WaPo's Lisa DeMoraes Whacks Larry King, Paris and Anderson Cooper

In just 111 words, this witty Postie takes down three "icons":

Larry King tripled his audience by lobbing softball questions at a vacant-looking Paris Hilton in her first TV chat since her release from jail early Tuesday.

After which, the son of Gloria Vanderbilt more than doubled his usual "Anderson Cooper 360°" crowd with his neo-ironic performance of a journalist holding his nose and whining about having to analyze King's interview with the privileged child of a gillionaire. In so doing, Cooper joined all those media columnists who for weeks had been sniffing about journalism embracing tabloid instincts in re the Paris story, only to stick their own greedy snouts into the trough holding the juiciest pop-culture gruel served up in ages.

Try as I might, I can't get more wicked than that!

The Trib's Phil Rosenthal on Larry King and the "Paris-ites"

Cable Gamers know better than to ever miss The Chicago Tribune's Phil Rosenthal, who reliably combines analysis and snarkiness in his required-reading TV column.

Phil started his latest (master)piece by noting that "Larry King Live" drew more than three million viewers--triple his normal haul. And yet here's some interesting drill-down analysis:

For all the hype -- which included coverage of Hilton's arrival and a countdown clock to the interview on CNN and Anderson Cooper's grudging post-interview attempt to bring depth to King's shallow exchange with analysis -- Fox News Channel edged CNN over the three hours of prime time, averaging 1.858 million viewers to CNN's 1.851 million in live viewing.

Next, comes Phil's snarkiness, which, of course, is entirely justified, considering the subject matter. Let's do a little play-by-play on Rosenthal's axing of the CNN show:

Imagine what the interview might have drawn had King defied expectations and asked even one question that wasn't as empty and vacuous as the jailbird heiress across from him.

Ultimately, having exhausted the damage-control answers Hilton's handlers had crafted for her, King was left to flail about for something -- anything -- to fill the hour. Hard to believe broadcast networks once were bidding for this.

That was harsh enough, but the Trib-man then bores in even harder:

The good news is King didn't botch Hilton's name. It was at least an even-money bet King might call her Zsa Zsa after he managed to bungle his interview the night before with surviving Beatles Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr and the widows of John Lennon and George Harrison by referring to Ringo as George.

And Phil catches King in this bit of duplicity:

It's funny. Shortly after Hilton was sentenced to jail for violating her probation on alcohol-related reckless-driving King told The Associated Press: "I think it's sad. But there's no excuse for drunk driving. None. You can't give me one good reason to drunk drive. Inexcusable."

And sends this nastygram to the king, catching him on more duplicity:

But King is a man capable of setting aside his personal beliefs when he deems it expedient. He was quoted shilling "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" in ads with the quote: "Finally, a movie worth seeing over and over again!" He didn't disavow the quote, yet later told the Los Angeles Times: "I had no idea what was going on. I turned to my wife and said, 'What is this movie about? I don't get it!'"

In other words, the only way he would see it over and over again would be to try to make sense of it.

Which pretty much sums up "Larry King Live," when you think about it.

Ouch!

The Cable Gamer might observe on her own that Larry King has had a great career. But now, it's obviously time for him to retire, before he really embarrasses his remaining audience.

Sean Delonas Is Worth a Thousand Words

Aside from its overall attitude, The New York Post is probably best known, specifically, for "Page Six."

But since a lot of folks read "Page Six" online, they are like to miss the brilliant cartoons of Sean Delonas, which appear on "Page Six" (which is usually more like page 14, in the hard copy of the paper).

This one, pictured above, is typical of Delonas' style--intricately worked, funny--and also, obviously, of particular interest to Cable Gamers.

CNN's Jon Klein: "Our Gimmick is News" -- But Maybe Not If "The Paris Hilton Fix" Is In!

The Cable Gamer is still mulling over Jon Klein's leadership; specifically, whatever BNN--the Bimbo News Network--might have had to do to get the interview with Paris. Might BNN have pulled its punches on the interview? Promised only softball questions, with no tough follow ups? Why, that's like accusing Larry King of not preparing for his interviews--just letting the interviewee say whatever he or she wishes, with no fear of contradiction!

Here's another take, from Steve Donohue, writing in Multichannel News:

At CNN, the bigger problem is its decreasing focus on hard news. Network anchors are adding too much opinion to stories (some viewers now immediately change channels any time Lou Dobbs begins to whine about immigration or Anderson Cooper gets on his soapbox to talk about New Orleans).

That wasn’t the way it was going to be at CNN, new president Jon Klein said after taking over. “Sizzle is out. Audiences expect substance and we deliver that in a way no one else does … we are feeling very good about the momentum we have gained and the fact that we are showcasing our reporting. Our gimmick is news,” Klein told The New York Times last June.

Let's play that tape again, as it were: "Our gimmick is news." That's a heckuva quote from Klein, wouldn't you say? As an aside, can you imagine the MSM reaction if FNC honcho Roger Ailes had said those exact same words? Why, the usual suspects--Media Matters, FAIR, plus the Columbia Journalism School and all the rest--would've demanded Ailes' resignation. But since Klein said it, and since CNN is firmly in the MSM bosom, nothing will happen.

Meanwhile, I must admit to some further thoughts on the Hilton interview, and the erosion of journalistic standards that MCN's Donohue alluded to. I am watching "Access Hollywood" right now; the show is showing a lot more journalistic chops than CNN. It is pitting quotes of Paris on Larry King last night--in which she firmly denied any drug use, now or ever--and putting them next to videos and pics of Paris, found on YouTube and elsewhere, talking about drugs, and apparently taking drugs. D'oh!

And then "AH," which doesn't seem to think much of King, keeps cutting back to clips from last night's show, showing Paris denying drug use, with no argument or serious questions from King. Kinda makes you wonder what deal--only softball questions with no follow up?--that Klein and CNN might have struck with La Hilton and her lawyers in order to get the interview.

And now I see on the same "Access Hollywood" show that King is scheduled to have Isaiah Washington, the ex-star of "Gray's Anatomy" on his show next week--I wonder if King will ask him any tough questions.

Meanwhile, here's something interesting--FNC beat CNN in prime time (8-11pm) last night, even with Paris:

8-11PM
FNC - 1,858,000 viewers
CNN – 1,851,000 viewers

Oh, and, bringing up the rear:

MSNBC – 539,000 viewers
HEADLINE NEWS - 798,000 viewers
CNBC – 287,000 viewers

Paris Hilton Busts Jon Klein's Credibility--is CNN Now the Bimbo News Network?

OK, I will admit it, I watched Paris Hilton on "Larry King King" last night. And I will further admit that I think Paris got a bad deal from the courts. We glamor girls have to stick together :-)

But there's another issue, more relevant to Cable Gamers: That is, to what degree did King's network, CNN, "bimbo" its credibility? And what about all those pious promises about hard news from CNN prexy Jon Klein?

Here's the great Glenn Garvin, writing in The Miami Herald, zinging CNN for its hypocrisy. Note, in particular, Glenn's joke at the end!

CNN is just busting its buttons over scoring the first interview with grizzled ex-con Paris Hilton, Wednesday night at 9 p.m. on Larry King's show. Only the churlish would point out that Hilton came to CNN only after the three broadcast news divisions were shamed into dropping the idea. And only the churlisher would do something as mean as point out that CNN boss Jon Klein is always bragging that his network doesn't do bimbos or car chases, just Serious News.

Klein in 2005: "Our editorial chops are alive and well. We're kicking butt everyday. The American people want serious news -- and they're not getting enough of it from cable…We are the most essential source of information for Americans. We've aligned all of our day parts to be the newsy alternatives."

Klein in 2006: "Sizzle is out – audiences expect substance and we deliver that in a way no one else does. We are feeling very good about the momentum we have gained and the fact that we are showcasing our reporting. Our gimmick is news."

Klein in 2007: "We're hoping Paris will flash her boobs on camera." Okay, I made that one up, but don't you bet he's thinking it?

And another cmpendium of Klein Quotes, courtesty of Eric Deggans of The St. Petersburg Times:

New York Times, June 26, 2006
“Our gimmick is news.”

New York Times, February 13, 2006
“Any of us can do the quick fix…it’s a deal with the devil. You confuse your identity to the audience.”

The Atlanta Journal Constitution, January 8. 2006
“Real journalists like to win the quality war.”

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, October 30, 2005
“Our stock and trade is our authority, experience, trustworthiness and objectivity. Those qualities develop over time, and you'd be shooting yourself in the foot to simply go for youth and looks at the expense of ability.”

New York Times, September 12, 2005
“There are an awful lot of things you can cover if you don’t have people tied up with this meaningless nonsense...Cable news has to stop ‘obsessing over this trivial stuff’’.

"Winning is Great; Learning is Better"

A great piece on Fox News' Brian Kilmeade from Jerry Greene of The Orlando Sentinel:

What do Terry Bradshaw, Gene Kelly, Simon Cowell, Teddy Roosevelt, Dick Cheney, Tony Siragusa and Pope John Paul II have in common?

They are all ex-jocks who learned life lessons from sports and are discussed in Brian Kilmeade's second book, It's How You Play the Game: The Powerful Sports Moments that Taught Lasting Values to America's Finest (HarperCollins, $25.95).

It's a great book: Get it here.

NewsBusters Busts Chris Matthews--Five Times!

One needn't be a fan of Ann Coulter's in order to see that Chris Matthews treated her shabbily on "Hardball" last night. I mean, there's no rule that says that she has to be booked on his show, or any show. But there is a presumption of fair play once the show gets started--and so Matthews' decision to unleash Elizabeth Edwards on Coulter was a low blow.

But happily, such cheap-shotting doesn't go unnoticed, nor unchronicled. Hats off to Newsbusters, a part of the Media Research Center, for keeping track of all this bias-action:

First, as Matthew Sheffield shows here, Matthews treated Coulter badly on his show.

Second, Sheffield busts Matthews again, for comparing conservatives, later in the same "Hardball" episode to the goony redneck bad guys in the 1972 movie "Deliverance."

Third, Scott Whitlock takes over the Matthews-watching duties, catching ABC News collaborating with Matthews to make Coulter look bad.

Fourth, Geoffrey Dickens records Matthews'"victory lap" in front of a sycophantic MSM.

Fifth and finally, Tim Graham sums up the MSM smear-effort.

One would think that the MSM would be more mindful of its biases, knowing that the likes of NewsBusters are watching, and recording. But instead, the MSM just keeps doing it anyway. The MSM obviously doesn't care if it gets caught.

Evidently, their bias just runs that deep.

Bring Back the Fairness Doctrine!

John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Barbara Boxer, plus the usual-suspect chronic lefty media critics, all want to bring back the FCC's "Fairness Doctrine."

Yup, the media are unfair, that's for sure!

(Thanks to JP for this one!)

Rosie O'Donnell vs. Larry King

Rosie O'Donnell rips into CNN's Larry King for cancelling Michael "Sicko" Moore in favor of Paris "Jailbird" Hilton.

But wait! The blog-posting on Rosie's site is credited to a guest-blogger "Tammy Lynn Michaels," or maybe to "Hollywood Farm Girl," who may or may not be the same person.

It's little confusing, perhaps on purpose. Because rumor has it that the author of this post is actually Melissa Etheridge.

PS: Scroll down on the same site to see a video of Rosie's daughter dressed as a terrorist. I guess that's the way to fight terror these days, at least in certain circles.

Google is Great, but Being Googled--Not So Great. And Being CNN'ed--Never Good! Beware the MSM Comeback Through the Back Portal!!

YouTube's slogan is "Broadcast Yourself." And the slogan of YouTube's parent company, Google, is "Don't Be Evil." But maybe the new slogans should be "Don't Be Evil--Watch What We Want You To Watch."

This story gets a little complicated. But it's worth paying attention, because everyone in The Cable Game understands by now that the new media are being muscled by the even newer media.

And so as YouTube/Google get ever more powerful, they should be get even more scrutiny. That is, all Americans should be paying attention as to what YouTube/Google is doing--what biases that they might have. And the same holds true for all the Silicon Valley media, including Facebook and all the rest.

Why? Because we don't want to turn back!

In the last 20 years, Americans waged a peaceful and legal media revolution against ingrained media bias--first with talk radio, then with Fox News, then with blogs. The result has been that the media are probably more diverse--more fair and balanced!--than ever.

But just at the moment when things seem to be going OK, even-handedness-wise, a new potential media unbalancer has emerged--one that could prove to be a lot more powerful than liberal-leaning CNN or CBS ever were. It would,indeed, be a shame to see all those gains "Googled"--that is, see the gains of the 80s and 90s disappear under the onslaught of exclusively web-based media such as Google and YouTube.

Am I paranoid to see this as a potential danger to free and unafraid discourse? I don't think so. Google's subtle tilt to the Left has been visible for years now. And as everyone knows, Google is top-heavy with liberal Democrats and big Democratic donors. Former Clinton White House aide Bob Boorstin is the top in-house politico for Google, unless, of course, you count Google-lord Al Gore.

So now to the new controversy: It seems that YouTube, which had always bragged about how the users not only generated the content, but also the placement of such content (by "voting" with their clicks), has been fiddling with user-generated content and its placement when it comes to politics. In other words, if you want to show yourself air-guitaring or you want to post copyrighted material, YouTube doesn't care. But if you want to make a point about who should be the next president--YouTube and its "editors" care. And have been tweaking the site as a result, shaping it to their own taste. Folks, that's taking us back to the old days of bias and The Spike.

It should come as no surprise to Cable Gamers that the liberal media have been implicated--YouTube had made a deal with CNN to help stage a presidential debate, and that gave CNN the access it needed to start trying to cook the video-placement process. The Clinton News Network, of course,could never be trusted not to put its liberal thumb on the editorial scale.

Fortunately, the blogosphere has been all over this YouTube/CNN connivance. And now, YouTube says it was all a big mistake, a few technical issues, no reason to be alarmed, nothing to see here folks, just move along now.

Indeed, let's hope that that's the end of it. But you know what TCG sez: If you don't trust, then all the more reason to verify.

Because here's the bottom line: The MSM know that they have suffered major defeats in the last two decades. Think about it: if one side goes up, then the other side must go down. If the media have grown more fair & balanced in the last two decades, that means that the forces of unfairness and imbalance--i.e. the liberal media--have suffered an inversely proportional defeat.

And you can bet your clicker that those liberal MSM-ers haven't forgotten, or forgiven. So don't be surprised if liberal refugees from the MSM wash up in Silicon Valley, there to bring their biases to the new media.

YouTube and Google could fix this, of course, by being fair and balanced and transparent--and so let's see if that's what they do. The blogosphere is, indeed, Wide Awake!

Fair, Balanced, and Fearless!

When Brit Hume signs off on his Fox News show "Special Report," he describes himself, and his network, as "Fair, Balanced, and Unafraid." I always thought that was cool, and that Brit was cool for having differentiated himself and FNC from the MSM so effectively over the last decade.

But only upon reading this piece in The Chicago Tribune this morning did I learn the following about Brit, way back when:

The CIA's [Capitol Hilton Hotel] observation post also was used to monitor syndicated columnist Jack Anderson and his assistants, including Brit Hume, now an anchor with Fox News, who had their offices nearby. Hume said in a telephone interview that he believed the CIA's interest in Anderson's sources had been occasioned by the leak of "this enormous stack" of classified documents showing that the U.S., although publicly neutral during the 1972 India-Pakistan war, was privately "tilting toward Pakistan," then a military dictatorship, at the expense of India, "the world's largest democracy."

Anderson's columns caused a furor and won him the Pulitzer Prize. Hume said he had known for years that the CIA had photographed him and Anderson entering and leaving their office, and also the outside of Hume's residence, "watching my wife take the kids to school."

In other words, Brit had plenty of powerful enemies 35 years ago. But he wasn't afraid then, and he obviously isn't afraid now.

Oh Won't You Fully Disclose, Steve Bailey?

Steve Bailey, columnist for The Boston Globe, has launched yet another hit job on Rupert Murdoch in today's paper. OK, fine, free country: Bailey and the Globe don't like Murdoch and the News Corp.,and they especially don't like the idea of Murdoch buying The Wall Street Journal. But Bailey should be more honest with his readers about his own conflict of interest concerning the conflict of New York-based media companies.

So, as part of his hit job, Bailey refers to Murdoch as "the devil." Nice, Steve.

But nowhere in Bailey's piece is there any honest acknowledgement of the obvious: That Bailey, as an employee of the Globe, which is, in turn, owned by The New York Times. And the Times, of course, has been engaged in a brutal smear campaign against Murdoch. Bailey mentions that the Times owns the Globe, but only for the purpose of praising the Times for being so enlightened and virtuous. And no mention whatsoever, by Bailey, of the Times' campaign against Murdoch, as detailed on this blog--a nasty campaign which, of course, Bailey is now a mudslinging part of.

In other words, Bailey has engaged in some double-dip brown-nosing. He praises the Times for its wonderfulness, while helping do the Times' dirty work against Murdoch. Maybe Bailey thinks what he thinks on his own--that his bosses, the Sulzbergers, are great, while his bosses' enemy, Murdoch is satanic--but that putative coincidence of opinion doesn't eliminate Bailey's duty to acknowledge it.

Surely, Bailey deserves a bonus from his ultimate paymaster, Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr. But he owes his readers an apology, for not shooting straight, full disclosure-wise.

Parenthetically, one might note that just two months ago, the Main Stream Media viewed the WSJ as a right-wing newspaper. But now that Murdoch seems poised to own it, they are rediscovering the joys of independence, and the great legacy of the Bancroft family. Here's a prediction: If Murdoch does, in fact, end up with the WSJ, Bailey and the MSM will trash the Bancrofts for selling the paper, and then return to Journal-bashing.

The New York Observer Pinches Pinch--and now "Kill Bill" Keller Kills His Cred, Too!

Ace New York Observer reporter Michael Calderone, who had the goods on The New York Times' forthcoming hit job on Rupert Murdoch last week, surveys the resulting wreckage of the Times' credibility.

Unfortunately, Calderone can't articulate what's obvious, because it's technically unprove-able: That the Times has been motivated by strong ideological and also corporate animus against Rupert Murdoch, which led them into a two frenzy of printed News Corp-bashing.

So what propelled The Times to flood the zone by inaugurating a special, multi-bureau reporting project, helmed by Times managing editor Jill Abramson, that would bring lead writer Jo Becker, London bureau reporters Jane Perlez and Raymond Bonner back into the mix?

In answer, Times executive editor Bill Keller asked rhetorically, in an e-mail: “Are you serious?”

“Why would we take a close journalistic look at a powerful, controversial figure who is about to acquire one of the crown jewels of American journalism?” he continued. “ … [That’s] our job. The pieces were well reported, utterly fair, and fascinating.”

And as to whether The Times was serving its own corporate interests in—and here was where Mr. Murdoch’s people flattered him—trying to undermine a deal that would put Mr. Murdoch at the helm of their great competitor, The Journal, company spokesman Catherine Mathis offered dryly:

“The New York Times always maintains a strict separation between its news report and its business interests.”

One can sense Calderone's skepticism, leaking through the pink pages of the NYO.

And TCG will repeat it: Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger, who turned a giant media empire into an ever-shrinking media empire, has good reason to be jealous of Murdoch, who turned one newspaper in Australia into the mightiest media combine in the world--which looks to get mightier, as the deal over The Wall Street Journal moves forward.

And meanwhile, one should Bill Keller to the dishonor roll. By choosing to get in the middle of this discussion, with Calderone, Keller is no doubt earning big brownie points with Pinch, but in defending Sulzberger's vendetta, Keller is undermining his own personal credibility as well.

This is News? Pinch Sulzberger Still Doesn't like Rupert Murdoch

In 1999, Susan Tifft and Alex Jones published The Trust: The Private and Powerful Family Behind The New York Times. The idea behind the clever title was a) The Times was a newspaper controlled by a complicated family financial trust, and b) that The Times held an august position of trust with the American peope, serving them as the Newspaper of Record.

Well, that was then. Today, less than a decade later, Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr. has presided over a series of editorial disasters (Howell Raines, Gerald Boyd, Jayson Blair, Judy Miller) that have undercut the Times' credibility--and betrayed The Trust that he inherited.

But Sulzberger, when he's not busy trying to relive the heady radicalism of the 60s, seems hellbent on squandering whatever remains of his inheritance. In his obvious jealousy and hostility toward a vastly more successful media outlet, he has unleashed the dogs of war on Murdoch and, today, his family.

Read the latest installment here if you want, but here's the only new stuff, from a hard-hitting statement in response from the Murdoch camp:

“News Corp. has consistently cooperated with The New York Times in its coverage of the company. However, the agenda for this unprecedented series is so blatantly designed to further the Times’s commercial self interests — by undermining a direct competitor poised to become an even more formidable competitor — that it would be reckless of us to participate in their malicious assault. Ironically, The Times, by using its news pages to advance its own corporate business agenda, is doing the precise thing they accuse us of doing without any evidence.”

Pow!

The Cable Game predicts that the Times series will be a big dud. Indeed, the only enduring hit will be on Sulzberger's reputation; Pinch will be remembered as the spoiled rich kid who busted his own Trust.

Scott Collins vs. The New Spike*

Another headline could be, "Scott Collins Breaks With the Left, Keeps Faith With Readers."

Collins' "Channel Island" column in The LA Times has always been a must-read for Cable Gamers. But this piece of his, on the Democrats' effort to spike Fox News, is dyn-o-mite.

The issue at hand is the Democrats' attempted effort to squelch Fox News. The immediate flashpoint, of course, is the fracas over the upcoming FNC-sponsored debate, but the larger issue is the question of whether politics can flatten the First Amendment.

So read it fast, it before Media Matters and NewsHounds and FAIR, and all the other Democratic tools and lefty hitpersons, get it yanked offline. Here're some excerpts from Collins' truly brave piece:

So it needs to be said: The Democrats are dead wrong not to debate on Fox News. And it's hypocritical for the supposedly nonpartisan media to stand by and do nothing while a TV network ... is trashed by mega-million-dollar political campaigns in the heat of a White House primary battle. When politicians, one of whom may very well be the next president of the United States, start using their platforms to lob missiles at news-gathering organizations they don't like, it's hard to see how that's much different than President Nixon's infamous "enemies list." ...

What's happening with the Fox News debate is the latest stop in that sorry journey of behind-the-scenes manipulation of what viewers see and hear ...

If Democrats get away with spurning Fox News now, there's nothing to stop campaigns from barring other news organizations whenever they feel like it...

The boycott is questionable on both tactical and strategic grounds as well. As the No. 1 cable news network, Fox News could provide a critical forum for the Democratic contenders... The boycott will have the unintended effect of teeing up the eventual GOP nominee to make a noisy demand to meet his Democratic rival on Fox News before the election.

But those are matters best left to political advisors. The main point is that it's a horrible precedent to allow presidential candidates to boycott and pillory major news organizations as propaganda machines. Are politicians free to play favorites and punish transgressors in the press corps? ...

Shutting down a legitimate debate, however, is carrying things way too far and does a disservice to all Americans. ... Those who would lead the nation shouldn't be able to get away with it..

* The Spike was the title of a 1981 best-selling novel by Arnaud de Borchgrave and Robert Moss, detailing the ways in which a useful-idiot Western media imposed political correctness on the truth about communism. Today, the New Spike is the effort of the same MSM to dictate p.c orthodoxy of thought on politics and policy in America.

The Spike reminded us that we need a diverse media with real resources--not just bloggers in their pajamas, as much as I love my own kind--to speak truth to power and back it up with journalistic muscle. We need a robust Fourth Estate, including Fox News, to speak that truth to power--all kinds of power.

Which is to say, nothing much has changed in the past quarter-century!

Department of Duh: The New York Times doesn't like Rupert Murdoch

Of course Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger (pictured here) is jealous of Rupert Murdoch. Why shouldn't Pinch be jealous? After all, Murdoch inherited precisely one Australian newspaper, back in the 50s, from his father--and turned that single paper into a $70-billion empire. Meanwhile, Pinch inherited the mighty New York Times, plus a bunch of other papers, and TV stations, and has done--what? He has turned a major publishing/broadcasting combine into a shrinking operation--with more shrinkage still ahead. So of course Pinch is angry.

And so of course no fewer than four Times reporters, spit out nearly 4000 words of attempted venom, on orders from the Sulzberger family.

All of which will do nothing to hurt Murdoch, but will serve to prove--as if proof were needed--just how determined the Times is to derail the News Corp.-Dow Jones deal. And how willing Pinch is to order Times reporters into a hit job. (Isn't the Times a publicly traded company? Don't the shareholders have an interest in seeing that Times assets go to advance the company's profitability, as opposed to merely slaking Pinch's personal jealousy, plus maybe a little ideological hostility?

So whenever anyone talks about how Murdoch might allegedly fiddle with the editorial independence of the Journal, ask 'em to explain, first, the demonstrated eagerness of Pinch to use his paper as a hammer against another newspaper and another newspaperman.

And as for the article itself, it's a big yawn. Old news, recycled yet again, about various Murdoch dealings with the FCC and the like. Nothing here that will likely dissuade the Bancroft family to go through with the sale of the Journal.

It's On! The Times takes time from slagging Murdoch to report the news

Murdoch Said to Be Close to Terms on Journal" That's the headline atop a hot piece for Monday by Times-men Richrad Siklos and Andrew Ross Sorkin.

Drudge update on New York Times vs. Rupert Murdoch--stay tuned!

NYT MONDAY PAGE ONE: 'Murdoch has used his media empire to advance his personal and political agendas'... Developing...

The Cable Game comments: It's good to know that the Sulzberger family and the NYT--Howell Raines, Judy Miller, Jayson Blair, Frank Rich, et al. have never attempted to advance their own agendas...

Moving right along, what CNN's Ali Velshi REALLY THINKS

NewsBuster's Dan Gainor nails Ali Velshi by using the meanest trick in the book--he simply quotes Velshi, bashing the oil companies.

And people wonder where Fox will find room for its new business channel--answer, from those who want to see the American economy expand with more capitalism for all, not shrink under some sort of socialism.

Things that will make your nose grow, Part 2 -- Ali Velshi just loves Jim Cramer

TVNEWSER: What do you make of some of your fellow business reporters, such as Jim Cramer who has been in the news recently?

VELSHI: Jim is brilliant! I LOVE watching him for his energy and his raw smarts. I love watching him and wish I had what he has.

Thanks, TV Newser.

Things that will make your nose grow, Part. 1 -- Kathy Griffin Hearts Anderson Cooper?

We are assured, by MediaBistro, that comedian Kathy Griffin just loves flirting with tragedian--as in, tragically hip--Anderson Cooper. Yeah, sure! But interesting there's no news as to whom AC loves in return, is there. For a man who is 360, he sure seems hard to pin down, no?

But do I know--nothing except what I read in, say, Out magazine. With interesting commentary here.

New York Times To Smear Rupert Murdoch?

**EXCLUSIVE** MEDIA WARS: NY TIMES RUSHES CONTROVERSIAL MURDOCH INVESTIGATION, NOW SET FOR PUBLICATION THIS SUNDAY, INSIDERS TELL DRUDGE... MORE... EDITORS HOPE TO HAVE DIRECT IMPACT ON PENDING MURDOCH OFFER TO BUY NYT RIVAL, WALL STREET JOURNAL... 'THE REPORTING IS NOT DONE, IT'S BEING RUSHED,' SAYS TOP INSIDER... THE EXPOSE WILL RUN OVER 3,500-WORDS, AND IS BEING DESCRIBED AS AN 'AGGRESSIVE' EXAMINATION ON MURDOCH, HIS ASIAN WIFE, AND ATTEMPTS TO EXPAND HIS MEDIA EMPIRE... DEVELOPING...

--From The Drudge Report, Friday afternoon. Drudge scoops, I report you, you decide.

But as noted here at TCG on Wednesday, Michael Calderone of The New York Observer has had the goods on this apparent effort by the Times to "torpedo" the deal.

And while we won't know for sure for another day or so, the tone of the above Drudge item certainly suggests what I have suspected all along--that the Times' corporate leadership has directed the editorial and news sides of the paper to go "full auto" against Murdoch. Not that either the opinion-mongers on the editorial page--or the opinion-mongers on the news pages!--probably needed much prodding.

The fix is in. And while I think that the News Corp-Wall Street Journal deal is going to go through, this forthcoming story is likely to stand as a monument to the deep intellectual corruption of the Times.

Steve Centanni speaks out about his ordeal in Gaza

Steve Centanni, writing in Best Life magazine, tells of his 2006 kidnaping, in the dangerous Gaza Strip for 13 days, back in 2006.

Steve had always had a "wanderlust," he writes, but the experience of being held immobile for nearly two weeks left him with "a deeper understanding of what freedom is." I'll bet. But while Steve hasn't been back to Gaza, he is still on the firing line, as a reporter for Fox News.

This is the face of bias--at CNN

Follow the money. That's always good advice in politics. So MSNBC's Bill Dedman has performed a real public service in doing just that--he has excavating the truth about media types, figuring that where they put their money is where they put their mouths, overtly or covertly. And what do Dedman's data show? The answer is that the MSM gives its money to Democrats by a 9:1 ratio.

Here's one flagrant example, from CNN:

Guy Raz, Jerusalem correspondent, now with NPR as defense correspondent, $500 to John Kerry in June 2004.

Raz donated to Kerry the same month he was embedded in Iraq with U.S. troops for CNN. He also covered reaction to Abu Ghraib and President Bush's policies in the Middle East. In 2006, he returned to NPR, and covers the Pentagon.

"Yes, I made the donation," Raz said in an e-mail. "At the time, I was a reporter with CNN International based out of London. I covered international news and European Union stories. I did not cover US news or politics."

Both CNN and NPR prohibit political activity by all journalists, no matter their assignment.

No surprise, of course, that Raz went from CNN to NPR. No doubt he'll be back, one day.

Reality bites CNN--Reliably!

Howard Kurtz is a nice enough guy. The Cable Gamer always reads his pieces in The Washington Post. Unfortunately, I don't always catch his show on CNN, but then, according to the ratings, not many do.

In the mordant calculation of TV Newser, more people saw Kurtz in five minutes on "The O'Reilly Factor" than see him on five weeks of his own show. Indeed, his ratings for "Reliable Sources" are way down.

Kurtz should get away from CNN and move to Fox News--he would add something to the network, and with a better production staff and all the rest that FNC brings, he would gain fans for himself, too.

So go for it, Howie! You know you want to.

Chris Wallace helps us remember our men and women in uniform

Here's Tim Feran, writing a wonderfully uplifting story in The Columbus Dispatch:

A poignant video that took a West Side teenager a few hours to piece together has drawn the attention of millions of YouTube visitors and Fox News Channel.

"Remember Me," a salute to U.S. servicemen and women in Iraq created by Lizzie Palmer, reminds viewers to tell troops how much they are appreciated.

As of yesterday, the video had received more than 12 million hits on YouTube, making it the 19th most-viewed video ever on the Web site.

The public praise surrounding her work has left the 15-year-old student at Grove City Christian School feeling somewhat uncomfortable.

The rest of the story is here.

And the video is here.

Bret bites down on carbs

Here's David Schipper, writing in Men's Health magazine about one of my favorite Fox News reporters:

Bret Baier's job was weighing him down. As the chief White House correspondent for Fox News Channel, he shared an itinerary with our commander-in-chief, traveling for up to 2 weeks every month. And when he stepped on the scale last Christmas, he found his weight had ballooned to 227 pounds, 32 pounds higher than his "fighting" weight of 195. "That's when I realized what the traveling was doing to me," he says.

...So Baier attacked. He flushed excuses like stress and time. Then he took our advice, revamped his diet, wedged tough workouts into his overstuffed schedule, and lost 20 pounds in 8 weeks.

The secret? According to Schipper, who should know, it's "a low-carb diet with benefits..."

Greta's contrarian take on Paris Hilton

Greta Van Susteren shares some of her tough-minded legal reasoning with Phil Cuprisin of The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

Longtime Greta fans, like me, know that she is no softy when it comes to criminal cases. Yet at the same time, she is always fair--unlike say, Nancy Grace. And so I was intrigued by her summary of the Paris Hilton case: "She got special treatment, harsher treatment."

The Paris Hilton case is laughed at by many, but it raises larger issues--of celebrity justice, and injustice, in a hyper-mediated era. And so we will be hearing more about the case in the future. And I, for one, look forward to more coverage.

"One of the toughest and smartest interviewers on TV"

That's Mike McDaniel's assessment of Greta Van Susteren, from The Houston Chronicle last week.

But interestingly, the focus of McDaniel's piece was not on Greta the investigative TV star, but rather, Greta the blogger-author of "Gretawire." As McDaniel puts it:

"The show is not completely planned until we sign off at 11 p.m. (10 p.m. Central) because we're cable news 24/7, and things happen," she said. "Ours is like a job on crack. We can't control ourselves. We can't stop."

That comes through in her blog. Examples:

• "In case you want to know how glamorous this job is, on Tuesday we spent the entire day hanging around an L.A. hotel lobby waiting to get a call to do an interview we had expected to do. That never happened."
• "I can't tell you how many people told me in the last 36 hours that he or she had no interest in Paris Hilton. And my thought, if there is universal no interest, why was it on the front page of both the Washington Post and the New York Times on Saturday? And on every electronic news outlet? Could all the news organizations have it wrong?"

And McDaniel further adds:

Incidentally, she writes her own blog. Recently, it was revealed that a (now former) CBS staffer was blogging under Katie Couric's byline.

"That's dumb," said Van Susteren. "If you write your blog, write your blog. I have no problem with guest bloggers — but ghost bloggers? That's not a good idea."

McDaniel is always a must-read for Cable Gamers. And so is Gretawire--and it's free!

Nancy Dis-Grace Update

Nancy Grace, CNN Headline News' bottom-feeding, grief-exploiting anchorwoman, is getting closer to her
rendezvous with justice in re: the tragic case of Melinda Duckett.

The New York Times Tries to Torpedo the News Corp-Wall Street Journal Talks

Does The New York Times wish to detonate the possible deal between Rupert Murdoch and the Bancroft family? The Times has already editorialized against the proposed purchase, but now that the "news" side of the paper, too, is weighing in. That's the only conclusion one can draw from a hot new report, by Michael Calderone of The New York Observer, outlining the NYT's mega-investigative reporting operation--or maybe "hitjob" is a better word--aimed on Rupert Murdoch.

Of course, the Times is not confirming that it is doing any such digging at all, let alone that the results of any such dig will be negative. But Calderone seems pretty sure of his source--and provides copious detail on an effort led by managing editor Jill Abramson. Calderone is precise, for example, about who's involved: "The investigative project also includes...investigative editor Matt Purdy and reporters Jo Becker (in New York), Jane Perlez (in London) and Joseph Kahn (in Beijing)."

So if Calderone is wrong, then he's really wrong. But if he's right, then he has uncovered a major "journalistic" effort by the Times. And I put "journalistic" in quotes, because it's well known that Jill Abramson is an advocate as much as she is a reporter. Those of us with long memories will recall that she co-authored, back in the early 90s, with Jane Mayer, the book Strange Justice, which, as its title suggests, was one big smear of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. So that's where she's coming from, politically.

Abramson is a liberal hit-woman, who assuredly has never liked Murdoch, or Fox News, or anything else that the News Corp has ever done.

So don't be surprised if what comes out of the Times, this time around, is equally strange--which is to say, hostile--to Murdoch and to anyone else who favors the WSJ deal.

But what's more of an eyebrow raiser is the apparent decision of the Times hierarchy--including CEO Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr., whose family controls the newspaper--to go after Murdoch & Co. If one of the allegations against Murdoch is that he exercises too much influence on the editorial stances of his media outlets, then it's hypocritical for the Times takes an editorial stance against a possible event, and then commission an armada of reporters to fire further salvos against that possible event.

What's the reason? Is it simple liberal bias against anything fair and balanced? Is the Times afraid that Murdoch will rejuvenate the Journal and thus further crowd the Gray Lady in the news business?

Whatever the reason, the Times is evidently so desperate to block the deal that it is violating the traditional journalistic "separation of church and state"--the distinction between editorial opinion and news. In this case, as we have seen, the edit side and the news side appear to be working together, hand-in-glove--or should one say, thumb-on-scale.

So to repeat, it's the height of hypocrisy for the Times to opine, as it did on its agenda-setting Sunday edition (June 10), laying out its most vehement arguments against Murdoch: "We hope the Bancrofts will find a way to continue producing their fine newspaper, or, failing that, find a buyer who is a safer bet to protect the newspaper for its readers."

And the Times editorial continued, "For the record, most of us who still work for a family-controlled newspaper like The Times lament another news organization’s loss of protection from political currents and the unfettered demands of quarterly earnings.”

So there you have it: In its full pomposity, the Times manages to brown-nose its own ownership while advancing the Sulzberger's ideological and corporate agenda.

The Cable Game hopes that Calderone and the Observer will continue to cover--and more to the point, uncover--this blatant repurposing of journalistic power for a narrow special-interest objective.

Yes, it's a free country, but hypocrisy is free, too--and it flows freely at the Times.

Speaking of sons--How 'bout Ray and Greg Kelly?

Probably most Cable Game fans are aware, by now, that Fox News' Greg Kelly is the son of New York Police Department chief Ray Kelly. But I have never seen the two men sit down for a joint portrait before, as they did for The New York Daily News. Perfect for Father's Day!

There are many similarities between them, of course, including that they both served in the Marines. But then they went their separate ways--father Ray stayed in the NYPD, rising to the top of the force. And Greg, of course, went to Fox News, where he was a star in Iraq and, more recently, a star on "Fox & Friends Weekend." As Greg put it to the Daily News' Michael White, "It's a tough act to follow, adding, in reference to his own chances to be top cop, too, "Lightning doesn't strike twice."

So Greg has gone off in search of his own televised lightning--and so far, he's plenty, with plenty more, TCG bets, still to come.

Murdochs update: Rupert, James, and Lachlan,

I think it's fair to say that Rupert Murdoch is in the spotlight--to some, the crosshairs! Every day brings another raft of stories about the News Corporation's efforts to buy The Wall Street Journal--some 500 just today, according to Google News.

The Cable Gamer can't keep up with the play-by-play of that sort of flood of coverage, but I will venture this prediction: Rupert Murdoch will eventually succeed in buying the venerable paper. Because, as I have said in the past, the Bancroft family, which owns the WSJ won't get a better deal than they will from Murdoch. Not on money, and not even on editorial independence.

One of the rival corporate suitors, for example, is General Electric. GE is a great company, but its immediate past CEO, Jack Welch, got the nickname "Neutron Jack" because he was so ruthless in laying off employees. Hence the nickname--recalling the days of the 80s, when the Pentagon's "neutron bomb" was in the news. The idea was that Welch, like the neutron bomb, would leave the building standing and wipe out the people inside. Is that a good model for current GE CEO to follow if he owned the Journal? Of course not, but Welch, even in retirement, is still very much an influence on GE. So watch out, Journalistas, if GE gets ya, because "Neutron Jeff" Immelt could zap you in the name of "hitting the numbers."

And as for another Journal suitor, Ron Burkle, TCG wonders if the Bancrofts really want to turn their treasured newspaper over to someone who is so notoriously tight with Bill Clinton that even The New York Times took notice, writing in May 2006, "Mr. Clinton is rarely without company in public, yet the company he keeps rarely includes his wife. Nights out find him zipping around Los Angeles with his bachelor buddy, Ronald W. Burkle." So imagine Clinton and Burkle, zipping through the corporate integrity of their new corporate plaything.

But The Cable Gamer prides herself on chasing down stories that are her own size. And there was one little throwaway in a Business Week
story on James Murdoch, younger son of you-know-who, which I posted on last Friday, that did tantalize me a bit--tantalize me a lot, actually.

The throwaway sentence concerned the relationship between Jamess' older brother, Lachlan, and Roger Ailes, CEO of Fox News. Here's what it said: "In 2005, Lachlan, now 35, bolted his job as News Corp.'s deputy chief operating officer, the result of one too many clashes with Fox News Network chief Roger Ailes." Now that was interesting, of course, but it was written so casually that I hesitated over what to make of it, if it was even true at all.

So rather than mention it--TCG loves gossip-mongering, but I pride myself on only mongering true gossip!--I did a little digging. And here's what I found: It's well known within 1211 (the insider term for News Corp. HQ, at 1211 Avenue of the Americas in NYC), that that other top News Corp execs who had problems with Lachlan Murdoch, and they had a motive to create the appearance of a rift between Ailes and Lachlan where one never existed.

And why not seek to blame everything on Ailes? After all, the Fox News chief is constantly being targeted by the likes of Media Matters.org and Newshounds.us, for everything this side of the heartbreak of psoriasis. As one News Corp insider told TCG, "Roger and Lachlan had a great relationship and anything to the contrary goes against reality." This source added that it would be no surprise at 1211 to see Ailes and Lachlan Murdoch working together in the future.

This has been a good source to me. So I am going with it. Sorry, Business Week--you got steered wrong.

So now I must end this long post, confident that even if this BW item didn't check out, there's plenty more skullduggery to be dug up in Cable Game-land.

The Next Murdoch in The Cable Game?

Ronald Grover, writing in Business Week, fascinating portrait of James Murdoch, the younger son of, of course, Rupert. James seems to have been a key architect in the News Corps' digital strategy--not only the digitalization of existing content, but also the creation of new portals, such as MySpace. And perhaps soon, the purchase of The Wall Street Journal. And so James might yet emerge as the successor to Rupert. The elder Murdoch is incredibly energetic and vigorous, of course, but he is 76, while James is 34.

And of course, the News Corp. will need all the energy it can get. The cliche about giant companies is that they good one thing, and only one thing. And so they fail to make the jump when the next thing comes along. The railroads, for example, failed to become car companies, let alone airplane companies. More recently, IBM was a mainframe computer company, and never much of a player in p.c.s. And Microsoft, of course, was software, with only mixed success since, in various Net ventures. Although MSFT is enormously profitable, still, everyone agrees that the baton has passed to Google. (And meanwhile, interestingly enough, IBM has been reborn as a consulting and services company.)

On the other hand, NBC managed to shift itself from radio to TV. And perhaps that's a closer analogy to where the News Corp. finds itself. It will always be in the news and entertainment business; the only question is the means through which its content is distributed. And per the BW article, signs look positive.

So The Cable Game will continue, in media well beyond cable.

CNN's Jon Klein must have the lumpiest rug in TV news

Cable Gamers have no doubt been following the brewing scandal over CNN reporter Jeff Koinange, which continues to bubble. Koinange, of course, stands accused of paying for a fake news story in Nigeria. So far, at least, CNN is standing by Koinange, although as The New York Post'sLeonard Greene reports, an e-mail seems to undercut Koinange's cover story.

And that means that CNN chief Jon Klein has plenty on his plate--or maybe under his rug.

Bizzyblog offers a useful compendium of scandalous lumps under CNN's cover-upping rug, going back over the last 10 years.

Dan Rather Takes on Les Moonves! Fox has the latest!!

The Cable Gamer will admit that she didn't always like Dan Rather when he was anchoring CBS Evening News. But although we had our disagreements, Rather was always known as a believer in hard news, and an advocate for same. And that's to be admired.

But of course, one always has to admire a good media brawl! Anytime that a former anchorman says that his ex-boss's words are "insulting...disappointing," you know that you are in the beginning of a good rumble.

In addition, of course, one should always watch Neal Cavuto, because he presents business news the best. In this case, today, it was David Asman filling in for Neal, and he scored an interview with Rather in which Rather really put the wood to his old boss, CBS chief Les Moonves, accusing Moonves of undercutting CBS News by promoting "entertainment" over "news." As Rather put it, "They don't know what hard news is. They know about entertainment." Pow!

Rather had been critical of the way that CBS had changed CBS News in the two years since he left, saying that the Eye network was "dumbing it down and tarting it up."

Those words of Rather's gave Moonves an opening--he accused Rather of being "sexist," suggesting that Rather was referring, specifically, to Katie Couric.

Well, of course, Rather wasn't being sexist--he was stating the obvious about the new news, without regard to the gender of its evening news anchor. TCG knows sexism when she sees it, and Rather is no sexist. Indeed, Moonves and other CBSers have gotten in the habit of excusing the poor ratings by throwing around the "s" word. The low ratings of the Couric show--much lower than those of Rather or interim anchor Bob Schieffer--they like to tell themselves, are the result of the sexism of the American people.

Now you might say that such an approach is not such a good way to gain audience loyalty--one doesn't slime the audience one wants to attract--but evidently Moonves & Co. figure it's better to shift the blame (and hurt the show) rather than admit that they made a mistake in bringing in Couric, who would not be a good or authoritative anchor, even if she were "Keith Couric."

As Rather said, "This doesn't have to do with Katie, and her gender. It has to dowith corporate leadership." And when Asman asked, "So the buck stops there?" Rather replied, "The buck starts there." Ouch!

This fight will continue. One can only assume that Moonves is welcome to come on Fox air and respond, although he probably won't. Maybe Moonves has a little strategery in mind: Unleash Chen. That is, Julie Chen, whose TV career at CBS has prospered under Moonves' close supervision.

Down the road, I am getting increasingly excited about the Fox Business Channel. Aside from the reality that money and business are important, there's plenty of good drama and human interest in business stories!

Will the 2008 Election be Googled? I don't think so!

"How Google, YouTube power their way to center of 2008 campaign"--that's the headline of an important piece by Mary Ann Ostrom in The San Jose Mercury News, which asks, "Does Google want to be the 51st state this election season?" Nobody can say Google doesn't think big!

The piece details Google's plan to cover the election, its way--which seems to be the Democratic way.

Google says that it will merely hosting the candidates, stage debates on YouTube,and so on.

Of course Google also gives money--mostly to Democrats.

And there's plenty of evidence that Google is not to be trusted on the presentation of news. Indeed, if you read herein, you will see that Bob Boorstin, ex of the Clinton White House and then the liberal/partisan Center for American Progress, is now Google's "director of corporate and policy communications." Gee, which party do you think Bob will be supporting in the presidential election? Or will he be, uh, "neutral"?

And the Merc adds this to further drill home the point about bias: "Google has assembled a team of ex-presidential campaign staffers and Washington insiders, including a few who previously worked for Al Gore, a Google senior adviser. They meet regularly to pitch new ideas, help campaigns understand advertising tools, and set up video interviews."

One could almost get the idea that Google is tipping the scale.

And that's why TCG doesn't think that Google will be able to power its way into the '08 campaign, let alone the "center" of the campaign.

Because the American people will insist on coverage that is fair, balanced, unafraid--and un-tainted.