Putting the Newshounds on a Leash--a Fact-Checking Leash

Johnny Dollar does the work. C'mon Newshounds! We know you hate Fox News, but try a little harder to get your facts straight. It would actually help you in your effort to suck up to, and get jobs at, MediaMatters if you weren't so sloppy in your accusations.

A Happy Post-CNN Reunion

What happens to folks when they leave CNN? Bill Hemmer, of course, has gone on to great things at FNC. And Daryn Kagan, has started her own website, focusing on good news.

And they had a cute reunion on FNC yesterday. Sometimes new times are better than old times.

The Convergence Game--TV after TV

A prediction: It's only a matter of time before FNC ends up on MySpace.com, CNN ends up on AOL.com, and MSNBC ends up on MSN, or ends up on Live.com.

And so now to a question: Will TV end up looking more like the Net, or will the Net end up looking more like TV? I think that the answer is the latter--we're a visual culture, not a reading culture. So TV will win.

How exactly will that work? I am not sure, exactly. But TCG recalls the old saying: "The more things change, the more they stay the same." And TCG points to this article from the November 17 edition of The Financial Times, which merit a careful looksee from all those interested in the future of the the cable game. The piece, bylined by Richard Waters and Raphael Minder notes a common thread stringing together two departures from the News Corp. and AOL. Both Ross Levinsohn, ex of News, and Jonathan Miller, ex of AOL, were Net people. And as the FT authors observe, "Both men have been replaced by more experienced executives from the television business, reflecting the growing importance of video programming to the major internet portals."

News Corp's Levinsohn, of course, rates as a genius: He purchased Myspace and some other Net properties for less $600 million, and now those properties are worth somewhere between $2 and $6 billion. As for AOL's Miller, well, let's just say this and leave it at that: he tried hard.

Bingo. TCG has argued many times that the Net and cable--including cable news--will inevitably converge. That's a cliche, going back two decades to the work of TV visionary George Gilder. But now we're seeing that the Net, huge as it is, is likely destined to keep a lot of TV-like features. So "life after television" will, in fact, be a lot like "life during television."

That's good, because TCG is conservative, and doesn't like to see too-rapid change. And apparently, the same is true for most Americans--which explains why the Net-TV fusion is evolving as it is.

Fox "News Watch" Turkeys of the Year: Nancy Grace and Keith Olbermann

Jim Pinkerton carves up Nancy Grace-less as his turkey of the year on "FNW," while Cal Thomas cuts into Keith Olbermann as his turkey on the same show, albeit on something sorta petty, compared to the big stuff that KO should be KO'd on. Olbermann Watch has the video.

Vox Fox

I realize some might say that it's in poor taste, but TCG has to agree with this caller: Julie Banderas "puts the fox in Fox." And Johnny $, of course, has the video.

CNN rewrites history -- cont.

A while back--on November 11--to be exact, I pointed out that CNN doesn't hesitate to throw inconvenient data "down the memory hole."

CNN did it with Bill Maher then, and now it has done it again with another comedian, Paul Mooney. Full credit for this item goes to "Stop the ACLU" blog, taking note of CNN's extreme selectivity in its transcription process, and it's willingness to edit the truth in pursuit of a p.c. agenda:

"On the November 21st morning edition of Newsroom, CNN’s Kyra Phillips interviewed Paul Mooney,a popular black comedian and activist, and Roland Martin, a Chicago radio personality, about Michael Richards’ now notorious racist outburst. During the interview Paul Mooney referred to Kramer’s appearance as 'Jewish' and was not challenged.

"CNN publishes transcripts, but removed this version after two hours and edited the remark out of the original interview when they re-ran it. CNN also removed the link to the original transcript on the official CNN Transcript page. The original transcript remained available through the Google cache, however. So all references to this racist remark by a known black activist and comedian who specializes in racial humor were removed."

In other words, a double standard: If CNN likes you, they cover up for you--even distort the truth. But if CNN doesn't like you, well, watch out!

Graceless

Nancy Grace finds herself sued over the sad case of Melinda Duckett. TCG is no legal wiz, so I can't speak to the merits of the case. But to me, everything that one might need to know about Nancy Disgrace is summed up in the fact that she and CNNHN chose to air the segment in which she bullied the obviously distraught mother the day after the mother committed suicide. That's right: having at least contributed to the woman's early death, Grace & Co. chose to profit from her demise, by airing the show anyway. No respect for the dead, at minimum. And at maximum--well, that's for the courts to decide now.

Humor in FNC Future?

Fox is reportedly looking at a humor show. "It would tip more right as 'The Daily Show' tips left,' Executive Producer Joel Surnow told The Hollywood Reporter. Surnow, of course, is hot stuff--being the creator of the right-leaning "24."

Interesting possibility. There's no reason why the left has to control humor in the popular culture. While the left is typically more iconoclastic--iconoclasm being one source of humor--the right is more aware of human foibles. And human foibles are an even bigger source of humor.

So there's plenty of room for such a show on FNC. These are times that could make us cry--so it's better to laugh, instead.

Why does Tucker Carlson still have a show?

Jossip wants to know why the ratings-deficient smart-ass fratboy still has a show on MSNBC, and come to think of it, so do I.

Victory for Fox News! Defeat for Judith Regan!

I will admit that I never liked Judith Regan. I know that she's a big deal in the publishing world, but I remember her when she had a show on FNC, and I never liked her then. As I remember the show, she mostly ragged on men, talking about how they were all "muskrats."

Trashing men--all men? That is something that TCG definitely does NOT believe in! So I was happy when the show got cancelled.

And now, of course, she has demonstrated her unsavoriness to the world, with that nutty O.J. Simpson book deal, which was scheduled to be published by HarperCollins, with a spinoff show to be broadcast on the Fox TV--that's Fox broadcast, not to be confused with FNC. As everyone knows by now that whole misbegotten plan has been kiboshed. Hoo-ray.

And I think one of the reasons for the Simpson/Regan deal getting derailed was the uproar from the Fox News channel, most notably Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo Rivera, although I saw everyone--except for Ellis Henican--trashing it on "Fox News Watch" over the weekend, too.

But that's just my opinion; I report, you decide. Here's some solid reporting from TV Week's Michele Greppi, recapping the whole sorry saga:

"Not all of the pressure came from the public and Fox affiliates. Fox News Channel star Bill O'Reilly had railed against the special on his popular 'The O'Reilly Factor.' Mr. O'Reilly urged people not to watch it and said he would boycott any advertisers who bought time in the program. Geraldo Rivera, anchor of 'Geraldo at Large' on Fox-owned TV stations, appeared on 'Good Morning America' Monday to explain why he thought the project was a bad idea."

Hard to argue with O'Reilly and Geraldo. I don't think that there was ever much danger that ordinary people would confuse Fox broadcast and Fox News, but the heroism of FNCers helped guarantee that not only would Judith Regan be prevented from polluting the FNC image, but in addition, she would be prevented from polluting the country as a whole.

That's a good couple of days' work for the FNC team.

WND's Aaron Klein: "Stop Attacking Fox News"

OK, now I will admit that I am confused. Willing to forgive, maybe, but still confused--and darn suspicious of this Aaron Klein, and also of WorldNet Daily.

WND's Klein posts a new article this morning, under the headline,"Stop Attacking Fox News."

Klein now flatly asserts that he doesn't think that Fox News paid a ransom to win the freedom of FNC journalists Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig. Klein now writes, "I can can state categorically I don't believe Fox News paid any money or knew any money was paid." And he adds, with a note of regret, "Unfortunately, many used my article to claim Fox News paid the ransom – a contention I never made or implied."

OK, that's pretty good for November 20. Unfortunately, back on November 14, Klein was sounding, and implying, a different tune. A look back at that piece shows plenty of slippery language, such as this: "Palestinian terror groups and security organizations in the Gaza Strip received $2 million from a U.S. source in exchange for the release of Fox News employees Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig, who were kidnapped here last summer, a senior leader of one of the groups suspected of the abductions told WND."

And then, lower in the same 11/14 piece, was this headline: "Fox source says it's possible" To repeat, that was a headline--hard to miss!

And then this text, underneath that header: "A spokeswoman for Fox News Channel told WND she could not provide an official statement about whether Fox was aware of money paid to free its two employees." Note the weasely phrasing from Klein here: The Fox News spokeswoman "could not provide an official statement"--the clear implication being that the the spokeswoman might have something to Klein on deep background.

But then Klein adds this: "A source at Fox told WND many parties were involved with the freedom of Centanni and Wiig, including the U.S. government, and that it was possible money was paid." What "source" was that? Who might that be? Klein wants us to think that FNC is filled with people willing to talk with him--and that he gleaned his information from a mosaic of different sources, so it must be true. But it's more likely that he got one spokeswoman from FNC on the phone, and that she told him nothing--which hasn't stopped Klein from spinnning his web of innuendo every which way since.

But then, just to stamp home the insinuation that Fox paid the ransom, Klein added this on Nov 14: "A State Department spokesman said his agency did not pay for the release of the Fox News employees." Klein treats that denial at face value.

Thus the clear conclusion to be drawn from Klein 11/14 story: Somebody paid a ransom--"a U.S. source." But that source was not the US government. And FNC denies it, sort of, but not very convincingly, in Klein's telling. So who's left to have paid the money? Some American sugar daddy? That's possible, of course--but it's hard to shake the impression, which Klein clearly wanted to leave, that the "U.S. source" was connected to FNC somehow.

Klein's real point, in writing his November 14 piece, was to attack whoever was paying the money to the Gaza Palestinians. His argument, no doubt correct, was that any ransom money would go to finance terror: As Klein wrote of one such Palestinian figure a week ago: "The terror leader, from the Gaza-based Popular Resistance Committees, said his organization's share of the money was used to purchase weapons, which he said would be utilized 'to hit the Zionists.' He said he expects the payments for Centanni and Wiig's freedom will encourage Palestinian groups to carry out further kidnappings." So that's the angle that Klein was working: He was obviously outraged at the Palestinians getting more money for terror, and wanted his readers to be outraged, too. But the problem was that in seeking to stoke up outrage, he was tarring Fox.

No wonder FNC went ballistic on Klein and WND, followed by other observers and bloggers--including yours truly, on 11/16.

And now, on 11/20, Klein says that he was misunderstood. But he is still weaseling around, still picking on Fox, to wit, this whining graf from the new piece, in today's WND: "Prior to the release of the article, I asked Fox News repeatedly over the course of two weeks for comment. The network was told exactly what would be in my report. But Fox's public-relations department refused to issue a statement." Oh boo hoo for Klein. In other words, it's Fox's fault for not talking to him.

And then it gets worse; here's what Klein writes next, which makes me so mad that I am bolding it for emphasis: "Off the record, Fox News sources admitted it was possible the terror gangs were paid off by an entity involved in the negotiations and that the news channel did not know about it. " There's the sleazy journalist's friend: the imaginary "off the record" source. But Klein is so sleazy that he even violates the "otr" source's confidentiality! If that source exists, which I strongly doubt, he or she should be outraged! But Klein shouldn't worry: just as you can't libel the dead, neither can you outrage the non-existent.

And by the way, who is Klein talking to? Here's a revealing passage from the new piece, which echoes some of the author's bragadoccio from the original story: "I talked over the course of one month to the terror cell of the alleged kidnappers; to leaders of the overall terror group suspected of the abductions; to various other terror gangs and security organizations in the Palestinian territories." Got that, reader? Klein is in thick with the terrorists.

Does such hanging with terror homeboys make Klein a trustworthy and reliable journalist for WND? Or do such associations, make him a potential stooge for the bad guys? A "useful idiot" for evil doers?

This story needs more investigating, but it looks to me as if Klein is someone who would easily and recklessly smear Fox News, endangering the lives of legitimate journalists across the Middle East, all for the sake of a quick buck or a cheap headline.

About that John Moody Memo...

...the left-wing Huffington Post is all excited over the leak of a November 8 memo from Fox News VP John Moody, in which he wrote, "The Iraqi insurgents ... must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled Congress." The HuffPosties are are besides themselves with glee and outrage, of course--"There are [sic] just plain scum! There is no honor in them at all--is a typically articulate comment from a typically Fox-bashing "HuffPo" reader.

And in fact, more Moody memos seem to be leaking out--Slate.com has a bunch of 'em.

To which The Cable Game says, "Bring 'em on!" Bring on all the editorial memos, from all the networks and media outlets. No news operation can survive without some sort of editorial guidance--it's also called "leadership." What shall be the priorities? What shall the resource allocation? Important questions; the fate of any outfit rests on finding suitable answers.

So let's see what's really going on behind the scenes at Fox, and also at the other news networks. People are tired of being presented to by a bunch of inflated fakes. They want to go behind the scenes, and they are smart enough to handle the truth.

Speaking of the truth, I, for one, don't doubt for a second that Moody is right--that the terrorists were delighted that the Republicans got thumped on Election Day. If I were Al Qaeda in Iraq, of course I'd want the Democratic Party, which promises pressure towards withdrawal of US forces, to win and hopefully force a pullout of US troops from Iraq. So if Moody says that the terrorists will be celebrating, and that Fox should cover their celebrations, what's wrong with that? That's shrewd news judgment, as to where the story is. Now if FNC were to have then made up a news account of terrorists celebrating, that would be a whole different story. But in fact, there's plenty of evidence that the "axis of evil" countries, and their ilk, were pleased by the election results--so Moody was vindicated.

In the meantime, I am more curious as to what CNN's chiefs are telling their underlings--what was the editorial process that led to that "broken government" series a week before the election? What are the instructions going to such Bush-bashers as Miles O'Brien and Jack Cafferty?

And what's gotten into MSNBC? I would like to see the evolution of Dan Abrams' thinking, now that he has decided to Olbermann-ize the network, to the point where even onetime Republican Joe Scarborough has become a full-time Bush-basher.

This inquiring mind would like to know, and I am sure I am not the only one. We can handle the truth.

Think Progress-ively, Act Obnoxiously

"Think Progress," a liberal website published by "The Center for American Progress" in Washington DC, must have a quota of FNC-bashing items to publish every month. That is, they have to get a certain number of posts to keep their Streisand-ish funders happy.

Which would explain this item, in which Think Progress zaps FNC's Bill O'Reilly for reminding viewers that Fox News Channel and the Fox Broadcasting Network are different entities, and that it was the latter, not the former, that is running the horrible OJ Simpson/Judith Regan "I did it" show. The idea of separating the anti-crime FNC with the weirdos who seem to control Judith Regan--including Judith Regan herself, who was booted off FNC years ago--is just too much for the McCarthyite broad-brushers at Think Progress.

But it's the truth: Nobody at FNC wants anything to do with the OJ/Regan special, as even The New York Daily News, a frequent critic of The News Corp., acknowledged on Saturday. Yes, FNC and FBC are part of the same company, but so what? The Cable Game is published by an American--does that make TCG indistinguishable from Think Progress? Of course not: We are different, just as FNC and FBC are different.

Sorry, Think Progress: If you want to keep your credibility, you will have to find another club with which to bash Fox News.

Hell Freezes Over -- But then Olbermann Heats Up Again

MSNBC's highest-rated lowlife, Keith Olbermann, threatened a physical attack on FNC's Bill O'Reilly on Thursday, according to the great blog, Inside Cable News.

It seems that Olbermann was musing aloud on ESPN that if he, KO, were competing against BOR on "Dancing with the Stars" that he, KO, would cut O’Reilly’s hamstring with a surgeon’s knife or "do a Nancy Kerrigan" on him--i.e. hire someone to smash O’Reilly in the knee with a metal rod. Pretty funny, huh? No wonder liberals love Olbermann.

As Olbermann Watch records, O'Reilly quickly apologized, but of course, KO was soon enough back to attacking BOR and FNC. Evidently advocating physical harm is a bit too much for the lawyers at MSNBC and parent-company NBC--a big lawsuit could cut into Bob Wright's bonus--but KO's normal trashing of BOR and FNC? Well, that's holy writ for the left. And so of course KO will never stop performing that liberal liturgy.

So don't worry: KO might have suffered a brief bit of lawyer-inspired remorse for advocating violence on the air, but he sobered up quickly, and now he's back to his old ways. The psychic hell in which Olbermann dwells is once again plenty hot.

Fox no doubt wears such scorn as a badge of honor

"The ever-irritating FOX news network." You know what irritates me? Terrorism, and those who attempt to justify, rationalize, or contextualize terrorism. That really irritates me.

WND Should Be Ashamed of Itself

I have been a fan of WorldNetDaily for a long time, and have even posted favorably about some of its reportage in the past. But no more. Never again. Not after WND defamed Fox--without real proof--and endangered the lives of Americans and reporters around the world.

WND has crossed a big fat red line with its allegation that Fox News--maybe--paid a ransom to the terrorists who kidnaped FNC newsmen Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig. WND has given aid and comfort to our ideological opposites inside the US, and, beyond our shores, has given aid and comfort to our mortal enemies.

I read the November 14 story, written by one Aaron Klein, and the precise wording is weasely in the extreme: maybe, the story alleges, FNC paid the ransom, maybe the US government paid the ransom. Maybe the Man on the Moon paid the ransom, because there's not a scintilla of evidence, let alone proof, anywhere in the story!

For its part, Fox says, flatly, it didn't happen. Roger Ailes and John Moody have both said that "no no News Corp entity, including Fox News, nor the families of the kidapped journalists, paid any money for their release." Now of course, plenty people have denied things that strongly in the past, and of course, sometimes, they are proved to be lying.

But WND has offered no such proof. Instead the site merely spun a web of allegations and blind quotes, leading one to wonder: is a) WND just corrupt, insofar as it allows fantasist "reporters" to have access to its pages, or is it b) somehow in cahoots with the terrorists so as to get this sort of access to them? We've seen CNN playing that snaky game in Iraq, surely WND doesn't want to make the same moral mistake in the Palestinian territories.

And now WND is digging in its heels, sort of: WND editor Joseph Farah said on Wednesday, "We stand 100 percent behind Aaron Klein's story today about the release of kidnap victims Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig."

But then, intererestingly enough, Farah added, "The statement by Roger Ailes completely distorts what our story carefully reported. Nowhere in our story did we ever allege, as Ailes' statement said, that Fox News paid $2 million for release of the terrorist hostages."

That's funny of Farah to say that, to try to climb back down off the ledge WND climbed on to. But the only way to do such climb-downing would be retracting the story altogether. In the meantime, Farah's tricky statement does not explain the headline on the original November 14 piece--still posted on the web--which reads "Terrorists: Fox News reporters freed for $2 million."

Here's the real issue, and it's not the fate of Fox News, it's the fate of individual reporters operating in dangerous zones--it's those journalists whom Fox put at risk. Fox is a big boy, as it were. FNC's reputation as a pro-American, terrorist-fighting, morally clear news operation will survive this incident intact, because everyone knows what Fox stands for.

But when WND insinuates that FNC paid a ransom, that puts every reporter at risk. Why? Because now, thanks to this bit of dishonest reporting, every Fox reporter--and by extension, every Western reporter--has a figurative price tag on his or head, a tag which reads, "Kidnap me and collect $2 million!" It's not true, of course, but the terrorists don't necessarily know that. And what do you suppose those reporter-kidnaping terrorists will do when they figure out that they can't collect a ransom out of some poor journo? It won't be pretty, that's for sure, and the ugliness--and maybe the blood--will be on WND's hands.

In the meantime, WND has simply opened up a division in the media that the far-left blogosphere is is going to exploit. In fact, it's already happening. The lefty outfit Alternet.org showed how much damage has already been done by the WND story when it crowed: "There's simply too much Fox fun to be had these days." Yeah, ha ha. And I am sure that Al-Jazeera is making the most of this item, too. WND, Alternet, and Al-Jazeera: there's a motley crew of possible unlikely allies.

Once again, if WND has proof, as opposed to just blind quotes that could have come to them a la Jayson Blair, then WND should offer such proof up to the world (although even if they do have proof, which I don't believe for a second, one could still ask why they thought it was necessary to run with this story). But if WND doesn't have proof, and I am sure that that's the case, then WND is acting terribly irresponsibly, hurting not only Fox, but also, hurting all Western/foreign reporters who might be operating anywhere in the Middle East, or, for that matter, elsewhere in the world, by making them seem like tempting and enriching targets.

To repeat: WND should be ashamed of itself.

Layoffs at MSNBC...

...the LA Times , which knows something about layoffs, has the all the gruesome details. So why is Bob Wright smiling? And why hasn't he been laid off? His salary and bonus probably would've covered the salaries of every one of those who have gotten the axe.

Cavuto on Faith and on "The Cavuto"

OK, so Jon Stewart makes fun of Neil Cavuto. For his part, Cavuto, who everyone agrees is a nice guy, takes it all in stride, as recorded in this thoughtful piece bylined by Julie Hinds and published in The Detroit Free Press, which reports on FNC's epic "Thank You America" tour, now wrapping up.

After all, anyone who has survived cancer in the past--and who is dealing with MS now--has plenty of occasion to have a good perspective. And yet at the same time, if he has a sunny disposition--well, there's someone you have to like. And watch.

CNN: America under the Democrats is getting better all the time!

With apologies to Olivia Newton-John, let's get metaphysical here. When is good news bad news? And when is good news good news? First answer: When CNN says so. Second answer: When the the Democrats are around to get some of the credit, taking it away from Republicans.

Newsbusters' Scott Whitlock lays it all out, detailing how CNN's Dan Lothian reported that falling gas prices are due to "a recovery. Now that's a nonsensical term, since commodity prices typically rise with economic growth, as higher demand kicks in. The ultimate source of all prices, of course, is supply and demand--and supply and demand almost always thwarts any attempt at politicization or manipulation.

But before the election, Whitlock notes, CNN's Jack Cafferty and Ali Velshi, both, were eager to suggest that maybe those evil oil companies were pulling strings to help George W. Bush and the Republicans.

But now that the Democrats control half of Washington, falling gas prices are due to the "recovery"--which has been building momentum for eight days now, since November 7, according to CNN.

The Fox Guide

Super-blogger Johnny Dollar provides us with a great gift a list of all websites and blogs created by FNC personalities.

It's a lot of fun! A real keeper of a resource!!

Fox News in the Zone--the War Zone

I did a doubletake at first, but yup, there it is: The New York Times gave Fox News a nice write-up!

I mean, it wasn't on the front page, or the editorial page, or anything, it was just a nice sweet mention, detailing the extra effort made by US GI's in Iraq to get their hands on a satellite dish so that they could watch FNC. As First Sergeant Kevin Lyons, of Third Armored Cavalry Regiment, said, "At night we stayed up late just to watch Fox News." The Times reports, and readers get to decide--what a concept!

An Olbermann Tribute--Not!

From Olbermann Watch. Maybe if you drank less, Keith, you wouldn't sound so sloppy on the air.

Earth to MSNBC's Dan Abrams: Third Place is Still Third Place--Unless it's Fourth Place

Media Week's Anthony Crupi provides an excellent sum-up of the election night cable game.

Crupi gives us the ratings data--Fox #1, CNN #2, MSNBC #3 among news outfits--but then adds, without further comment, a mention of a memo that MSNBC general manager Dan Abrams wrote to staffers, in which Abrams claimed that the network "had the best competitive ratings in recent memory for a major news event," and added, "the last two months represent a major turning point at this network."

Crupi keeps a straight face through such posturing, but then adds at the end that MSNBC not only finished behind Fox and CNN, it also finished behind Comedy Central. So finishing fourth counts as a "major turning point" for MSNBC?

Now that is a laugh!

CNN rewrites history

Not for the first time, of course, as those of us who remember the phony-balony Vietnam Vet-bashing "Tailwind" story on CNN know full well.

Still, this is pretty flagrant assault on the truth. When I say truth I don't mean to endorse what Bill Maher said; the reality is that Maher said it on CNN, and Minitrue--oops, I mean CNN--shouldn't seek to vaporize that reality. It would be OK if they simply said "objectionable material removed," but instead, CNN just got all Orwellian on the record.

Update: Here's The New York Post's "Page Six" on the Maher story.

Where's the Outrage at Joe Scarborough?

NewsBusters, with help from a whole punch of bloggers and close observers, busts MSNBC but good today.

As NewBuster Noel Sheppard explains, "On Thursday’s “Scarborough Country,” the host admitted that MSNBC looped the Dittocam video of Rush Limbaugh gesticulating like Michael J. Fox to make it look like it went on longer than it did."

Can you imagine if Fox News had gotten caught doing that? Or if Joe Scarborough had gotten caught doing that--back when he was a Republican? The MSM would have crucified him.

But of course, now that Scarborough has been thoroughly Olbermann-ized--and the fact that he and his show would stoop to dirty tricks to defame Rush Limbaugh only provides more proof that the old Joe is now a new Jacques--he is safe from MSM criticism. So it's up to the conservative blogosphere to raise some hell on this.

A Harold Ford Jr. Trial Balloon for FNC?

Brian Kilmeade floats the idea of the very cool (and just defeated in a close contest) Congressman to shift over, from Capitol Hill to The Cable Game, on "Fox & Friends," and Johnny $ records it. (And be sure to listen for the Howard Dean scream!)

But seriously folks, I think that there is something to this--Brian seemed pretty sure of himself.

Brian Williams didn't look happy to share the set with Keith Olbermann...

...Do you blame him? NBC anchorman Brian Williams is a nice enough guy--albeit maybe a bit boring and a bit unreflective about his place in the mostly liberal broadcast-news cosmos.

But even his enemies--if Brian has any to speak of, which I doubt--don't accuse him of trafficking in distortion, innuendo, and outright lies. Which is to say, Williams is nothing like Keith Olbermann--Olbermann has the nasty side of the street all to himself. As documented by many bloggers, including "Olbermann Watch,", Olbermann is a nasty, vindictive guy.

So now that I have finally had time to watch my TiVo'd coverage of Election Night from MSNBC. The overwhelming impression I got was this: while MSNBC's coverage was allegedly co-anchored by Olbermann and Chris Matthews, it was Matthews who did all the work and asked all the questions.

Olbermann was often invisible during the on-air exchanges: Matthews would turn to Tom Brokaw, and Tim Russert for answers. (Maybe Olbermann was busy blogging for some left-wingers somewhere--or maybe he was e-mailing Karma Bites.)

Indeed, as the evening went on, I began to wonder if Olbermann was even on the set--maybe he was sneaking off for a tipple.

Come to think of it, after being shunned, on the air, by the "adults" at NBC, it's easy to see why KO would be drinking early and often.

Fox Biz Channel Update...

...sort of. There's no real news to report, other than various tea-leaves readings, about Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes. But Business Week has those, at least.

Happy News

MSNBC's Alison Stewart married fellow MSNBC-er (and sometime movie scriptwriter) Bill Wolff on Sunday.

The Cable Game wishes them the best!

PS: Because TCG is feeling so festive, I will refrain from mentioning Bill's involvement in one of the bomb-iest shows ever on MSNBC. And in this case, I don't mean "bomb" in the positive sense. Alison Stewart is, indeed, Da Bomb, but ___ was simply a bomb.

MSNBC's Chris Matthews: Democrats are "Fantastic!"

This is in The Washington Post's "Reliable Sources" column today:

"That'll be fantastic news. Uh, it'll be huge news, I should say."

-- Democratic-staffer-turned-TV-commentator Chris Matthews on MSNBC Tuesday night, reacting to Chuck Todd 's prediction that a Democratic takeover of the House could presage the same in the Senate.

Matthews not only reports, he also supports!

"Fox's election coverage lived up to its motto"

That's the headline atop Jon Friedman's piece on Fox News' coverage of Election Night. The subhead was "So 'fair and balanced,' it was actually a bit dull at times"--which I thought was a little harsh, since the FNC team did a great job.

But read Friedman, and decide for yourself. And note his hat-tip to FNC p.r. operation!

Fox had the most experienced team on Election Night

But don't take my word for it: Trust The New York Observer's Rebecca Dana, who was behind the scenes at Fox News in NYC, recalling the prodigious success of Michael Barone in calling the 2004 presidential election for George W. Bush. Dana also noted anchor Brit Hume's fuel supply for Election Night: "three bottles of Poland Spring, two chocolate-chip chewy granola bars, Ziploc baggies filled with pretzels, popcorn and black licorice, and a half-drunk liter of Pepsi."

Fox not getting credit from the buzzster media

"Foxsports.com is outpacing ESPN.com. But it's never talked about." Imagine that.

"CNN aids terrorists"

I report, you decide. A hotel in North Dakota yanks CNN from its coverage, in the wake of the CNN sniper video.

Scarborough: "Republicans' Hopes Appear to fading fast..."

"...The Republicans are on the run in red states and blue states alike." That's Joe Scarborough, savaging Republicans yet again, just now on MSNBC. Not content to trash Bush and the GOP himself, Scarborough intro'd a package from liberal Tom Brokaw, who talked about "accountability and credibility," or lack thereof from George W. Bush. "Why can't they admit they're wrong?" Brokaw said of the Bush administration.

And Joe then intro'd a panel of Joe Klein, Arianna Huffington, and Pat Buchanan. That's two liberals and one conservative. And of course, Buchanan, while certainly a conservative, is a Bush-basher, too. So Bush doesn't have a chance on this upcoming segment. It was a three-zip anti-W.

Here's a typical "question" from Scarborough to Klein: "Things really look bleak for the GOP." To be honest, there wasn't really a question mark to be added in that sentence. It was simply a statement, from ex-GOP Joe.

After 10 minutes of Bush-bashing, Scarborough teased his next segment, on Florida, "Coming up," Joe chortled, "President Bush stood up Charlie Crist." That would be the Republican gubernatorial nominee, who evidently shied away from being seen with W. That's fine, free country, and all that. But Joe is loving it too much. He is surely due for a raise from MSNBC, but Republicans and conservatives--and most of all those who simply want fairness--should lay him off.

CNN to the rescue--of the Democrats

That's not quite the headline of the Ace of Spades blog, but it's close enough to capture the true spirit of CNN's midterm election coverage.

NewsBusters busts Cafferty, not that Cafferty cares

CNN's Jack Cafferty called Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld "an obnoxious jerk and a war criminal" on "The Situation Room" on Monday, and NewsBusters got down every word.

Needless to say, Wolf Blitzer didn't seek to contradict Cafferty. Why should he? CNN is on a roll--a Bush-bashing roll of incredible proportions. And if the Democrats win big enough on Tuesday, maybe the victorious donkeys will establish a subsidy program for liberal networks that few people watch.

"CNN video disgusting"

If I had to pick one cable news-related story that's still buzzing out there, in the blogosphere, and in the minds of Americans, even if the MSM has no interest, it's CNN's "snipergate" story, referring to the October 18 airing of video, on "Anderson Cooper 360," in which Americans are shown--everything except the final moment--being stalked and killed by Islamic snipers in Iraq. CNN defends its editorial decision.

But Leola M. Gould, of Shiremanstown, PA, clobbers CNN's scummy and self-serving arguments. The mother of two children in the military--both having served in the Iraqi theater of operations--she has published a letter to The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, PA in which she gets right to the point about CNN's anti-American behavior. Here she is, in her own words:

"I am shocked and disgusted that CNN would accept this horrifying video from our enemies and air it with no regard for our soldiers or their families. In my opinion, they are aiding the enemy and should be ashamed.

"But, I know they have the right to show it. They have the right to air anything they want. Thanks to our military men and women, we live in a free country. I just hope they remember that it was the soldier who died in that video and all the others who fought and died before him who made it possible for them to have that right."

TCG predicts that CNN will eventually have to apologize for that video--the only question is how much they bleed first before they own up to making a terrible mistake. But of course, CNN's blood, in this instance, is purely metaphorical. The GI's blood is all too real.

Fox: Fair & Balanced

But it takes two to tango. And the irony is that FNC includes, among its contributors, some of the harshest critics of Fox imaginable. Remember Jeff Cohen, on Fox's "News Watch" and occasionally other shows? He was about as left as they come, and he was on Fox for a years till he quit to go to work for Phil Donahue at MSNBC.

And Cohen was replaced on "News Watch" by Neal Gabler, who is less of a left-winger, but is more of a puncher; Gabler routinely pummels Fox. That's right, he's on Fox, and he regularly slams Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Neal Cavuto, and Brit Hume. And I don't mean gentle pokes, I mean slams--body slams. Just the other week, for example, he called Rush Limbaugh "a cancer on American journalism." You get the idea.

Anyway, all those AWOL Dem pols would find themselves gaining votes if they went on Fox. But in the meantime, thanks as always to super-blogger Johnny Dollar for a cleverly put together link.

Fox gets a good angle -- and some unexpected buzz!

My favorite gospel-singing newscaster, Kelly Wright, scored a great interview with Dan Rather, who recalled interviewing Saddam Hussein--Rather said that he (Saddam that is) was "not crazy," calling him instead a "stone cold killer."

The always-worthwhile Johnny Dollar has the video from Sunday's "Fox & Friends."

And pay close attention, 'cuz Rather's cell phone goes off during the segment--Kelly handles it like a champ.

Also, it was great to see Ellen Ratner & Jim Pinkerton--the "long and short"!--back on the air this morning, tussling about the election.

CNN Skews Old

That's the word from The New York Post, which notes the trouble that the Paula Zahn show is having, keeping an audience. Question: Is there any show in cable news that gets less buzz than hers?

On the other hand, senior citizens do vote, so that might be good for Lou Dobbs's presidential campaign.

Lou Dobbs running for President? If he is, that would explain a lot!

A few days ago, TCG speculated that Keith Olbermann might be thinking about running for president--as a Democrat, of course. After all, KO is a lot better spoken than the last Democrat to run for the White House! More broadly, if this is the information age, it only makes sense that figures out of the information age would seek to be leaders. I mean, as John Kerry has just reminded us, a single verbal misstep can blow you out of politics; so it might make sense to draw future candidates from television, where the whole focus of the training is to do well when the camera is rolling. Remember Ronald Reagan?

But now an intriguing item about Lou Dobbs' possible run for the presidency appears under the byline of one Wallace Baine in The Santa Cruz Sentinel. Baine doesn't put forth any evidence, let alone any sort of confirmation from Dobbs, but the writer nonetheless spins an interesting scenario about Dobbs:

"But now, with a new book dramatically titled 'The War on the Middle Class,' Dobbs has turned his nightly CNN show 'Lou Dobbs Tonight' into a platform for the pet issues he believes are threatening the American way of life.

"Dobbs could emerge as just another polarizing figure on the political scene like we really need another one of those. Those who are paying attention either look at him as a fearless truth teller to government and corporate elites, or a dangerous xenophobic nationalist stoking nativist racism for ratings. Either way, Dobbs has a very seductive message. Essentially, he says that the vast middle class in America has almost no real political representation in Washington. That's sounds like a prelude to a run for office, if you ask me. [emphasis added]

Baine is on to something. Dobbs does sound more and more like Ross Perot, another figure who pretty much began his 1992 candidacy on CNN--"Larry King Live" to be exact. It's a free country, of course; Dobbs has a perfect right to run for the White House, or any other office. But so long as he is anchoring a show at CNN, he will have to be careful to stay on the proper side of the line between news-gathering and politicking. There's a big difference between making news and gathering news, and this article suggests that we, the news-consuming public, should help Dobbs stay mindful of that distinction.

We Have a Winner in Tennessee

I don't know who is going to win the Senate race in Tennesee--and Harold Ford Jr. is seen all the time on FNC, so I have to admit to sorta liking him--but I do know one big winner already: Fox News' Shepard Smith.

He's not on the ballot, of course, but he does a great job, and he is compelling in live settings, outside of the studio. No wonder he's been on the road for so much lately. The Memphis Commercial-Appeal gave readers a sense of Shep's appeal in this terrific on-the-scene piece, written by Clay Bailey and Tom Bailey Jr. In the audience, for example, was Kathryn Nigro of Germantown. Here's a snippet from the article: "Nigro brought her children, who are homeschooled, to watch the political process and see how the show worked. She also coyly acknowledged that Smith may have contributed to her decision. 'He's not an eyesore, you know,' Nigro said." I know, too, Kathryn!

And thanks go also to C-A photog A.J. Wolfe!

Joe Scarborough Rips A Fellow Florida Republican...

... Oh wait--maybe the headline contains an erroneous planted assumption--the assumption that Harris and Scarborough are fellow Republicans. Maybe I should double-check my facts before I assume that Joe is still a Republican! Maybe I should work, instead, from the assumption that Scarborough has been completely "Olbermann-ized"--that is, "liberalized." It makes perfect sense: He is changing his stripes to fit in around MSNBC and to attract Keith Olbermann's small but buzzy audience from the previous hour on weeknights.

Scarborough certainly doesn't sound like much of a GOPer in this piece, headlined, "Katherine Harris: Always the Last to Know," in which he slams the Florida Republican Congresswoman; Scarborough even goes so far as to assert that she "will be destroyed at the polls next week." And after depicting her coldly and unflatteringly in the article, it's obvious that "newsman" Scarborough doesn't seem too unhappy about the prospect of Harris losing.

Hey Joe, why not leave the vote-influencing to others? Why not let us decide? You get paid plenty to report the news--let we, the people, go out and make the news.

There's no "balance in "MSNBC," and no "fair, either

Super-blogger Johnny Dollar has yet another must-read post. In mock-news fashion, he "announces" that Fox News has selected Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity to anchor its election night coverage. An interesting scoop, but there's a catch: It's not true, as Johnny $ acknowledges almost immediately.

What is true, as Johnny notes, is that MSNBC's election coverage will be co-anchored by Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann. Now Matthews and Olbermann are different people, with different worldviews, but they both agree on one thing, and that's Bush-bashing, and it's a safe bet that Bush-bashing will be a major component of Tuesday night's coverage. That's commentary, not news. And viewers--if there are any--should be advised that they are going to be spun by experts.

As said here first on The Cable Game, MSNBC now stands for "Mostly Seeking to Nail Bush Constantly."

Olbermann gets the buzz, but Beck gets the ratingz

TCG reader W. Devasher asks, "In all the rush to gush over Keith's numbers, has ANYONE reported, in ANY paper, blog, etc, that Glenn Beck is up 200% over HLN's last year numbers? And that this is by far the largest year to year gain in all of cable news?"

Well, W. now at least one site has reported it, thanks to your effort.

But the larger question remains: Why does the MSM continue to pick out favorites--the media equivalent of Barack Obama--and turn them into heroes? One answer: There aren't enough blogs yet, to put the MSM out of business. But we're working on it! Thanks again, W. Devasher.

"CNN Is All Wet When It Comes to Economy "

Dan Gainor, The Boone Pickens Free Market Fellow at the Business & Media Institute in Washington DC, put this headline atop his piece: "CNN Is All Wet When It Comes to Economy."

Here's the key graf: "No major news outlet is worse than CNN. It doesn’t matter whether it’s 'Network' populist Lou Dobbs or curmudgeonly Jack Cafferty, CNN is brainwashing viewers into believing there is a 'war on the middle class' led by business, conservatives and Republicans."

This liberal crew now running the network kinda makes you miss the good old days, when CNN was run by someone as comparatively fair-minded as Ted Turner.

"CNN completely abandons reality"

Redstate.com reports, you decide.

Olbermann for President?

You heard it here first! Watching Keith Olbermann's rant against George W. Bush tonight--posted on the web under the headlne, "Bush owes troops an apology, not Kerry"--it began to dawn on me that Olbermann is a far more crafty wordsmith than most partisan Democrats, and harder-hitting, too. And of course, to look at the self-satisfied smirk that's on KO's face most of the time, especially when he's trashing Republicans, it's pretty clear that he knows how smart he is. Don't get me wrong: I think Kerry was right to apologize to the troops, and I think that Olbermann is wrong to think that everything is Bush's fault. But hardcore Democrats, the kind who pick nominees, surely admire KO's articulate forcefulness.

So to review the presidential bidding: A smart guy? (Check.) Smarter than his rivals? (Check.) Plenty liberal? (Check.) Born in the US? (Check.) Over 35? (Check.) Able to command media attention? (Check.) Able to enlist even rival networks, such as CNN, which have completely gone over to the GOP-bashing side? (Double check) Then why not!? Why should't Olbermann go for it?

You wait and see--he will run, or be drafted. It will prove to be a gracious way for him to leave the ratings-challenged confines of MSNBC. Maybe he won't be ready to run for '08, but he'll run for one of these upcoming White Houses. Yes, KO has what was once called a "zipper problem," but among Democrats, as Bill Clinton proved, that's a plus, not a minus.

WND acts like WMD on CNN

Here's the lede over at WorldNet Daily: "CNN becomes 'the story,' again/Headline: 'Judge blocks law making life impossible for illegals'" It seems that CNN can't help itself--its left knee keeps jerking in favor of illegals, while at the same time jerking against elected authories; in this case, CNN implicitly criticizes the officials of Hazelton, PA, who are doing their best to practice Homeland Security on a local level, at least.

C'mon CNN: root for the rule of law, at least.

What Does Daryn Kagan Know? What Will She Say?

The weekly mag US News & World Report looks in on Daryn Kagan, and it's the lack of a story that makes the story so tantalizing. Indeed, an interestingly coy game is emerging here: Kagan, who was let go from CNN in January, won't say anything bad about CNN. But US News'Paul Bedard calls CNN "classless."

One wonders: Is Kagan really not angry at CNN, or is she simply using cut-outs, such as Bedard, to get in her digs at her old bosses, such as CNN prexy Jon Klein? After all, Kagan was there for a long time at CNN, during its pre-Fox glory days, and reportedly enjoyed a romance with Rush Limbaugh. So she has stories to tell.

But only time will tell, of course, what she wishes to tell-- when her own website goes up. And hey, Daryn, if you've got anything tid-bitty, you are always welcome to come over here and sit by The Cable Gamer.

Hope you didn't miss it...

Wayne Newton in Vegas, and Greta got him!

Nets plan Election Night Coverage

A Hollywood Reporter wrap-up.

But the French already have CNN International...

...Obviously Jacques Chirac wants to have his cake and eat it too: Update on French plans to create their own news channel.

Suppose Rush Limbaugh had said this about Don Imus

Here's Imus in his own words, from last week: "Rush Limbaugh, a fat, draft-dodging, drug addict -- jacking his maid up, having her buy dope for him -- That fat son of bitch, I mean, enough bad stuff can't happen to him."

Can you imagine the MSM uproar if Limbaugh had said this? But since it's just Imus, liberal cat's paw, the chattering classes just laugh.

You can't have it both ways with the truth, Nancy Grace

CNN Headline News' Nancy Grace has traveled to Hurrican Katrina-devastated Mississippi to help on reconstruction. It's a private visit, we are being told/spun; she is doing this good work on her "vacation."

But wait: We also learn
that the footage from her trip will be used on her show during Thanksgiving and Christmas. Which is to say, it's not a vacation at all! Her trip down there is part of her paid gig for CNN. A paid vacation--we all would like one of those!

If Nancy Grace wants to help the people of Mississippi, that's noble. But if she wants to help while being paid by CNN, well, she still might be doing some good, but the moral standing of her activity is thus transformed. She is no longer doing charity work, she is doing television work. And if she is slyly spinning/misleading the local press as to what she is doing down there along the Gulf Coast, and why, then she is doing something else, something altogether ignoble: she is lying.