip back to the "malaise days" of the Carter Administration.

Fair enough, Howard. But remember, that's CNN's not-so-hidden goal in running this "Broken Government" so close to the election: To peel back the Republicans, and go back to the old Jimmy days. Isn't that everyone's goal?

The Smoking Gun on CNN's Snipergate?



"The Prowler," writing in the hot-again American Spectator, reveals some potentially critical information about CNN's m.o. as it played footsie with terrorists, in pursuit of that blood-footage of Americans being shot and killed in Iraq. Here're the words of a close observer: "My understanding is that email sent by CNN could not be construed any other way than as supportive of the Islamic militants' position in Iraq. There are people inside CNN who are disgusted by their colleagues' activities in Iraq and here in the United States in covering the war."

Continues Prowler, "Attempts to get a copy of the email were unsuccessful. But one CNN source familiar with the techniques employed by network producers to get the Islamic extremist perspective says that it's common for producers to use Iraqi or Muslim contract employees to get information and access to the terrorists, and they do so by claiming sympathy or support for what the terrorists are doing."

True, not true? How to find out? Eventually, the truth will be set free.

CNN's "snipergate"-- other bloggers get their say



Three voices--I report, you decide:

A blog devoted to Anderson Cooper--not necessarily favorably-- takes note of the effort by a Virginia State Legislator to have CNN pulled off cable carriers, as a way of protesting the sniper video.

Blogger Alex writes, "CNN airs the video of terrorist sniper killing US soldiers. The video was sent by the terrorists to CNN as propaganda and that idiot Ted Turner can't help himself. I knew there was a solid reason I don't watch the Clinton News Network (aka. Taliban TV).

Finally, this blog posting, from Crizzle, a US serviceman, is full of salty talk, but it's a revealing look inside the head of someone who is in the line of fire, literally--whose head is a target for CNN's video pals. As Crizzle writes, "Air video of them getting shot in the head to millions upon millions of Americans. Its this kind of [bleeping] bull [bleep] that make me question why I even do what I do. So [bleep] you CNN."

Yes, they are all critical. It's darn hard to find anyone who sticks up for CNN on this issue. But I will keep looking!

"There is a public relations benefit for the insurgents"...


...Why yes, CNN has helped the terrorists--"terrorists" being the less p.c. word than "insurgents." "Terrorists," in fact, is the word that most Americans use to label those who are avidly killing Americans in Iraq. And that's why the "snipergate" video has caused such a strong reaction in the US, because most Americans just don't think that CNN should be giving the TERRORISTS what they crave most--publicity for them and their evil works.

Still, acknowledging the "public relations benefit" for the enemy rates as a surprisingly candid admission from David Doss, producer of "Anderson Cooper 360," concerning CNN's "snipergate video." CNN turned to The Guardian, a lefty Brit newspaper that is no fan of George W. Bush or the Iraq war. Fair enough; everyone should have friends. But even in the course of spinning his side of the story to a sympathetic reporter, Doss revealed much about the "moral equivalence" mindset that afflicts so many Secular Progressives. Describing the emotional impact of watching video of Americans being shot and killed by terrorists, Doss said that he and his CNN colleagues decidee to run the video after "getting beyond the emotional debate."

In other words, all they had to do was get over their qualms about helping the enemy--after that, the decision to air the video was easy. Easy for them. Not so easy for Americans, and for those rooting for America in the War on Terror.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

CNN and AARP team up to push Dems over the top


MediaWeek provides some useful scoop about CNN's plans for the upcoming election coverage. It seems that AARP, the liberal-leaning senior citizens' lobby, is planning on being the exclusive sponsor for "The Situation Room" in the week prior to Election Day. Is this because Wolf Blitzer has white hair? Is it because the CNN audience is old? Those are two possible answers, but another is that AARP recognizes CNN as an ally for the Democratic Party. Some more useful info about AARP can be found here. The bottom line is that the AARP is a loyal adjunct to the Democratic Party. And since CNN, too, is a loyal adjunct to the Democratic Party, it only makes sense that the two loyal adjuncts have found each other. Together, they no doubt hope to make beautiful political music for the Democrats.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

"MSNBC" = "Mostly Seeking to Nail Bush Constantly"



The Olbermann-ification of Joe Scarborough continues. For example, in this recent item, "Joe Knows: Dems can win on Iraq." Olbermann's MSNBC Scarborough writes nastily about Iraq, "You know what my biggest mistake was? Trusting the Bush Administration."

Scarborough has a right to say whatever he wishes, of course, just as we have a right not to watch. But what Joe, a former GOP Congressman, can't do anymore is say that he is any kind of Republican--except the kind of "useful idiot" Republican that flourishes in NYC, working for the MSM. In that case, Scarborough can expect to flourish, as his liberal masters trot him out and say, "See? Even 'conservative Republican' Joe Scarborough says that Republicans are no good." And Scarborough delivers that message, faithfully. It's a way for him to keep his show, despite low ratings. In the MSM world, sending the politically correct message is oftentimes more important than getting a big audience. And at MSNBC in particular, it's known that new network chief Dan Abrams is determined to move the network in a more Bush-bashing direction.

In the new Abrams era, "MSNBC" = "Mostly Seeking to Nail Bush Constantly."

“It seems to me that CNN doesn’t care if we win.”




That's Cong. Duncan Hunter (R-Ca.) speaking out on CNN's pro-sniper story of last week, quoted in a terrific Army Times piece bylined to Rick Maze.

I have noticed something interesting: all the politicians who attack CNN seem to be Republicans. The Democrats, by contrast, don't seem to be saying much. And of course, silence is its own kind of statement.

Which is to say, "Snipergate" could be a useful dividing line in the upcoming election, in which the voters ask the political parties, as well as the news networks, the key question: "Whose side are you on?"

So this news story could turn into an election-turner, in a way that helps Republicans. That would be ironic, since that was not at all CNN's intention.

"Is CNN on the side of the killers and terrorists in Iraq?"



Radio talker Michael Medved asks.

"Olbermann's flat, flaccid arguments"



That's the headline atop A.G. Gancarski's brutal review of Keith Olbermann's "book," The Worst Person in the World: And 202 Strong Contenders.

Here's Gancarski: "Essentially, this book compiles a couple hundred transcripts of the 'Worst Person in the World' segment from Olbermann's MSNBC gabfest, along with some other warmed-over material [like 'The Bill O'Reilly Glossary,' which abounds with jokes lifted from political blog Wonkette.com]."

Get the picture? Gancarski concludes that Olbermann "is content with lazy and flaccid arguments, and the book fails as a result."

I report, you decide.

Monday, October 23, 2006

"The video is enemy propaganda..."



"...designed to discourage American support for the war effort," says history book author Michael S. Class. "War correspondents of the past knew better." Class is reacting, of course, to the CNN sniper video from Iraq which aired last week.

Class, author of Anthony and the Magic Picture Frame, a history book aimed at kids, in which Class's own son Anthony travels back in time to learn the stories of everyone from Jonas Salk to Babe Ruth. Now Class adds legendary war correspondent Ernie Pyle to his roster of historical figures whom he has painstakingly researched before his son "visits" them.

So when Class writes about Pyle, the American reporter who died covering US combat forces in the Pacific in 1945, he knows his subject: "Ernie Pyle made it clear which side he was on. Ernie Pyle never glorified war, but he explained combat in terms of the sacrifices that American soldiers made on behalf of the people back home. Pyle wrote of the American warrior with a heart-of-gold, fighting the good fight against evil, fighting for a just and moral cause."

But now things have changed: "I Can't Watch CNN! Ernie Pyle, I Miss You!" And indeed, Ernie Pyle, up there somewhere, would miss the old style of American journalism. When American journalists rooted for America.

Sunday, October 22, 2006

MSNBC, trying harder at Bush-bashing--but still stumbling



Remember when Joe Scarborough was a Republican? Not only that, but he was one of those Class of '94 guys, brought in by Newt Gingrich as part of his Republican Revolution. Well, that was then.

Today, he's a host on MSNBC, and he seems to be in competition with Keith Olbermann to see which surviving MSNBC anchor can be the leftiest and shrillest. One would think that Olbermann has that prize wrapped up, but as Cliff Kincaid, of Accuracy in Media demonstrates, Scarborough is striving to keep up. Others have noticed Scarborough's left-drift, too, including Mark Finkelstein of "Newsbusters."

It appears that the Dan Abrams-ification of MSNBC continues.

But it's not so clear that any of it is working: dropped MSNBC.

The Cafferty News Network meets the Democratic National Cafferty



Cable Game sources tell me that Jack Cafferty has been the driving force behind the CNN "Broken Government" series--and he has convinced CNN execs that because of him and his influence, they can do a totally throw-the-bums out series and not get tagged as doing Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean's dirty work.

But in fact, if most incumbents are Republicans--that is, they have the White House and both houses of Congress--then it's a matter of simple math that the big winners in a wholesale reversal of political fortune would be the Democrats. If CNN can get Americans to agree that the government is broken, then it stands to reason that the voters would want somebody new to do the fixing, i.e. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

So here's a question: Remember all that campaign finance controversy from years past? You know, McCain-Feingold, "soft money," and all that? Well how come nobody counts CNN's massive contribution to the DNC as a contribution in kind?

FNC on CNN's Snipergate: Fair & Balanced



FNC covers the sniper story the right way--showing both sides of the debate. First, Cong. Duncan Hunter (R-Ca.)had his say, declaring that what CNN did was "totally unacceptable," and concluding that the news network "was not part of the American cause."

Strong stuff. But wait, because it's Fox, there was another side to the story, on the air immediately following, with equal time. FNC contributor Marvin Kalb, for many decades a fixture at CBS, and now at Harvard, stuck up for CNN, pronouncing, "It is the right of the people who elected this government to try to find out if the policy is right."

There you have it: Both sides of the story. Fair & Balanced. QED.

Thanks to Johnny Dollar for this tip and the link.

CNN -- "Two Left Feet"



It's increasingly clear that CNN has chosen a new identity for itself in 2006, as the premiere Bush-bashing network (as opposed to just being a Bush-bashing network, they now want to be #1). CNN has given up on chasing after #1 Fox; today it more conscious of the need to consolidate its position as #2, ahead of #3 MSNBC. MSNBC, of course, has been mostly a disaster ever since it started more than 10 years ago

Which reminds me: How come there was no "thank you America" tour from MSNBC back in August? And the answer, of course, is that MSNBC doesn't anything to be thankful for, at least in terms of viewership. But wait, there is one thing for MSNBC to be thankful for: The deep pockets of NBC--that's kept them going all these ratings-shriveled, money-losing years.

OK, now back to CNN. This morning Wolf Blitzer was touting CNN's upcoming "Broken Government" specials, with the help of CNNers Jeff Greenfield, Jeffrey Toobin, and Candy Crowley. Each one is getting his or her own show this week on the theme of Broken Government--you get it? And who's in charge of the government these days? Get it? (Other CNNers on the Bush-bashing, Democrat-aiding bandwagon are Lou Dobbs and Jack Cafferty.)

That's the CNN plan, obviously intended to pre-empt Keith Olbermann, and maybe get some good access to the Democrats who might well be controlling the 110th Congress. If that sounds like advocating and lobbying as opposed to journalism--well, that's because it is.

But every bad plan shows its flaws, and this one is no exception. Blitzer told Crowley that her special was entitled, "Two Left Feet." And then he asked her where she got that name from. The answer that Bitzer was fishing for was some sort of reference to "two left feet" as a symbol of clumsiness. But instead, Crowley responded with candor: She hesitated and said of the title of her special: "Well, it came from the top."

Which is to say, somebody up at the level of Jon Klein dictated the title of Crowley's special, putting a distinctly unfair and unbalanced spin on the show.

And yet at the same time, we can be somewhat thankful for a) Crowley's candor, and b) the Freudian slip made by CNN. Two left feet, indeed.

This is CNN: Unfair and Unbalanced



Watching CNN this morning, I saw Wolf Blitzer hosting a segment on "Late Edition" in which former Carter national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski was paired with former Reagan Secretary of State Al Haig. OK, fair enough. One Democrat, one Republican. Fair and balanced, right? Wrong. Haig seems to be mostly a Bush-basher these days, targeting especially the Bush neoconservatives. Free country, of course, but if he was going to join Brzezinski in trashing Bush & Co., then the overall segment was poorly produced. It was not, in fact, fair and balanced. There's nothing wrong with criticizing this president, or any president or polititician, but there IS something wrong with stacking the deck, making the segment 2 on 0 as opposed to 1 on 1. And yet that's what CNN did.

“It inevitably is exploitative.”


That was Jane Hall, a former reporter for the LA Times, now a journalism professor at The American University, talking about the CNN sniper footage on Fox "News Watch" Saturday night.

Interestingly, nobody on the show--not even Bush-bashing, even Fox-bashing Neal Gabler--stuck up for the CNN decision. Syndicated columnist Cal Thomas was blunt: "This is propaganda." To which Hall added, "I agree with Cal...It inevitably is exploitative."

Host Eric Burns speculated that anti-American terrorists might think to themselves, with good reason, "We’ve got a real pipeline now to the American media."

Gabler strongly opposes the Iraq war, but he did not let that political opposition get in the way of his basic fair-mindedness and decency. He noted that NBC News ran a similar to CNN's but left out the offensive footage. To which Hall asked, "Whatever happened to the rule that you had to notify the family first?"

Jim Pinkerton, Newsday columnist, piped in: He had just seen the movie "Flags of Our Fathers," and noted that one mother recognized her son up atop Mt. Suribachi from the AP photograph in the newspaper, even though the picture merely showed the man's back. But nonetheless, mothers know these things--she was right, it was her son. And so Pinkerton concluded, it's entirely possible that parents and relatives saw their loved one in his last moments, thanks to CNN's exploitative coverage.

Pinkerton echoed Burns' concern that CNN was being used as being a pipeline for foreign terrorists. He recalled the days when former CNN chief Eason Jordan was playing footsie with Iraqi officials to get the best deal for his network--even if that meant being manipulated by Iraq. To which Thomas wondered what happened to another old rule to protect journalistic integrity: not taking tape footage from strangers, let alone enemies.

So that's one more rule of journalistic decency that CNN has flouted.

Al-Jazeera Outdoes CNN, At Least For Now



Al-Jazeera shows footage of Americans being shot and apparently killed in Iraq. So what will CNN do now to catch up?

"CNN is now a propaganda piece for Iraqi insurgency "


One soldier speaks out on CNN's sniper story, as recorded in his blog on Myspace.com: "The Clinton News Network is now playing clips of a sniper targeting an American Soldier. I hope everyone stops watching CNN and tells their friends and family to stop supporting this anti-American filth."

"CNN crossed another line this week when it aired a propaganda tape"

Redstate.com turns the CNN "snipergate" story red hot.

CNN's Fire Spreads to the Middle East



When WH press secretary argued that the CNN sniper story--which aired on "Anderson Cooper 360" on October 18--was designed to "break the will of the American people" he was right. But the flip side of that grim coin is that the sniper story would bolster the will of the enemy. And so when the story starts playing in the Middle East, such as this item in the Dubai-based Khaleej Times ,then that's proof that there's trouble brewing from this story, for sure.

So thanks CNN, for giving aid and comfort to our enemies, the people trying to kill our men ane women.

"CNN footage of sniper killing in Iraq draws controversy"


CNN's "Snipergate" is a worldwide story, as this article from China's Xinhua news agency demonstrates. And Bulgaria, is watching the story, too.

Indeed, the whole world is watching. It's only a matter of time now before CNN apologizes.

Saturday, October 21, 2006

This is CNN: "the publicist for an enemy propaganda film"



The Voice of America reports on CNN's sniper-celebration, quoting House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter suggesting that Anderson Cooper and CNN acted like "the publicist for an enemy propaganda film."

Fox in Phoenix



Here's Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, and Dennis Miller, before a live audience in Phoenix, continuing with Fox's triumphant 10th anniversary "Thank You America" tour. It's been rock-star like in the enthusiasm it's generated, but the Establishment seems to like it: even the Mayor of Phoenix, Phil Gordon, turned out to give FNC an award.

(Thanks to Suzanne and Robert Harbison for this item and photo.)

CNN Airs "a terrorist snuff film."



Cong. Brian Bilbray, (R-Ca.), denounces CNN's sniper video, calling it "a terrorist snuff film."

The Los Angeles Times further reported that White House press secretary Tony Snow, said the insurgents were hoping to "break the will of the American people" by slipping the tape to CNN.

Friday, October 20, 2006

CNN goes back to its roots...



Its roots on the pro-Democratic Left, that is.

Every morning, Miles O'Brien mocks and jabs the Republicans. And Anderson Cooper and Michael Ware do propaganda for the Jihadists. On Friday night, "Larry King Live" offered us an hour with Jesse Jackson. Never mind the fact that JJ is yesterday's news--he's a good Bush-basher, so put him on, and use lots of clips from his lifetime's worth of anti-Republican rhetoricizing.

And now, thanks again to Newsbusters, read all about Jack Cafferty's campaign against the GOP.

Newsbusters Busts CNN on "Snipergate"



Hats off to Newsbuster Matthew Sheffield, who puts the hay down where the horse can get it: "CNN continues to play al Qaeda's useful idiot by defending its airing of footage of American troops being sniped at by terrorists saying it's only interested in providing 'the unvarnished truth.'"

Uh huh, right. And the terrorists who gave CNN the videotape of Americans getting shot and killed. All that those killers wanted to do do was get the "unvarnished truth" out--the truth about their plans to kill Americans. And CNN was there, happy to help.

But this is going to work out badly for CNN. The Ted Turner-ized "moral equivalence" network might be usefully idiotic in the cause of anti-Americanism, but most Americans, happily, aren't idiots, and will punish CNN for this transgression of its basic patriotic duty--don't offer lessons to our enemies in killing GI's. Is that really too hard of a lesson to absorb?

House Defense Chief Wants to Throw CNN Out of Bed



That is, dis-embed CNN reporters from their gigs with American troops in Iraq. House Armed Services Committee Chair Duncan Hunter, joined by two other San Diego-area Congressmen, Brian Bilbray and Darrell Issa, has written a letter to the Secretary of Defense declaring, "CNN has now served as the publicist for an enemy propaganda film featuring the killing of an American soldier." And so no more CNN embeds, say these righteous Republicans.

Update: Blogger Johnny Dollar tells me that Michael Medved did a whole hour on this "CNNiping" issue on Friday. Good for him, and no doubt there will be much more, on talk radio and in the blogosphere.

AP Understates on Behalf of CNN

"CNN understood that some critics might find that the tape had public relations benefits for the insurgency."

No kidding. The Associated Press's David Bauder treads lightly on CNN here, in this piece, which bends over backward to see things CNN's way.

But even Bauder can't gloss over the fact that the network "Had already received several angry responses from viewers of Wednesday's five-minute report, some wondering whether CNN was helping the enemy and others concerned that the tape was inappropriate for young viewers who may have happened upon it."

Another Opinion on CNN's Sniping



Del Williams, blogging for writing in "American Chronicle," adds her voice to the debate over CNN's sniper footage:

"Whether someone agrees with the war or not is immaterial. The point is that some people have the audacity to kill our men and send our news organizations the footage to show of it. That takes a lot of chutzpah for any enemy that America has. It takes even more for an American owned company to broadcast.

"I know that there is freedom of the press, but has CNN ever heard of decency? Do they think because they are “Friends” with the enemy that that will stop them from kidnapping one of their journalists? Perhaps it was just a showing to beat the competition, but maybe the competition has enough class not to show an American being gunned down by a terrorist."

Yes, by all means, let's have a fair & balanced debate about this. Anybody out there in the blogosphere think that CNN did the right thing? The Cable Game would like to hear from you.

"CNN shooting to a new low"



That's the headline atop The Seguin Gazette-Enterprise, where managing editor Chris Lykins well serves readers in Central Texas. Describing the CNN sniper video, which aired Wednesday night, Lykins frames the issue in powerful and impassioned terms:

"For those families who get treated to the final moments of their loved ones before their violent end in the network’s pursuit of 'truth,' it is especially cruel. ...

"Hiding behind journalistic principles long-since abandoned, the network has sunk to a new low by essentially becoming the propaganda and public relations arm of a group of thugs and murderers. ...

"I don’t trust CNN anymore — haven’t since I learned that the network essentially sat on stories about just how bad things were in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was running it in order to maintain access in the country.

"Back then we didn’t need to know how bad things were going in Iraq, and CNN said it sat on those stories to protect the lives of people.

"Yet, here, just a few years later, CNN says we desparately need to know how bad things are in Iraq and the network can’t wait to show us the end of another series of lives.

"CNN hasn’t only lost its way — it’s a network that’s lost its soul."

Pow!

Thursday, October 19, 2006

CNN Doing P.R. for Jihadi Snipers?




Last night "Anderson Cooper 360" featured a long report on jihadi snipers targeting American GI's in Iraq. It was complete with video, evidently taped by the Jihadis--you know, the people trying to kill Americans. Now one might just ask: How did CNN get that footage? What did they have to do? Remember when former CNN chief Eason Jordan admitted getting chummy with Saddam Hussein in the interests of getting good stuff for CNN? Has CNN found new evil-doers to get close to, in the name of getting good video "gets"?

Was the CNN feature anti-American? No, even though it included Michael Ware, the Aussie who never met bad news about America that he didn't like. But was the segment great p.r. for the Al Qaedans and the like? You bet it was. As detailed, among other places, here.

UPDATE: Another smart post on this story, which is clearly gaining ground in the blogosphere.

Paranoia Strikes Deep...



Have you noticed that CNN's Jack Cafferty has gone off the deep end? Once upon a time--like, maybe, a year ago--Cafferty seemed content to just be an all-purpose curmudgeon. But more recently, Cafferty and CNN are moving left, into heavy Bush-bashing mode, taking time out to work over stories such as Mark Foley and Chris Rock's mother feeling slighted at a Cracker Barrel restaurant. This leftward jag isn't helping the network's ratings, but maybe it's making them feel good, as they get excited over Democratic prospects in next month's elections.

Newsbusters has been busting Cafferty on a regular basis, as Cafferty moves deeper and deeper into conspiracy theories including the lefty perennial, the alleged Karl Rove-inspired "October Surprise."

If there was any "October Surprise," it was Mark Foley, and that was launched by the Democrats, or at least Democratic allies, such as CREW. But I guess if one party is launching a sneak attack on the other party, the best way for the attacking party to cover its tracks is by accusing the other party of hitting first. It's tricky stuff, all this rabbit-punching and ducking, but it's working--and Cafferty is helping.

MSNBC RIP?



By now, most people have heard that NBC, under the brilliant leadership of Jeff Zucker and Bob Wright, is announcing huge staff cuts.

Remember the days when NBC offspring MSNBC was going to be wave of the future? You know, teaming up with Microsoft? Remember the MTV-ish vibe that MSNBC had back then? That was long ago and far away, even if, in fact, it was 1996.

Meanwhile, Broadcasting & Cable reports that parent company NBC is thinking about "scrapping all of MSNBC's live programming and switching to a taped, magazine-like format, while switching successful personalities Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann over to sibling CNBC's primetime slate."

I guess "successful" is a relative term, over there in NBC cable newsland.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Culture Warrior-ing

Bill O'Reilly, pushing his best-selling book on "The View." Thanks again, Johnny Dollar!

Shep's Mad as Hell -- And Come to Think of It, So Am I!





Shepard Smith is breaking through a wall of TV--the wall that separates Them from the rest of Us. You know, Us the masses, and Them the elites. Shep is increasingly talking about things the way we want to talk about them, including, most recently, airline security.

As always, Johnny Dollar has got it all.

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Fox Rolls, as well as Rules!





Fox News Channel’s 10th anniversary celebration has been a real celebration, in sharp contrast to the sorry, soggy affair that was CNN's 25th anniversary last year.

FNC landed in Tampa/St. Pete as part of its ongoing "Thank You America" tour-a-thon. "Fox & Friends" played live at the Don CeSar beach resort. The Mayor of St. Petersburg Beach, Ward Friszolowski, made a special appearance on the program this morning, along with the Florida Orange mascot. He even presented FNC with a proclamation, declaring it "Fox News Channel Day." OK, it was rocket science, but it was fun!

Next stop is Phoenix on Friday, where Hannity & Colmes will be live in front of a studio audience. Eat your sorry-ratings heart out, Ted and Jon.

Shepard Smith, Uncut





Anybody who thinks that Fox News consists of a bunch of right-wing robots ought to have a listen to this
audio
from prime-time anchor Shepard Smith, courtesy of Johnny Dollar, the Fox watcher.

Here's Shep, speaking his remarakable mind to Brian Kilmeade and Andrew Napolitano on their radio show.

First he described North Korea as a diversion, to take our minds off "The unthinkable, unspeakable failure that is Iraq." Ouch! For good measure, said that politicians had been lying all about it, both on North Korea as well as Iraq.

On Katrina, said, again, that politicians were lying, "every minute of every day."

And Shep has more--have a listen! Roger Ailes has said that he never asks anyone who anchors or reports a show for him what his or her ideology or politics might be. All he insists upon is that they deliver the news straight. And Shep does, even though he obviously has plenty of opinions.

Monday, October 16, 2006

Don't look now, Katie -- Geraldo is gaining on you! Beating you in the demo, in fact.



MediaWeek tells the tale:

"In New York, Geraldo At Large, the newsmagazine show hosted by Geraldo Rivera on Fox's New York flagship WNYW, is turning it into four-way race at 6:30 p.m. when the network news shows air. The show is especially competitive among younger viewers, coming in first among 18-34-year-olds on Oct. 10, beating all three network news programs and tripling the ratings of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric on WCBS, CBS’ owned-and-operated station in the market."

OK, this isn't quite a Cable Game story, since this is about the Broadcast Game, but of course, Geraldo is formerly on Fox News Channel, and still appears from time to time on FNC. And he was a big star on CNBC before that. Still riding high, it seems. But once again, read the story, and decide for yourself!

PS: And by the way: Whatever happened to CNBC? Anybody know?

"Cablevision to triple rate it pays Fox News"





That's the headline from Reuters today.

What's that I've been hearing about Fox somehow having plateaued? With apologies to Winston Churchill, some plateau.

But hey, that's just my opinion. Read the story, decide for yourself.

See it now -- if you missed it at 8 pm ET, try the 11 pm re-air



The first part of Bill O'Reilly's three-part interview with President Bush.

Sunday, October 15, 2006

Michelle Malkin tells it like it is



Michelle Malkin offers a recap of the last 10 years of FNC and provides a Fox-y suggestion:

"The liberal media's 10-year allergic reaction to Fox News is triggered by any remotely positive exposure to American values on American airwaves. Well, here's to the next 10 years of giving establishment journalism the hives. Keep Old Glory flying high. It's driving Ted Turner mad."

C'mon Keith, we know you hate Bush -- but out of respect for your viewers, get your facts right--oh, wait. Never mind.





Blogger-ace--and all-around Beltway wit--Howard Mortman blasts disgruntled ex-White House aide David Kuo, author of a new Bush-bashing book, Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction.

But here's the Cable Game-angle. Eager-beaver-Bush-basher Keith Olbermann has been singing Kuo's praises, of course, on his MSNBC show. But now here's Mortman, who knows Kuo personally and of course knows KO: "Olbermann may have found delight in reporting Kuo’s book. But he shouldn’t have left these unfounded and misleading assertions go unchallenged." And as a last zinger, Mortman adds some advice to Olbermann: "And he’d do well to correct something else he got wrong: Michael Gerson is not President Bush’s top speechwriter. Gerson has departed the White House. It was announced in June." Let's see, and this is October.

This is CNN?



The Calgary Sun
reports that Sarah Schnare, a native of British Columbia, didn't make the final cut on the ABC TV show "The Bachelor: Rome," which aired on October 9. OK, fair enough.

But here's what's interesting: Schnare is described as "a producer for CNN’s 'Larry King Live,'" based in LA. As the Canadian paper explains, the CNN staffer "was approached by a casting director at a bar and asked if she’d be interested in trying out for the show."

OK, so maybe that's how things work in LA: producers for cable news networks are sitting around bars until casting directors "discover" them. And then she is whisked off to Rome for six weeks, along with 26 other women, all for the ostensible purpose of marrying an eligible bachelor--in this case, businessman and prince Lorenzo Borghese (prince of what, by the way?). Yes, there are such things as leaves of absence from a job, and all that, but still--this episode strikes The Cable Gamer as, well, gamey. Just out of curiosity, for example, what's the CNN policy on its employees being involved in fake showbiz activities?

And what was the show like? "A lot of it is so produced, it’s like nails on a chalkboard watching it back," Schnare said. Gee, you don't say. And maybe now we've learned more about CNN's watchability and its news values, too.

"Good morning, idiots"!




Roger Ailes rarely offers the other TV news operations unsolicited advice, but he is happy to offer solicited advice, when he was asked by The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's Tim Cuprisin. The J-S TV critic scored a phoner with Ailes in which the FNC chieftain mimicked the condescending style of other newscasts: "Good morning. How are you? Are you having breakfast? I'm the head of the news division; I know the news, you don't, you idiot." Ailes added, returning to his normal voice, "There is too much of that going on, still, in news."

But not at Fox. At FNC, according to Ailes, "We tell our people: 'Don't talk down to people. Talk directly to 'em and speak to 'em in the way that you would if you were, you know, sitting in an airport waiting room and they were sitting there and you said, 'Hi, how are you, what do you do for a living?' " Ailes explained in a telephone interview. "It's sort of the way they talk in Milwaukee, and where I grew up in Ohio."

Another milestone for Fox

Fox has nailed down that big "jumbotron" high above Times Square in NYC. Although actually, according to MediaWeek it's a Panasonic Astrovision. By any name, it will still be cool.

Saturday, October 14, 2006

This is Fox--on the cutting edge




The Hollywood Reporter details the enterprising use of a handheld Treo camera, supplemented with CometVision streaming software, in the recent NYC airplane crash. Fox didn't invent the technology, of course, but it's been the most energetic in using it, according to THR's Paul J. Gough.

He reports, you decide.

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Who was Lori Klausutis?




One of the strengths of the blogosphere is that it allows all of us to raise issues and concerns that the MSM prefer to sweep under the rug. That's not to say that the blogosphere is always right. But the antidote to suspicion and rumor is not silence, but rather active repudiation, in which all the facts are laid out. Such full airing of the evidence doesn't appear to have happened in the case of MSNBC anchorman Joe Scarborough.

In fact, persistent rumors swirl around the death of one Lori Klausutis, who died in then-Cong. Scarborough's Florida district congressional office in 2001. The story of her death, and the suspicious circumstances surrounding her demise, have been around for a while--James Wolcott mentioned it in Vanity Fair in 2004--but they have never been resolved, such that the possibility of foul play has been eliminated. And now those suspicions have been revived, here.

It seems to me that Scarborough should address this question, preferably on the air, as well as online, so that all of us can assess the evidence. Until then, suspicions will continue to swirl.

Just as they continue to swirl around Keith Olbermann...

This is Fox--Fair, Balanced, and All Over The Story





So who did the best job of covering the Manhattan airplane crash story? Who had the most reporters and anchors live on the scene, and had the best angles?

Hands down, it was Fox. We all know the critics' rap on Fox News--that it's a right-wing stooge of the Bush Administration--but those critics should watch Fox more.

The plane-crash death of Cory Lidle, complete with all the scary echoes of 9-11, is a case in point. As this sensitively written news story in The Philadelphia Inquirer notes, Lidle's father, living in California, was actually watching the breaking news on Fox News. In other words, at a time of tragedy, the elder Lidle chose Fox to get the news.

Also, the famous author Carol Higgins Clark is a resident of the building the plane crashed into. And who had the interview with her? Greta Van Susteren. Greta lives in Washington, but she came up to NYC to anchor her 10 pm show, live, in the pouring rain. She details her day here on her blog, which is a must-read for cable gamers.

By contrast, CNN's Anderson Cooper did his show from a comfortable warm studio. Wasn't he supposed to be a legend for his daring on-the-scene coverage? Yeah, maybe. But maybe now his contract got renewed, and Jon Klein has turned his attention to Katie Couric's legs (see preceding post, below).

And what of MSNBC you might ask? I confess that I didn't notice what they did.

This is CNN--Off Message





CNN President Jon Klein demonstrated his true commitment to solid news values (not!) when he let loose with his feelings about the first woman to solo-anchor a nightly news broadcast show in an interview withThe Philadelphia Inquirer's Gail Shister: "He’s high on new 'CBS Evening News' anchor Katie Couric. 'I love her on the air. It’s refreshing to see a woman in that role, and it gives them a star with fire in the belly.'"

But then he continued to say more, as he moved his focus from Couric's belly to other of her body parts. Shister continues: "In a dubious distinction he’ll most likely regret making, Klein anoints Couric as 'the sexiest of the news anchors. The shoulders don’t hurt, and the legs have to be considered.'"

I wonder what the National Organization of Women and other guardians of feminist p.c. will have to say in reaction to these words. If Roger Ailes had said this, imagine the screams of "sexism" and "male chauvinist pig" that would be heard across the land. But maybe CNN, which is so p.c. most of the time, will get a pass--just as Ted Turner always gets a pass.

Klein has a right to his opinions, of course, but in wandering off into "lookism," Klein spoiled what should have been his message of the day: That Lou Dobbs is moving to a seven-night-a-week format.

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

If KarmaBites is Lying, Keith Should Sue Her...




...But if she is telling the truth, Olbermann should feel very ashamed of himself. So which is it? Enquiring cable gamers would like to know.

The New York Post's "Page Six" has
reported a couple of items now detailing the alleged one-night--more like one hour, it sounds like--stand that Keith Olbermann enjoyed with a 30-something woman who flew all the way from Miami to NYC to spend some non-quality non-time in a hotel room with the Great Man.

I say "alleged" because I wasn't there. But KarmaBites was, she says, in her blog. She is extremely detailed and specific in what she asserts--and extremely embarrassing to the MSNBC anchor. And if, in fact, he ducked out of a second meeting with the woman by claiming a death in his family, well, that's just low.

But if the woman is lying, KO should defend himself with the truth. He ought to take time away from calling other people "the worst person in the world" and call KB the worst person in the world, for defaming him. He ought to prove that he never met the woman, that they just had tea, whatever. And then he should sue her for libel, slander, etc.

But of course, it's possible that KarmaBites is telling the truth--and, in fact, every day of silence from Olbermann in response to these charges suggests that, in fact, KarmaBites is truthful.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Where Fox Comes From, and Why it Thrives




Writing in The San Francisco Chronicle, Debra J. Saunders adds some valuable perspective to the Fox Phenomenon, reminding us of the left-tilting dynamic of the Mainstream Media that gave Fox its fair-and-balanced reason for being a decade ago and continues to give it a huge opportunity today, serving a market that the MSM just can't bring itself to serve.

Columnist Saunders begins by reminding us of the deep bias built into the human structure of the MSM: "Go to most newsrooms and you'll find a staff that overwhelmingly voted for John Kerry in 2004, while the rest keep their politics to themselves lest they be considered biased. A survey of the Washington press corps found that 89 percent voted for Bill Clinton in 1992."

And while most reporters are professional enough to at least think about playing their stories down the middle, Saunders continues, "They can't escape the presumptions that underlie their stories, and they are likely not to notice the presumptions when all the newsroom management thinks alike. That's how illegal immigrants became 'undocumented workers' and global warming became a certainty."

And some, in fact, are just far gone: "They have no idea that they're biased," Saunders writes. "They think their positions are neutral." Saunders cites, in particular, the "reporting" of New York Times court reporter Linda Greenhouse, who gave a speech at Harvard recently in which she "bemoaned the Bush administration's creation of 'law-free zones' at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Haditha, 'the hijacking of public policy by religious fundamentalism' and the 'ridiculous' proposed fence on the Mexican border."

Queried about her bias, Greenhouse responded that her Harvard remarks weren't opinion, but rather, "statements of fact." Comments Saunders: "If Greenhouse cannot distinguish between fact and opinion, why should I trust her reportage on court decisions?"

Precisely. It would be great if there were a truly fair-and-balanced newspaper, to compete with the Times. But there isn't, so we must regard the Times as being subject to a "Greenhouse Effect" that goes way beyond the liberal opinionating of just Ms. Greenhouse.

Most amazingly, this stubborn liberalism has come at a huge cost to the MSM, including the Times. As the eyeball- and circulation numbers and layoffs show, people are tuning out the MSM and its same old preachy one-sided liberalism. And yet even now, the one-sided preachers can't bring themselves to become two-sided; as Greenhouse says, she deals in "fact," and her opponents in "fiction"--how can you ask a self-declared "honest" reporter to print things that she considers to be fiction? They'd die first, or at least go out of business.

And the same holds true for CNN and a lot of the rest of 'em: Their whole worldview is wrapped up in their politics, and yet at the same time, they see themselves as "moderate" and "neutral"--they can't help it if their very reasonableness leads them to like the Democrats and dislike the Republicans. So if you see yourself as sensible and centrist to begin with, it's hard to change. Oh, sure, occasionally CNN will be pressured into hiring someone such as Bob Novak, but for the most part, as we know, the steady drip drip drip of drippy liberalism will come from the likes of Miles O'Brien or such past talent as Aaron Brown and Judy Woodruff.

But in the meantime, by flying into the face of this cloying p.c. conventional liberal wisdom, we have FNC, which has built itself a thriving business in the last decade.

As Saunders concludes in her insightful piece, "Fox News keeps American media fair and balanced." That's a sure ticket to success in the marketplace, as FNC has demonstrated, and it's also good for American democracy.

Murdoch on the Left?




The New Yorker's John Cassidy can't decide whether FNC poohbah Rupert Murdoch is a conservative who has supported Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and John McCain, or a moderate-liberal who has supported Ed Koch in the past and Hillary Rodham Clinton in the present, and also has helped bankroll Bill Clinton's anti-global warming initiative. Or is Murdoch simply a complicated figure? With different perspectives on different topics?

The best answer to those questions comes from Murdoch confidant Irwin Stelzer, who tells Cassidy, "People say, 'Is Rupert going to the left? Is he going to the right?' That’s the wrong way of looking at it. He’s going in a direction where the conversation is most interesting."

Monday, October 09, 2006

"Nothing Political About a Hurricane"



Mark Dawidziak offers a thoughtful piece in The Cleveland Plain-Dealer. He is definitely fair and balanced in his piece, giving plenty of room to Fox's many critics. OK, fine. That's the whole point of Fox, and it should be the same with newspapers: We news consumers are exposed to a variety of points of view, and then we each and all of get to decide what we think.

But Dawidziak got some good rebutting quotes from Bill Shine, the #2 at FNC, who snapped back at the critics, "I've been hearing that for 10 years." Shine continued: "I think it's interesting that people say we have a bias in our news, and yet we allowed President Clinton a pretty good forum to come on and say nasty things about us. But the big picture for me is that we're a 24-hour news channel. We're not a political news channel. When a hurricane hits the Southeast, we end up being the Weather Channel. There's nothing political about a hurricane."

Good point, Bill.

Moving right along, Dawidziak challenged Shine to look ahead, and here's what he reported in this fascinating piece:

"Shine said Fox's major challenges for the next decade will include not just staying ahead of programming trends, but keeping up with rapidly changing technology.

"'The rise of the Internet and broadband are changing the questions of who gets news and how,' Shine said. 'Roger [Ailes] has said it's all about getting ready for the next 10 years. The recent event between President Clinton and Chris Wallace was taped on a Friday and aired in its entirety on a Sunday. In between, clips of it were seen on the Internet more than a million times. How do you respond to that and handle it? That's what the next 10 years will be all about for all of us.'"

As I said, this is an important article--a must read.

Some bug. Some toy.





On December 30, 1941, Winston Churchill spoke to the Canadian Parliament, updating his fellow Commonwealthers about the World War Two effort. The war was far from won, of course, but by then, both the USA and USSR were in the war against Germany. So Churchill could chortle a bit when he recalled a German general telling Hitler, the year before, "In three weeks England will have her neck wrung like a chicken." Churchill paused for effect. And then he said, "Some chicken. Some neck." In other words, don't count your chicken necks before they're wrung. And the rest, as they say, is The History Channel.

Now to Fox. Writing in The Miami Herald, the talented TV critic Glenn Garvin recalled the early days:

"When media baron Rupert Murdoch announced in 1995 that he was creating the Fox News Channel, CNN founder Ted Turner smirked that he was 'looking forward to squishing Rupert like a bug.' A few months later, when Murdoch hired Roger Ailes to run the channel, sniffed that Fox News was just something for Ailes to play with -- 'less a toy than an imaginary friend.'"

Garvin continued:

"Today, as Fox News celebrates 10 years on the air, there won't be any cracks about insects or Erector Sets: It's the No. 1 cable-news network, as it has been for the past 58 months, with an audience almost as big as its two main competitors combined. It took Fox News just five years to surpass MSNBC, with its powerful corporate backers, and CNN, which had a 16-year head start."

Or, as Churchill might put it in his simple declaratory way: "Some bug. Some toy."

This is CNN...




...Now we get yet a better sense of where CNN's worldview comes from. Here's Ted Turner, courtesy of YouTube, explaining why he couldn't be expected to take sides in the Global War on Terror. As he says, "I hadn't made my mind up." Well, what would you expect, other than moral equivalence, from Mr. Jane Fonda?

For good measure, Ted also said that he thought it was "inappropriate" for American networks to be displaying the American flag on their screens. That Old Glory-flying was begun by Fox, in the wake of 9-11, and CNN tagged along, at least for awhile. But no need to worry, CNN has resumed its old ways soon enough, seeking to be "neutral" in the struggle between good and evil.

But let's be fair here. If you watch the tape, it looks as if Ted has had a few. OK, that's an excuse, even if it is being overdone a bit these days.

Now what's CNN excuse?

As an aside, one can only note the power of YouTube, and other video services, to change the debate. The cable game is going to have to find a way to keep up with this. I have no doub that the cable newsers will, because let's face it, people will always care about the news, even if they have a greater desire to be participatory now, in the spirit of YouTubing, vlogging, etc.

"Keith Gets Low Ratings in Bed"





I report--or, in this case, merely Post--and you decide.

But I will admit that I will be watching Keith Olbermann's show tonight, just to see what reaction he might have to this incendiary report.

First Impression of Fox: Pass the Dramamine. Second Impression: Pass CNN. Third Impression?





Robert Philpott of The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports on Fox's 10th anniversary, taking note of a recent event in which Roger Ailes played a reel featuring old predictions about Fox's fate. That's Ailes: If you cross him, he will not forget it. And here's Philpott, recapitulating the Fox video:

"'First impression of Fox News Channel: Pass the Dramamine,' read a line from The Denver Post. 'For my money, the Baywatch starlet has more credibility (i.e. none) than a professional henchman/carnival barker like Ailes,' said The St. Paul Pioneer Press. 'Fox News is competing against well-entrenched broadcasters like ABC, CBS and NBC, as well as cable market leader CNN, and MSNBC, both of which boast wider distribution, stronger programming and better-known news personalities,' Fortune magazine said - in 1998.

"After more words of doom and gloom from competitors, the reel ended with stats attesting to FNC's success and one irresistible parting shot: 'Can't wait to see what people will say about us in the next 10 years.'"

It's a great story from Philpott, including a lot of reporting from Fox's recent 10th anniversary "Thank You America" swing through Dallas.

What cable news does best



CABLE NEWS BRINGS YOU THE STORY, FAST AND FURIOUS, IN THE WAY THAT OLD-FASHIONED HEADLINES ONCE DID.

Sunday, October 08, 2006

“When things get tough, Roger gets tougher"




I hope that you got a chance to see Fox News’ 10th anniversary special earlier tonight Here were some highlights for me:

First off, it was ably co-hosted by Chris Wallace and Martha MacCallum, with some illuminating assists from Ken Auletta, media writer for The New Yorker, and Erik Sorenson, the former head of MSNBC, who will surely get in trouble from his ex-colleagues for conceding, as noted earlier, that MSNBC and the rest of the MSM "misunderestimated" Fox, Roger Ailes, and Rupert Murdoch.

Second, it was a trip down memory lane, as veteran FNC-ers recalled their early incredulity about the new channel and its prospects. Jon Scott, for example, remembered back to those days in 1996: “When Roger Ailes said that he had a five year plan for overtaking CNN, I thought he was crazy.”

Third, there was some vivid commentary on what it’s like to work at Fox. As the tenacious and dogged Eric Shawn--a hero of "oil for food" scandal digging--told us, “It’s like being shot out of a cannon every morning; that’s the definition of news.” And Bill O’Reilly said of his own sharp personality: “Even if you don’t like me, you’re not going to be bored.”

Fourth, Ailes himself recalled the genesis of the phrase “fair and balanced.” He added, “Other people hate those words”—referring, first and foremost to other network execs. Wallace asked him where he got the idea for the network. Ailes responded, thinking back to those pre-Fox years, more than a decade ago, “I was in meetings, and I would read about it the next day, and I would say to myself, ‘That’s not what happened.’” That is, the MSM just got it wrong--and worse, didn't much care about getting it wrong. Continuing, the FNC chief added about rival news operations and their product, “Not only was it biased, but it was boring—everybody had the same take on the story.”

Fifth, that visible difference, of course, is FNC’s signature. Brit Hume recalled how he came to want to leave ABC News, even though he had a great job as chief White House correspondent; Fox offered him the chance, he remembered wistfully, to do things in a different way. And so he grabbed the opportunity, as Washington Managing Editor of FNC: He chose different stories, different angles, different perspectives, brought more voices to the debate. As Hume summed it up: “We were different from the other media.” So Hume was asked, have you changed Washington? “To some extent, yes," Hume answered. "There’s no chance now that there’s a whole side that won’t be covered.” That's the point--that's what Americans had been waiting for, for half a century, before FNC.

Sixth, at the same time, Fox is assuredly in nobody’s partisan pocket. Hume recalled, for example, that back in 2000, it was FNC’s Carl Cameron who broke the story of George W. Bush’s long-prior drunk-driving arrest—and FNC went to the six-year-old tape of Cameron breaking the story on air. Indeed, FNC showed something I had never seen before: Just before that fateful 2000 broadcast, Cameron is seen telling Hume—on camera but off air—that the Bush campaign had just asked him to delay the report by 20 minutes so that they, the Bushies, could put together a response. Hume is seen, six years ago, saying, “We can’t do that.” And of course, Cameron went ahead with his powerful scoop, which nearly cost Bush the election, and surely cost W. his plurality of the popular vote. But later that same year, Hume said, Fox “made its bones,” at least in terms of political coverage, thanks to its many all-nighters and all-day-ers on the Florida recount coverage. That was the “critical turning point,” in Hume’s view.

Seventh, some of the most interesting commentary came from vets of the other networks, broadcast as well as cable. Wallace, of course, is from ABC, and Martha MacCallum, from CNBC. And Hume, as noted, is from ABC. Others with prominent roles on the special included Greta Van Susteren and Bill Hemmer (both CNN), John Gibson (MSNBC), and Neil Cavuto (CNBC). As Hemmer said of his former and current employer, “Fox is faster, we are more nimble.” And Greta Van Susteren, recalling her exit from CNN, said, “I left a dysfunctional corporation” in the wake of the Time-Warner merger with AOL. For his part, Ailes recalled Van Susteren telling him, right after she started, “I’ve had more laughs here in the last 10 days than I have had in the last 10 years.”

Eighth, Wallace, always a newsman, attempted to squeeze some news out of his boss; he asked Ailes, toward the end about a possible business channel. Ailes answered, “We’ll be prepared to go in ’07, if we get the subs.”

So no big news there, that’s been reported in the past—but give Wallace credit. He always asks the questions that need to be asked. If only Bill Clinton had been on the stage with Wallace...

Turn on Your TV!





I am watching Fox's 10th anniversary special, and you should be watching it, too.

Highlight, so far, is Erik Sorenson, former chief of MSNBC, freely conceding that the other nets back in '96 grossly underestimated what was going on, in terms of the potential to build an audience.

Now they are doing 9-11, which occurred almost exactly half-way through the 10 years of FNC. Sober stuff.

"News Watch"-ing Fox's Effect















An interesting and perspective-rich discussion on Fox’s “News Watch” show on Saturday night, as host Eric Burns asked the four panelists about the impact of Fox News on the overall news business over the past 10 years.

Jim Pinkerton led off: “In the old days, pre-Fox, somebody like Walter Cronkite would turn to somebody like Eric Sevareid and say, ‘So, what do you think of Richard Nixon?’ And Sevareid would say, ‘He’s not very good.’ And Cronkite would say, ‘Thank you, that’s the news.’ That was administered news from the top. Fox introduced the idea of argument, and debate, and it’s changed the landscape of cable news.” Pinkerton is right: it was administered news, or preached news, from the church of liberalism. And yes, to paraphrase Walter Cronkite, “That was the way it was.”

Neal Gabler, a liberal who is generally no fan of Fox--and makes that distaste for FNC obvious every week, proving that FNC has a thick skin--rarely agrees with anything that Pinkerton says, but interestingly enough, agreed with at least some of Pinkerton's argument in this instance. Indeed, Gabler went further, adding that Fox’s impact was larger than just the cable world; Gabler argued that Fox had gotten “inside the heads” of the broadcast networks, too. That is, Fox had changed the broadcast landscape, too. And not just the overall media landscape on which they operate, but their interior mental landscape as well.

For her part, Jane Hall added that were it not for Fox, someone such as Rush Limbaugh would not be appearing on CBS News in its “Free Speech” segment.

And Cal Thomas, a veteran conservative, recalled going to see all the top executives at the networks, back in the pre-Fox era, telling them that there is a “huge unserved demographic out there, and the first person who reached out to that is going to reap a bonanza.” Thomas was right, of course, about the underserved market, but the nets didn’t listen. Why? Not only because they weren't smart about their own business, but because they decided that they would rather keep faith with the Manhattan-to-Georgetown liberal orthodoxy--none of those execs and corporate chieftains wanted to sully themselves with "red state" values, or even the "fair and balanced" valued of giving the red-state point of view a fair chance. OK, that's their choice.

Yet as Thomas observed, Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes made a different choice. Back in the mid-90s, they had the same insight, about the views and thinking of roughly half the country, a Silent Majority that wanted less liberal spin. And so Murdoch and Ailes put FNC together--and they did, in fact, reap the bonanza that Thomas foresaw.

And yet interestingly, a decade later, one could argue that even now, much of the time, the MSM execs still can’t bring themselves to cover the news fully, to be fair and balanced. Which is to say, FNC still has much of the cable universe all to itself, and that’s one big reason why Fox is #1.

PS: If you wanna see something kinda cool, go to the "News Watch" website and watch the banter among the panelists during the commercial breaks. It's all there, on streaming video. The picture above is a screen grab from those interstitial sessions.

Factoring Fox at 10



Here's Bill O'Reilly's take on the FNC phenomenon.

Saturday, October 07, 2006

"Vive La France!"--or at least, "Vive La AFP!"





Many Americans might not be familiar with Agence France-Presse, but it's a huge outfit, oftentimes carrying some really interesting stuff.

Cable Gamers might be particularly interested in an insightful piece written by James Hossack, in which AFP does a much better job than, say, AP. As noted by Aaron Barnhart and quoted earlier here, AP seems content--maybe "eager" is a better word-choice--to simply repackage MSNBC and MSM spin points about FNC.

But AFP, by contrast, gets right to the real point in its lede: "One decade on, the network that prides itself on its "fair and balanced" reporting easily leads its rivals in audience ratings as it continues to shake up the cable news industry."

And that's the way it is, despite the best efforts of the sophisters at MSNBC and the sophistry-swallowers elsewhere in the MSM.

Meanwhile, the enterprising AFP reporter, Hossack, got an interesting angle from Mike Conway, a former television news reporter and now professor in journalism at Indiana University, who argues, in Hossack's words, "The genius of Fox's strategy was to carve out a niche for itself in the cable market and rise to the top within a decade." Now Conway directly: "Fox news, I think has done a few different things that has caused people to think about it."

Hossack adds: "Unafraid to tackle controversial issues head-on, the channel has won praise and criticism in equal measure." And now Hossack quotes Conway again: "One of the things is definitely the attitude that it shows. It definitely has gone for an audience with the idea that the mainstream media has a liberal bias. That's one of the cornerstones of what they do."

That's FNC's strength--it positions itself, unapologetically, gleefully--against the MSM-osauruses.

Attitude. As Bryan Anderson has argued, too, that attitude matters a lot.

"Now, there's only one news channel, and we have no competition!"




Those were the words of Roger Ailes, telling CNN's hometown paper how the world had changed in the last 10 years. Ailes told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Jill Vejnoska and the rest of the crowd at the FNC anniversary party about the days back in 1996, when "There was only one news channel, and they had no competition." Pause. "Now, there's only one news channel, and we have no competition!"

Vejnoska ably capures the festive spirit of the occasion:

"About the only thing missing, it seemed, were Bill Clinton and Chris Wallace re-enacting their much ballyhooed and eyeballed verbal smackdown on a recent edition of 'Fox News Sunday.'

"But the door is always open to the former president.

"'It kept us in the news every day for a week,' Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes chortled a few hours before the Wednesday night bash. In fact, he said he'd 'entertain' the notion of offering Clinton his own show --- but only on the weekends. That way, it wouldn't displace 'Hannity & Colmes' or any of Fox's other top-rated prime-time programming.

"'I would've paid him a hundred grand as a marketing fee to [perform like that, with Wallace]. He did it for nothing. We appreciated it. And we'd like to have him back next week.'"

Lamentably, the article is not online, which is too bad, because Vejnoska is always entertaining.

(And thanks to Jossip and photographer Matthew Krautheim for the photo! The whole set from the FNC party is to be found on that most excellent website.

South Park Fox?



What's the secret of Fox's success? Is it ideology? Graphics? Appealing anchors with good chemistry? Or is it, more than anything else, attitude? One good answer comes from Bryan C. Anderson, who coined the phrase "South Park Republicans" a few years ago, to describe the in-your-face style that was emerging on the right--to match the left's in-your-face style, which dates back to the 60s.

Here's Anderson, in his own insightful words:

"Fox's real ethos is not Republican but anti-elitist — a major reason it connects with so many Americans and annoys so many coastal elites. 'There's a whole country that elitists will never acknowledge,' Ailes once observed. 'What people resent deeply out there are those in the "blue states" thinking they're smarter.' This anti-elitism shows itself in Fox's pro-U.S. stance in covering the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and its broadcasters' use of terms such as 'terrorist' instead of 'militant' to refer to ... well, terrorists. Since the Vietnam War era, mainstream journalists have tended to see such blunt language and side-taking as unsophisticated, a betrayal of journalistic objectivity.

"Another aspect of Fox's anti-elitism: Christians, far from being seen as lunatics or curiosities — as too often is the case in the mainstream media — actually get some respect.

"'Most Americans believe in God and have that as their foundation in life. So why shouldn't we have as guests people that they like, respect and want to hear from?' Hannity told me a while back.

"What really frustrates liberals about Fox, though, is simply that, along with talk radio and the conservative blogosphere, it has helped shatter the left's near-monopoly on news and information. Fox's opinion-driven programming gives conservatives and liberals a chance to get a hearing for their ideas. But Democratic politicians and activists who go on Fox also must defend their views, often against tough questioning, something that happens less often on the networks, where most journalists are left-of-center, survey after survey has shown."

Anderson is on to something. Folks at CNN, MSNBC, the broadcast nets, etc. would do well to study this article and to look at his book, too, called, simply enough, South Park Conservatives.

But those potential readers should be forewarned: When Anderson writes, as a subtitle, The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias, he is talking about just those folks in the MSM, and the MSM-wannabes at CNN and MSNBC. All those liberal folks don't seem to understand that at the rate they are going, they media institutions that they work for are not likely to exist in 10 years. All the more reason for them to buy Anderson's book--and all the more reason, of course, that they won't.

This is CNN--Busted by NewsBusters





Newsbusters' Scott Whitlock
nails
CNN's Miles O'Brien being himself--a recidivist liberal, no fair and no balance from Miles.

Here's the scoop: Mike Luckovich, the liberal cartoonist for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is asked on CNN and earns a chuckle from O’Brien by asserting that "80 percent of the priesthood" is gay. Luckovich has a book to sell, but that's not CNN's problem--or is it? Evidently, the unfounded opinions of an agenda-ridden cartoonist are newsworthy down in Ted Turner Town.

Here's Whitlock's recap of the segment, as told to us by O'Brien and Luckovich: "80 percent of priests are gay, Saddam Hussein’s preferable to the current situation in Iraq, and 'Bush lied; People died."

And then Whitlock closes with a killer comment/questin: "Is devoting over six minutes to a guest with such hard-left beliefs really the way for CNN to combat its liberal label?" One way to find out.

Never Look Back -- But Do Look Ahead!





Aaron Barnhart, the sage TV pundit of The Kansas City Star, sums up the cable game: "So here's the verdict on 10 years of the Fox News Channel. It passed up a complacent CNN and never looked back."

Barnhart takes the Associated Press to task for swallowing the spin of rivals. Such swallowing is to be expected, of course, sinc the MSM is rallying around Keith Olbermann, trying to boost him into Murrow-esque media sainthood. It probably won't work, because a) Olbermann is no saint, and because b) the MSM doesn't have the hagiographic power that it once had. However, AP is still going to give it the old college try, in the name of old-fashioned libeal solidarity. Here's Barnhart on AP's pro-MSNBC spin:

"'Slumping Fox News celebrating 1st decade,' was how The Associated Press headlined its story this week. Yes, ratings are down for the first time at Fox News Channel. And yes, some competitors have begun to sneak up. MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann actually crowed on his “Countdown” broadcast this week that he had beaten 'The O’Reilly Factor' for a full 15 minutes in the 25-to-54-year-old demographic."

Sums up Barnhart, nailing the wire service on its shillery: "It was a brazen bit of chest-thumping that made little sense."

And then Barnhart made an interesting admission, that should chill the blood of everyone at CNN: "For my money, when it comes to breaking news, Fox is my go-to channel. Time and again it has proven it can get on top of a story and wring maximum interest from it. Reese Schonfeld, the founding president of CNN, said it best: CNN’s anchors talk at you. Fox News talks to you."

Finally, Barnhart had some other points which are worth thinking about, for the next 10 years:

"Could someone beat Fox News at their own game? No. Could another channel come along in the next 10 years that takes a different approach to news, serves a different niche, and challenge Fox for supremacy in cable news? I suppose. But my feeling is, if it will happen anywhere, it will happen right here, on the Web. Getting your channel onto 80 million cable customers' lineups is hard, and expensive (just ask Rupert Murdoch; he bribed some operators to carry Fox News 10 years ago). But getting it out to your base via the Internet? Heck, folks are doing that already.

"This is how YouTube is a game-changer. Now we all watch video on the web. That means we could be only a year or two away from an all-video live news network emerging on the web. It might serve a progressive audience, or people addicted to global news, or some other niche in enough numbers to attract sponsors. Stay tuned."

Indeed. Stay tuned. And also, stay online.

Friday, October 06, 2006

"Anti-Elitist"




Eric Burns, the brilliantly understated host of "Fox News Watch," adds his 30-years-in-the-industry perspective to the question of FNC's success--the genius of the network, Burns sez, is not its ideology, but rather its populism.

And the brilliantly v-logging Johnny Dollar has this footage, and a lot more, as he always does.

"What Hath Fox Wrought?"




James Poniewozik is no doubt in the doghouse with his colleagues. He works at Time magazine, which means that he is also a colleague--if that's the right word to describe anybody who works in that vipers' nest--with all their fellow corporate conglomerators at CNN.

And so when Poniewozik writes a piece that concedes the enormous impact of FNC on CNN and the world--which concedes that FNC has clobbered CNN--that can't make him popular within the Time-Warner empire.

And when that piece proves to be lyrical in its treatment of Fox, well, the Time-man must really be in the doghouse--or maybe some other sort of house. Here's the money graf:

"In the end, that wink—that is, the Fox gestalt of insouciance, attitude, and even playfulness—has had a bigger effect on the news media than any Bill O'Reilly rant. Fox taught TV news that voice, provocation and fun are not things to be afraid of. And for better or worse, probably every TV news program outside of PBS has been Foxified by now. The explosive graphics on your newscast: that's Fox. The 'Free Speech' opinion segments on the new CBS Evening News: that's Fox, too. Anderson Cooper yelling at a FEMA official or crusading in Africa: that's Fox. Keith Olbermann ranting at George W. Bush and O'Reilly on MSNBC's Countdown: that's Fox through and through, whether Olbermann would like to admit it or not."

"They always laugh at the beginning."



That was Rupert Murdoch, dismissing the carping of the critics, to Roger Ailes, more than 10 years ago, as quoted in The Financial Times. And of course, as we all know, Murdoch and Ailes had the last laugh.

Here's more of Murdoch, dismissing the pre-Fox media as "local monopolies"--which is to say, arrogant and liberal, both. "Most of the media are local monopolies. They’ve got elitist journalists coming out of journalism school and they look down on their audiences. They are not at all in touch with the average middle-class guy with the $50,000–$60,000 job living out in the exurbs."

FT reporters Joshua Chaffin and Aline van Duyn take note of the same spirit of cameradie that Jon Friedman of "Marketwatch" had noticed, too: "At a Fox News anniversary party on Wednesday night that had the feeling of a family reunion, Mr Murdoch paid tribute to Mr Ailes for making it happen. 'Roger seems to outsmart everybody,' he said. 'I owe him a huge debt.'"

Call it a mutual bond of affection, that's worked out well for FNC, and for America. And they've even had a few laughs along the way.

The same FT, online, offers a joint interview with Murdoch and Ailes that's full of interesting stuff, for cable gamers and everyone else.

The first topic of the interview, conducted on October 3, was the two men's response to a nasty article appearing in The Wall Street Journal that morning that suggested stress in the News Corporation executive suites. Murdoch and Ailes both clobbered the story hard, on the record, hitting the Journal's credibility right on the nose.

Here's Murdoch, first: "That [Wall Street Journal article] was just a hit job. It was cheap. It was completely wrong. No matter about her [the journalist’s] conclusions, her statements were totally wrong."

The FT reporters pressed on: "What about reported tensions in the executive suite? To which Murdoch responded, "Absolute crap."

And Ailes added: "I am totally unaware of it if there is any. I told her this as well."

Murdoch: "There was never any discord here with anyone. Least of all with Roger. It wasn’t Roger at all, it was me."

Ailes: "I have no knowledge what they are talking about. The Wall Street Journal just flat out got it wrong."

Hard to imagine that the WSJ's credibility can survive a joint put-down by the two chief subjects of the article.

Here's some more. Murdoch on CNN International vs. CNN: "The CNN International is a different service, it is even more leftist and anti-American than CNN is."

Ailes echoed that point, reflecting over the past decade: "I think conservatives were underserved, that does not make us a conservative channel. I think a lot of conservatives watch our channel, that does not make us a conservative channel. If we’re conservative, what does that make the other channels? Liberal. Reporters are very interesting, they keep coming at me and saying 'Aren’t you more conservative?' and I say 'Yes well, you mean they’re more liberal?' The answer is you see both on our channel. In the last 25 years you CNN had Bob Novak and they thought that was balanced. One half hour they had Bob and the rest of the time they had liberals. We decided to balance all the arguments and treat the conservative view with the same respect as we have for the liberal view, and that is really irritating some people."

Continuing, Ailes added: "We’re not promoting the conservative point of view, we’re merely giving them equal time and access. Why would that offend journalists, to have another point of view? We don’t quite get that. Dragged kicking and screaming the rest of the media is now saying oh my god maybe we should be a little more balanced than the way we were doing things."

More Ailes on how run a news network: "The news business is simple but it’s not easy to do well. You know the story, you have to cover it, you need pictures, you need good writers, you have to get it to the screen but it’s obviously not easy to do well otherwise MSNBC would have traction. And they have a 50-year news organisation over there." [referring to NBC]

More Ailes, responding to the charge that Fox has grown "stale" after 10 years, including five years at the top of the cable game: "I don’t think it’s fair. If they say stale because Fox has the most loyal audience and the most consistent pattern of programming, it’s natural that people begin to expect things. We need to a better job in terms of changing things up and making them more attractive. The truth is, where would you rather be. We have changed five shows in ten years in primetime and MSNBC and CNN have changed 54 shows. In the end having the same guy watching O’Reilly ten years ago and now, you can call that loyalty or stale, but the truth is in the stories. O’Reilly does interesting stories and he does not rely on big stars and he has the highest ratings on cable news. He’s brilliant at knowing how to do his show."

Murdoch on a possible Fox business channel: "We see it as a natural extension and we will do very well. We think we have distribution pretty much lined up now. 30 million subs[scribers], enough to get noticed, enough to be in new york and the capital cities, and it will spread from that. I’ve got faith in Roger to do a good job." Ailes on the same topic: "We’ve hired Alexis Glick, she’s working with Neil Cavuto, some executives are working with me, we meet once a week to talk about content and structure. We’re looking at facilities and studios and so on and we are hoping to get enough distribution to go into a launch mode which would be the next phase, three, and the actual launch would be four. At the moment we’ve moved from one to two and we are aggressively pursuing what we will do for when Mr Murdoch has enough distribution. We are looking at all options, cable will be part of it, we are also talking to our website people."

Lots of interesting stuff here. These guys help make the cable game what it is.

This is going to be fun!



A sneak peek at Sunday night's 10th anniversary special.

"Why Fox remains No. 1 in cable news"




That's the headline atop Jon Friedman's assessment of FNC. Friedman began with a note of candor, and humility, as to his own initial perceptions of Fox:

"The conventional wisdom (which I, among many others, have spouted over the years) is that Fox has ruled the roost because it shrewdly managed to exploit the red-blue state phenomenon in America and attract a very large, loyal and vocal audience of politically conservative viewers."

But, Friedman continued, the reality grew more complicated as he sat in on a taping of a special on FNC--including all the big stars of FNC--which will air Sunday night, October 8:

"What the public may not appreciate is that Fox boasts a ferocious competitive spirit. Its will to win (read: crush CNN) is probably unmatched in TV journalism. For that reason, above all, Fox's rise is a case study which has relevance to a journalism or business school.

"During the taping, I observed a unique spirit among the panelists -- and the dozens of their fellow Fox anchors and reporters in the audience. Their attitude, that we're all in this together, was admirable.

"There is obvious good feeling among the professionals, bordering on affection. Their pride at toppling CNN and remaining No. 1 for nearly five years was evident."

Friedman quoted Roger Ailes as saying that "a will to win" is vital, but Ailes also said that an FNC-er's personality skills were important, too, for the sake of team play: "You don't want to be in a room with someone you don't like."

As noted here on TCG on Wednesday night, Sean Hannity & Alan Colmes may be vigorous debaters on TV, but they like each other, too--they can disagree without being disagreeable. That why they have stayed together for 10 years. And that's why viewers have stayed with them, and with FNC overall.

Here's more of Friedman's must-read piece: "Loyalty is everything. Ultimately, Fox has thrived because the all-for-one-and-one-for-all spirit inside the newsroom has spread to the audience and they want to belong to the Fox world.

"[Greta] Van Susteren remembered what life was like at her former employer, CNN, when AOL came in. 'I left a dysfunctional corporation,' she recalled. 'I just wanted to work.'"

Jossip Reports, You Decide




The always cool website Jossip has lots of dishy pix from the FNC party Wednesday night.

Kudos to photographer Matthew Krautheim!

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Serfing, but not strangling, at the Fox Party





An item on the Fox News 10th anniversary party, in the always-amusing "Channel Serfing" blog in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution got me to thinking about a key element in FNC's success over the past decade.

Here's the item, courtesy of on-the-scene AJ-C reporter Jill Venojska: "[Sean] Hannity was one of the first Fox celebs to arrive, along with Alan Colmes, who plays the liberal frick to Sean’s conservative frack on their nightly show ('Strangle each other,' one photographer called out helpfully as they posed on the red carpet)." OK, that's fine; "foetogs" sometimes earn their reputation, being rowdy and encouraging others to be rowdy, as they search out the most dramatic shot possible.

But here's the point: Hannity & Colmes didn't strangle each other, nor have they ever wanted to. They have been together on Fox, five nights a week, for ten years, subtracting for a few vacation days here and there, but adding, also, any number of weekend specials. So they've been together for roughly 2500 shows.

And yet they still have a good rapport, even friendship, I would say. That's pretty remarkable, and it shows, on the air. Hannity & Colmes prove that people on TV can disagree without being disagreeable.

And that's a huge plus on TV, a plus which lifts H & C way above the pack.

In Cold Blood




On Saturday at 9 pm ET, FNC's Greta Van Susteren will present, "Crime Scene: The Amish Schoolhouse Murders." Looks like required viewing to me. Cable is sometimes attacked for devoting too much time to "true crime" stories, but this case is grimly fascinating; and of course, the issues of school-safety are so important that all parents--and all Americans--should be paying close attention, to learn whatever lessons can be learned.

"Fox celebrates, you decide"




...that's the headline atop a thoughtful piece on FNC's 10th anniversary by Verne Gay, appearing in Newsday this morning. Gay recalls the freshness of Fox compared to its rivals:

"No one would be bored by Ailes' FNC. His war wasn't only declared on CNN and other news rivals, but on the traditions of TV news presentation itself. With cross-fades, dissolves, jump-cuts and 'phasing' - a TV audio term that denotes the swooshing effect that's now a veritable FNC trademark - the characteristic on-screen look of FNC was to become a riot of motion and information. The lower third of the screen was jammed with even more info and visuals - including the much-copied crawl. FNC became, in due course, even better looking than its rivals."

That's not all there is to Fox, of course, but it's worth recalling that call it a teleVISION.

"You ain't seen nothin' yet"




The Hollywood Reporter's take on the Fox News Party in NYC last night. Roger Ailes, still full of fight at 66, ready to take the cable-game battle to the next level.

Among the many big shots in attendance: Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, Mike Bloomberg--and, in the spirit of fair and balanced, former Democratic mayor of NYC, David Dinkins.

Meanwhile, the "Fox & Friends" gang rang in the NASDAQ yesterday.

Boycott CNN?





Here's one reason why.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

This is Insana




Awhile back, we reported that CNBC's Ron Insana was leaving the network to start a hedge fund. It looks like I was wrong--or misinformed. Oh well, I am always eager to correct myself, or to be corrected, as I struggle to make sense of the complicated cable game.

But sometimes, it's not easy. Now I see today, on "Marketwatch," that while Insana has in fact, started a newsletter and joined up with a hedge fund, he is staying on at CNBC. I guess he has a lot of talent! I wish him the best, of course, in his various ventures--assuming that he can sort them all out in his head.

But at minimum, Insana owes viewers and the rest of us a careful delineation of his various endeavors.

"The dominant news source for the world"




Roger Ailes will be remembered as the anti-Ted Turner. Or maybe Ted Turner will be remembered as the anti-Roger Ailes. Or maybe as the pre-Roger Ailes. If Ailes is right in his forecast, here in the pages of The New York Observer, that Fox will become in the next decade, "the dominant news source for the world," then Turner will be an afterthought, or maybe a pre-thought.

Two theories about what's wrong with CNN--and how to fix it



Here are two theories as to what's wrong with CNN:

Theory #1 holds that CNN's weakness is that it looks drab, that it needs to catch up with Fox, or exceed Fox, on nifty graphics.

Theory #2 holds that CNN's problem is that its editorial stance is wrong, that it too-easily defaults to a kind of pro-Third World anti-Americanism.

If Theory #1 is correct, then CNN's new computer will fix the problem. As detailed here, CNN is about to unveil a computerized "news wall" that will give CNN a new "look," which will feature, in the words of proud president Jon Klein, a lot of energy and a lot of information."

But what if its the "information" itself that is the problem? That is, what if the information being dispensed onscreen--by computer or by old-fashioned human voice--is offputting or annoying to viewers? If that's the case, then the more information, the fewer the viewers.

And so to Theory #2: that CNN is wrong, editorially. Yes, we should have free speechm, but the flip side of free speech is that the audience doesn't have to listen--doesn't have to be an audience. And so a revealing item from the always-valuable "NewsBusters," headlined, "CNN Enlists CAIR To Attack Rep. Peter King." CAIR, of course, is the Council on American Islamic Relations, which is fairly described as a pro-Muslim group, with a strongly ACLU-ish take on current politics. Which is to say, like the ACLU, CAIR tends to be emphasize an extreme view of "individual rights" over a larger patriotic or nationalistic view of social cohesion or national well-being.

The NewsBusters piece, written by Dan Riehl, notes that CNN's Jason Carroll was relying on CAIR in its effort to discredit the arugments made by Peter King, who is the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

Now let's think about this King vs. CAIR set-to as a study in political dynamics. King is an eight-term Member of Congress. He has the affection of his congressional district, for openers. He is a popular figure within the Republican Party, but he has an independent streak that makes him popular and safe in his seat. And of course, the general topic of homeland security is popular; people are strongly supportive of homeland security, and they think--not without reason--that Islam is part of the problem, and that no-nonsense security measures, a la King, are part of the answer. On the other hand, the pro-CAIR/anti-King position will make Carroll a hero to the ACLU and the like. It's a choice one must make: the homeland securitizers vs. the litigators and the pro-Muslim special pleaders.

So which side is CNN on? I refer you back to NewsBusters' headline: "CNN Enlists CAIR To Attack Rep. Peter King." Does that sound like a good plan for gaining viewers? CNN and Carroll are entitled to their opinion, of course, but the rest of us are entitled to ours. And we have rendered it, at the Nielsens.

The real wall at CNN is not some new high-tech gizmo. The real wall is between CNN's ideology and the bulk of the American people.

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

J'Accuse Olbermann



With much help from the sports-oriented blogosophere, Olbermann Watch has been following a particularly complicated case of sports-misreporting. The details are all here, but what I thought was most significant for TCG readers is OW's strong conclusion, which also sums up KO's MO in areas way beyond sports:

"The shoddy journalism exemplified in the Pujols-Mihlfeld report which ran last June - lifting material directly from web sites (often without attribution), not bothering to do the most basic fact-checking it, not contacting subjects and providing them an opportunity to reply, using highly questionable information to launch hyperbolic attacks - is precisely the kind of reporting that led me to launch Olbermann Watch in 2004. The sad fact is that Keith airs these kinds of phony reports as a matter of routine. Although we report on Keith Olbermann's erratic fact-challenged form of 'journalism' on this site every day, this case is so transparently despicable and Keith's claims so egregiously slanderous that we are taking the unusual (for us) step of demanding that Olbermann stop side-stepping the issue and air a correction and apology TONIGHT!"

It's only a movie, Miles -- it's not real, even if Ted Turner put in your script




Here's Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe, the Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, noting that CNN anchor Miles O'Brien is having a hard time separating fact from fiction; this mornning, O'Brien actually cited a movie as his source on the science of global warming. It was a Fox movie, but still, Miles, it's a movie--a work of fiction. And you, Miles, are in the news business.

Here's Inhofe's press release:

"On CNN 'American Morning' today, Senator James Inhofe, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee engaged in a heated exchange with CNN newsman Miles O’Brien over CNN’s biased and erroneous coverage of global warming. Senator Inhofe questioned the journalistic integrity of CNN anchor for 'Scaring A Lot Of People' with hyped climate reporting. Senator Inhofe also questioned O’Brien about his 1992 CNN report regarding fears of a coming ice age. O’Brien responded by citing the 2004 fictional Hollywood global disaster movie 'The Day After Tomorrow' to back up his science reporting."

I report, you decide. But as for Miles, he's off at the movies. Speaking of movies, maybe Miles can help Al Gore on his next movie. At least then he would move completely over from news to advocacy, as opposed to what he is trying to do right now, which is to straddle it both ways, being half a newsman and half an advocate.

Is this Roger Ailes? The Hartford Courant Reports, Cable Game Corrects -- You Decide



The Hartford Courant's Roger Catlin offers an eccentric take Roger Ailes and Fox News--call it eccentric mixed up with inaccurate.

It's eccentric for Catlin to assert that Ailes has the "both the gravitas and grave demeanor of Alfred Hitchcock." Anybody who has seen Ailes on TV--and he had his own show on CNBC, way back when--knows that he is fast-talking, not at all like the great film director, who was notorious for stretching out his words and thoughts. Hitchcock was mock-ponderous, Ailes is rat-a-tat-tat right now.

OK, that's Catlin's opinion--free speech and all that. However, while Catlin should be free to have his opinions, he should not be free to be inaccurate.

And yet that's what Catlin did in the same article--he was wrong, bordering on malicious, when he falsely claimed that Ailes was responsible for the Willie Horton anti-crime ads in the 1988 Bush for President campaign. As responsible journalists and historians have abundantly demonstrated, the George H.W. Bush campaign did ads on the prison-furlough program of Democrat Michael Dukakis, but the Bush spots never mentioned Willie Horton, the most notorious prison-furlough-ee, by name or face. It's simply wrong, what Catlin wrote, and he should retract it.

He probably won't apologize, of course. Why should he, when all of his buddies in the old media are no doubt giving him high fives for sticking to Fox and Ailes. That's the MSM for you, still arrogant and out of touch after all these years, despite falling ratings and circulations--and that's one reason why Fox and the whole new-media movement have so much energy.

If the old media can't get it right, it's time to give someone else a chance.

"I think we'll be the dominant news source around the world"...



...that's Fox News CEO Roger Ailes, speaking to The New York Daily News in the language that "drives detractors batty," as The Orlando Sentinel's Hal Boedeker put it the other day here on TCG.

"I think we'll be the dominant news source around the world," Ailes told the News' Richard Huff. "Fairness works. It's just the way it is. Freedom depends on fairness. I'm a believer this fairness thing can catch on."

Indeed.

Monday, October 02, 2006

Good for Anderson Cooper--no kidding




The Houston Chronicle reports that CNN's Anderson Cooper is headed for Congo. That's to be applauded. There's a lot of news in Africa, and not enough coverage.

"The channel stands out in a crowded news landscape by attracting admirers and driving detractors batty"



The Orlando Sentinel's Hal Boedeker sums up the situation, Fox at 10, perfectly: "The channel stands out in a crowded news landscape by attracting admirers and driving detractors batty."

Is Insana Crazy--or crazy like a fox (not to be confused with Fox)




Ron Insana, formerly of CNBC, has started a hedge fund.

I always liked him on cable, and if I have a spare million or two, maybe I'll toss some his way.

The British Invasion




The Hollywood Reporter’sSteve Brennan offers an important overview of the BBC’s ambitious plans inside the US. The headline, including the word “assault,” gives us a sense of the ambition, and aggressiveness, of the plans of “The Beeb.”

Most Americans don’t worry much about Britain, of course, but they might pause to reflect that the BBC is government-owned and government-financed. And it’s huge, far dwarfing American PBS. And it’s also ideological, tilting in an anti-American, anti-Israel direction. And that’s despite the government of Tony Blair. So what happens when Blair is no longer PM of the UK? Well, who knows. And that’s the point. Americans should think twice about turning over their culture to a foreign-government-owned entity.

Jim Pinkerton, a Fox News contributor, actually wrote about this potentially ominous phenomenon of "State Owned Main Stream Media" here, in the pages of TCSdaily.com.

"Hodge Podge Lodge"




That's one network exec's pithy-but-nasty sum-up of CNBC's primetime lineup.

The business cabler is making changes, with shows such as "Mad Money" and "Fast Money," but here's a rule of thumb for cable gamers: any network that still provides a venue for Donnie Deutsch is still a vanity-fair playpen for rich egomaniacs. Which reminds me: Whatever happened to Tina Brown's CNBC show? And Michael Eisner's CNBC show?

No Spin for Pinheads




USA Today's Peter Johnson offers an insightful take on Fox News' upcoming 10th anniversary. Front page, above the fold, even!

In the piece, Bill O'Reilly makes a great point about how anchors such as him have changed the news biz: "Politicians used to be able to come on TV and read a rehearsed answer, and Cronkite and Huntley and Brinkley and those guys had to swallow it. They couldn't give them the O'Reilly arched eyebrow or tell them they were a pinhead."

Exactly. Viewers had always wanted a no-spin zone, but it took O'Reilly to finally give it to them, consistently. O'Reilly continues: "You now have a country that expects analysis on TV, where 10 years ago it only existed on the Sunday talk-show brainiac slot."

That's the reality of Fox News, and how it has changed the mediascape.

"We have forced a dialogue into the news business that didn't exist before we got here"



Howard Kurtz interviews Fox News chief Roger Ailes for The Washington Post. Kurtz's piece is interesting and amusing, insofar as it lets Ailes fly: "I've never felt out of the mainstream in America. I've felt out of the mainstream at Le Cirque." But others, too, get their say.

And while Kurtz, who works, also, at CNN, can't resist making a dig or two at Ailes, referring to him as "paunchy" (would he write that about Teddy Kennedy? would such an derisive adjective survive the Post's p.c. editors?) he makes plain that Fox has, indeed, changed the mediavironment: "We have forced a dialogue in the news business that didn't exist before."

True enough. In most places. But not so much at The New York Times, where Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse continues to conduct herself as if she were working for the American Civil Liberties Union. In the same "Style" section of the Post today, Kurtz notes a controversy involving Greenhouse, who told an audience at Harvard in June, "Our government had turned its energy and attention away from upholding the rule of law and toward creating law-free zones at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Haditha and other places around the world. And let's not forget the sustained assault on women's reproductive freedom and the hijacking of public policy by religious fundamentalism." Greenhouse defended herself by saying that everything she said in June was a "fact."

OK, got it. Liberal opinion is now fact. This might be a good time to note that another longtime Washington Post reporter, Tom Edsall, who recently took a buyout from the Post, told radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt that reporters were Democrats by a ratio of between 15:1 and 25:1.

Greenhouse would certainly fit into the left side of those ratios, and Ailes knows it. It bothered him, and it bothered a lot of people. But unlike most mere complainers, Ailes did something about it: He created Fox News. And the world has been different ever since.

Sunday, October 01, 2006

Fox News: "Love it, hate it, but can't ignore it"




That's part of the headline of a piece by Joanna Weiss in today's Boston Globe.

Weiss's story, pegged to Fox's upcoming 10th anniversary, is, to coin a phrase, "fair and balanced." That is, the Globe-woman takes note of Fox's strong public support, and its vanquishing of CNN. Yet at the same time, she gives space to Fox's critics, notably Steve Rendall of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, who slams FNC as "a right-wing, conservative, and, particularly, Bush White House propaganda mill."

That's OK, Fox can take it. Report both sides, report all sides, because FNC is confident that news-consumers are smart enough to figure out what's true, and what's not true.

That's the Fox M.O., and it's a good model for all of us, in and around the cable game, can do. So have a look.

Bill, Come Back!




Lorne Manley on the upshot of the Bill Clinton vs. Chris Wallace face-off:

"In the first three days of the week, Fox's prime time and daily ratings rose 20 percent and 13 percent, respectively, compared with the four-week average."

No wonder Roger Ailes wants Clinton back, anytime.

More Disgrace for Grace



The New York Daily News' able gossip duo of Rush & Molloy take note of Nancy Grace's plagiarism in her "book," Objection!; it seems like a page or so was pretty much verbatim from a New York Times piece.

It was "inadvertent"--an honest mistake, says the Grace camp. More accurately called the dis-Grace camp, they say will no doubt have more excuses, if they need them: I am not responsible. I was on pain-killing medication. She'll come up with all the excuses she needs, putting them on CNN Headline news if she has to, till she finds one that clicks and sticks.

Although publisher Hyperion, which lives in the no-spin zone where the publisher could actually get sued, has had to make amends in the paperback edition.

Why anybody would buy such a "book" at all? When it's obviously been cobbled and Googled together by a Grace sidekick, Diane Clehane? Seeking answers to those questions would actually make for a subject for an investigative show.