What would Jesus Say to Tucker Carlson?

Tucker Carlson has always come across as a smug rich kid--and now we know that he's an arrogant and self-congratulatory gay-basher, too. One has to wonder how long MSNBC will keep this jerk on the air. C'mon MediaMatters and GLAAD--do your thing!

Plenty of observers have chronicled the Carlson story, in which he bragged about beating up a gay man, but here's a good wrap-up from Washington insider Steve Clemons, guest-blogging for Andrew Sullivan.

TCG thinks it's fine to keep order in public restrooms--sorry, Larry Craig!--but vigilantism and violence are never acceptable. (Which, come to think of it is, a good reason for having cops keep track of things, to protect everyone from thuggery, including gay cruisers, who need help, not a thrashing.)

But The Cable Gamer will simply add this to the Carlson story: What would Jesus Christ say to Tucker Carlson? I think I know: He would cite John 8, from the New Testament, in which the Lamb of God said, so memorably to a crowd of bullies: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone."

That would have been good advice for young Tucker. If an incident really happened, he should have called the cops, or a security guard, and let the duly constituted authorities handle the matter. Instead, he was a brutal punk. And still is, in his soul, as we can all see. Definitely a stone thrower.

God, of course, will always forgive anyone--after appropriate contrition, of course!

But the rest of us, with only our human power, should judge him, in our own lesser way. And judge him harshly. But we don't need to beat him up, of course, except with our clickers. We can just stop watching his fatuous TV show. That will go a long way toward wiping the smirk off Carlson's mouth, although he will still be a rich kid.

Finally, The Cable Gamer believes that God is with us, everywhere--even in the bathroom. The Almighty is totally pure, of course, and can never be defiled (the filth will always washed away immediately) but at the same time, His presence is always with us, whereever we might be.

So we might all reflect on the Divine message of redemption: We never know what will happen in someone's heart, so long as it is beating, and so to repeat, there's still time for Larry Craig and Tucker Carlson. And all the rest of us sinners. But the path to salvation begins by admitting mistakes and apologizing for them.

Come to think of it, that would make a good show for MSNBC! A show that legitimately wrestled with issues of sin, and, just as importantly, forgiveness.

But nah. The secular liberals who run that channel would never permit it. They would rather have Carlson as an apologetic gay-basher--and you can bet that Carlson will be groveling soon enough before gay groups, attending "sensitivity training" alongside Isaiah Washington--than as a sincere Believer, delivering a genuine moral voice on the air. Can't have that!

But The Cable Gamer thinks that there's a market hungering for just such a show--to be led, say, by someone such as Rick Warren. Let's get his take on the news. Not to argue, not to condemn, but rather, to observe and opine, from a Bible-based perspective. Nobody would have to watch, or agree, of course--but I'll bet that a lot of people would.

Fox "News Watch" vs. CNN's "Reliable Sources"

I will admit that I am fan of both Howard Kurtz and Eric Burns.

But at the same time, it would appear that the people are speaking, too, and they are speaking out for "News Watch" over "Reliable Sources." That's according to an interesting report from TV Newser, which shows that "FNW" has roughly twice the overall audience, and beats "RS" in the demo, too.

TV Newser also provides an insightful comment from a reader:

Kurtz and Burns do two different shows. Kurtz' is really a lot of inside baseball which is great if you are in the business. Burns' show is like a lot of Fox stuff — complaints about the liberal or main stream media.

The Cable Gamer comments: That's for darn sure. The liberal MSM, and their liberal sidekicks such as CNN and MSNBC, prove, every day that most reporters and TV people lean liberal. TCG has taken a couple of days off, but in her off hours, she still finds herself clicking around. And on CNN, one sees, routinely, all manner of jabs at Bush: John King, for example, saying that George W. Bush's popularity was "in the dumps." Excuse me, but that's bias. And on CNN's Katrina coverage, I see long clips, verbatim, from the likes of Bush-basher John Edwards, with no Republican or conservative to speak up for the other side.

And just today on CNN, as I watching coverage of Bush in New Orleans, for the Katrina commemoration, I was struck yet again by CNN's bias. For awhile, it showed split screen coverage, with Bush on one side and NO mayor Ray Nagin on the other side. Bush was speaking, while Nagin was ringing a memorial bell--so you couldn't hear what Bush was saying. And then, CNN cut away from Bush, and went to Nagin.

That's bias, folks.

I hope "FNW" gets to it, and I am sure that "RS" won't.

Shister Shills for Olbermann?

TCG was always a fan of The Philadelphia Inquirer's Gail Shister. She did a great job covering the industry; I thought that Shister got a bad deal when she was demoted by the Inky, from TV columnist to general metro reporter. And I was happy to see that she picked up a part time gig with TV Newser.

But it certainly seems to me that Shister has lost her judgment, along with her plum writing gig. It's not just TCG, but also Olbermann Watch, Inside Cable News, and Jossip that have noticed how Shister is seemingly in the tank for Keith Olbermann. "Fawning" is how OW described her coverage of treatment.

Which is interesting, because--just a wild guess here--Shister seems like she would be a strong feminist, and the MSNBC man doesn't have such a great record of respecting women. Heck, Olby even lied to Shister about being an only child, when in fact, he has a sister.

C'mon Gail, stick up for the sisters a little!

Update on Tammy Haddad--and Headline News

A source who has been reliable for TCG in the past adds this to my Tammy Haddad post:

You're right about Tammy Haddad, but you didn't mention one of the major reasons for her leaving: they are starting to lose on a semi-regular basis to Headline News! Headline News is not even a real network! It doesn't have anywhere near the visibility, production budget, or marketing budget that CNN or MSNBC has, and yet at 7 pm they have made real inroads.

And then my source--whom I will call Deep Game--adds a prediction:

Say what you will about Olbermann, but his numbers have come way up...MSNBC is going to make a play for Glenn Beck at 7 pm when his contract is up. That way, they would have the 2 fastest growing shows in Cable News, with two hot hosts, plus they would be able to spin their way out of the "MSNBC is Liberal" crap because they would have a big-time liberal host and a big-time conservative host, effectively helping to inoculate them from criticism that has been starting to hurt NBC and their corporate parent GE.

TCG comment: I am not sure that MSNBC would want to deviate from its Bush-bashing mode by adding Beck, who is a conservative. And I am als not sure how hot Glenn is these days, but that could just be that he is on HNN. GB has talent: If he could go somewhere else, he might really be a star.

And Matthews' rise and fall proves that--the right handling makes all the difference.

And oh, by the way: Who gave Matthews his start in TV? Why it was Roger Ailes and the late Chet Collier back when they were at CNBC. A good producer makes all the difference--and so does a bad producer, right, Tammy? Not that you'll ever read, in many places, that the "Empress of Cable" has no clothes.

Maria Bartiromo, the Semi-Money Honey

A very arch piece in Dealbreaker.com, on the fading CNBC sex bomb, easier to quote than to parse:

The population of China, unable to describe what was going on between Maria Bartiromo and Todd Thomson during their trysts to the Far East, decided to modernize its language.

Respectful of Maria’s status as the Money Honey, Maria and Todd were officially branded “ban tang fu qi” or a “semi-honey couple.” The phrase denotes young, married professionals who live in separate homes or go on long trans-continental flights with one another.

Chinese authorities were pretty pissed when they found out Maria and Todd weren’t married, and no one has the heart to tell the CPC how old the two are (if they ever want to be seen again).

The above excerpt might be best described as a based on a Reuters story. Which means that Dealbreaker went to some imaginative lengths to turn an ordinary wire story into a big dig at Maria, illustrating the piece with a photo that shows off her wedding ring (!). Somebody must really have it in for her.

I wonder why.

Bill Clinton, Big Fraud

Remember last September when Bill Clinton railed at Chris Wallace? The former president said that Wallace was merely doing the right's bidding? Wagged his finger at Wallace, tapped his knee for further emphasis? As if Chris Wallace were somehow Rush Limbaugh, or even Sean Hannity, to name two out-of-the-closet conservative commentators?

Anyway, there was a lot of noise about that interview; some argued that Chris was being unfairly maligned, others insisted that Clinton had put on a bravura performance, in defense of his own presidency--under attack from that made-for-TV movie on ABC, "The Path to 9-11"--and, of course, in advocacy of his wife's future presidency.

But what seems to have been neglected is that the premise of Clinton's argument that day was a lie.

Don't take my word for it. Take the word of Michael Isikoff, the ace Newsweek reporter, who just told Dennis Miller that new CIA documents show Clinton's argument that he had led the charge to kill Osama Bin Laden when he was in the White House, was, well, not true.

"What Clinton authorized...was ambiguous and muddled." Speaking of the CIA, Isikoff continued, "They did not have a clear directiveto kill Bin Laden."

Chris Wallace, keep your cell phone handy. I am sure that the 42nd president will be calling soon to apologize.

The Haddad Myth, the Matthews Myth, and the MSNBC Myth

By most--but by no means all--accounts, Tammy Haddad is a pretty good TV producer. So most likely, she'll find another job somewhere, now that she is leaving her current main gig MSNBC.

But on the other hand, Haddad is not a goddess of television. And her main man in TV, Chris Matthews, is not a god, either. And MSNBC is still, after 11 years, not a success. Indeed, it's an ungodly failure.

Eventually, the reality will catch up with the mythology. The reality is that MSNBC, which once was supposed to be the future of TV, as it converged with the net, has been a big disappointment. From the days of the "Starbucks" studio set, to those wacky-yuppie "friends" who didn't know anything about the news that they were on air to talk about, to the very idea that Microsoft was going to be the pioneer into the 21st century cyber future, MSNBC was built by Bob Wright's ego, on a cynical platform of OPM--Other People's Money.

Similarly, Matthews always had more buzz inside the Beltway than he did a genuine audience. Like Haddad, he is talented enough--way back when, his first book, Hardball, was an instant classic, and a reminder that Matthews, a onetime Democratic political operative, really did have something to say about politics. Yes, he talks too much, and yes, he has become a sort of parody of himself, but still...

Hmmm. Wait a second, let's think about this: A big talent, mishandled. Misproduced, one might say? Come to think of it, maybe Chris actually did need a better producer than Haddad, someone who was more worried about the show as it appeared on the air, rather than her own press clippings as they appeared in Georgetown and the Palisades, someone who would tell the "Hardball" host to stop talking so much, stop overriding his guests, and stop practically foaming at the mouth on camera.

But because nobody properly produced Matthews, nor adequately policed his ego, the show faltered. It was no wonder that out beyond the Beltway, "Hardball" was so low-rated. Everyone may have an inflated opinion of himself or herself, but we tend not to like such ego inflation in others, night after night. So yes, "Hardball" is watched at The Irish Times pub on North Capitol Street in DC, or the Hawk & Dove on Pennsylvania Avenue SE, but there aren't enough Capitol Hill staffers to support a TV show--and of course, a lot of staffers watch Fox, or even CNN.

Yes, such an small and noisy insider audience could generate buzz, and Tammy could certainly generate buzz--as when a sycophant at US News referred to her just last year as "The most influential woman behind the TV news camera in Washington." (Yeah sure; how did she get that writeup? Maybe she just was more astute about booking Mort Zuckerman the most times, than about snaring flyover country eyeballs.)

But buzz, generated by Matthews, or Haddad, must eventually translate into ratings--or else. And the stubborn fact is this: MSNBC is third in the ratings and that's finally starting to sink in, with the Wall Street number crunchers. As noted here at TCG, the break-up wolves are starting to circle GE, parent to NBCU and then to MSNBC (and CNBC).

According to reports, Haddad is staying on at MSNBC, even if she's been removed as EP of "Hardball." And that might be true, she might be staying as VP--after all, here's no shortage of longterm deadwood at NBCU.

But the handwriting is on the wall, insiders tell TCG: If Haddad is gone from her prime gig, then Matthews will likely be next. And it's hard to imagine that MSNBC, at least in its current form, will be around all that much longer.

CNN Cheers On for Moveon.org Front Group

Joan Blades of Moveon.org, the lefty group, was on CNN Saturday, morning, talking about the recalling of Chinese-made toys. It's good that people are watching out for our safety, but it's not good that CNN is not watching out for the principle of full disclosure.

CNN didn't mention the 800-lb donkey in the room, which is that Blades is the co-founder of Moveon.org, the Democratic activist group.

Not once did it comeup. Instead, the entire on-air discussion was of her new front group, "momsrising.org," as if Blades was just a concerned mom, as opposed to the hardcore lefty politico that she is, going back to the late 90s, when her mission was to save Bill Clinton's presidency. (It's better that she wants to save kids from being poisoned than that she wants to save Bills peccadilloes, but once again, the issue is disclosure--tell the audience everything that needs to be known about the person on the air, especially when momsrising has a much larger liberal agenda, going way beyond recalling toys.)

And then after the Blades segment, the CNN anchor--I am 99% sure that it was Betty Nguyen-- went on for a while, saying how important it was for viewers to go to "momsrising.org," and how easy it was for them to do so. Just click and you can help children! (And oh, by the way, help the partisan Left.)

This was outrageously bad journalism. (But hey, This Is CNN.)

As an aside, The Cable Gamer wonders about the implications of such extreme slipperiness, moving closer to the next election. That is, if it's so easy for a bigtime Democrat, such as Blades, to assume a new identity, and to get on TV with her new group (which admits its connection to Moveon only deep inside the sight, in the seventh dense graf here, then one wonders how the regulators are going to keep track of partisan and ideological agendas of all the new players in the media.

The Cable Gamer, herself, tends to be kinda libertarian on these matters--the more free speech the merrier!--but TCG can't help but notice the hypocrisy on the left, which supports regulation and full disclosure, except when it might cramp their own portside style.

What about the red-tape writers who work at the Federal Election Commission and the regulators and campaign finance reformers--you know, the folks who gave us the McCain-Feingold Act? They've been telling us, all along, that the government needs to step in to regulate speech, so as to "clean up" politics.

But the suspicion, of course, is that those regulator-activists didn't really want to clean up politics, they just wanted to clean out Republicans.

And the incestuously dishonest connection between CNN and Moveon/Momsrising is a reminder that if the media are part of the problem, then the media sure as heck can't be part of the solution.

MSNBC Boos Bush--But You Knew That

Hats off to Newsbusters, and The Drudge Report, for catching this admission from MSNBC's own Joe Scarborough.

It's nice to have more proof, but nobody who even surfs past the channel should be surprised about the venomous political bias that plays host to Keith Olbermann as maestroed by Dan Abrams.

High Journalistic Standards at CNBC--Not!

Is CNBC forsaking journalistic standards in order to try to curry favor with Rupert Murdoch? Or is CNBC merely following orders from on high, from parent NBC-U and grandparent GE, as those bigger companies plot their next move--including possible moves in different corporate directions?

Those questions can't be answered just yet, but in the meantime, TV Week's ace Michele Greppi scores a a great catch.

It seems that CNBC's post-Maria cutie, Erin Burnett, snagged an interview with Rupert Murdoch. So far, so good.

But now the not-so-good stuff, as Greppi notes:

But there was no mention of the fact that CNBC will be confronted with its first direct competition for business news audiences from the Fox Business Network, which News Corp. plans to launch, or that MSNBC runs a distant third to Fox News Channel, or that News Corp. and NBCU are collaborating on a TV-and-movie distribution Web site, for that matter.

That's a lot to leave out, huh? Concludes Greppi:

Asked about the omission of even a casual caveat that Mr. Murdoch poses a new business threat to NBCU, a "Today" spokeswoman replied: "This was a piece about Murdoch the person, not an in-depth look at his specific businesses."

Oh.

One wonders what the point of the interview was. There's nothing wrong with asking tough questions, but Burnett, or her producers, chose not to.

The Cable Gamers wonders if Burnett didn't want to do anything to make Murdoch mad at her--maybe because she'll soon come to the Fox Business Channel, looking for a job? And maybe the same for CNBC management?

In any case, that's a misreading of Murdoch, who has a famously thick skin. And he certainly doesn't respect craven suck-ups. If Burnett, or anyone else at CNBC, is secretly anglng for a job with Fox, they should be forthright about it--that's what agents are for, not no-news interviews.

The other theory, of course, is that CNBC/NBC-U/GE have some grand plan of their own, involving a possible spinoff or sale of CNBC. It's widely understood that GE is in play, possible-break-up-wise. As reported here at TCG, on July 22 The New York Times broached that possibility, citing the work of Citigroup analyst Jeffrey T. Sprague. GE stock then was 40, which was down from a peak of 58 in 2000, during the Jack Welch glory decades.

But since then, under the sub-par leadership of GE chief Jeff Immelt and NBC flunky Jeff Zucker, GE stock has drifted down further in the last month, to less than 37, as of Thursday morning. At that low price, anything is possible for GE--including de-conglomeration. (Note to Bob Wright: You got out just in time!)

No wonder Burnett is seeking to not rock the boat: Maybe because she doesn't know who her next boss will be.

But in the meantime, CNBC viewers are deprived of good business journalism.

A Sad Note: Chet Collier Passes Away

Chet Collier, longtime colleague, mentor, and close friend of Roger Ailes and Fox News, has passed away. He had a good long life--no make that a great long life, full of achievement for himself, and even more full of kindness for others.

Born in 1927, "Chet," as everyone called him, had a crusty exterior, but he was much beloved in the world of TV. His career reached back to the 50s, when he started working with talent that included Regis Philbin, Steve Allen, Merv Griffin and David Frost; along the way, he won seven Emmys and a Peabody.

But even that resume understates Chet's true impact on The Cable Game. As the #2 exec at Fox in its formative first years--he semi-retired to Florida, sources remind The Cable Gamer, in 2000, although he continued to monitor FNC till the very end--Chet was involved in every aspect of FNC over the last 11 years, with a particular emphasis on the on-air "look" of the channel.

But at the same time, Chet was philosophical and reflective; he was always willing to take time to explain some detail about television, especially when it came to making the presentation more interesting and useful to the viewer. In keeping with his roots in the drama department at Emerson College, was truly a showman, a man of the theater, in the best sense of the word. (One of Chet's other passions was dogs, and dog shows; he was a big domo, too, at the Westminster Kennel Club, and was always ready, after hours, to discuss the finer points of breeding, or dog showing.)

And oh, by the way, Chet, born in Boston, was a Democrat, and something of a liberal, too. He never sought to impose his personal beliefs on the air, of course, on the channel--that was part of the Fox code, that Chet helped to formulate. And enforce, in the name of fairness & balance.

Michele Greppi offers a nice obit,, adding some insider stuff here:

In an internal e-mail Wednesday, Mr. Ailes wrote: “He had been battling illness for a while and when I went to see him for two days over the 4th of July week, he was still watching the Fox News Channel every hour of the day. He was also still giving me good advice. He loved Fox News and was very proud of the accomplishments here. He never took any credit for himself, but we couldn’t have accomplished everything we did without him. I do not know any more details at the moment, but I believe next month we’ll put together a memorial service here in New York. My condolences to his wife, Dottie, and his family.”

John Edwards, Hypocrite, Part 2

Actually, it's more like Part 802 in the saga of John Edwards' hypocrisy. Here's a stunningly personal and specific critique of the presidential hopeful, from Brad Warthen, a South Carolina journalist who knows his fellow Palmetto Stater well, all too well. Edwards, Man of the People--my foot!

And here's another look at Edwards' fraudulent jihad against Rupert Murdoch, from The Chicago Tribune's Phil Rosenthal. Note in particular the socko close to Phil's piece:

Edwards, meanwhile, hopes to get some political mileage out of the whole affair, and maybe a few bucks, too. He e-mailed supporters, urging all Democrats to reject donations from Murdoch and return what they've already received.

"John Edwards will never ask Rupert Murdoch for money," the e-mail said. "He won't accept his money."

Well, sort of. There was a $500,000 advance -- and $300,000 for expenses -- Murdoch's HarperCollins publishing unit paid Edwards for his 2006 book, "Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives." But a spokesman for Edwards told The Washington Post that Edwards' proceeds were donated to charity and the other cash went to staff and vendors.

Edwards, John Kerry's 2004 running mate, is poking at Sen. Hillary Clinton, the front-runner who has taken in more than $20,000 from News Corp. execs including Murdoch, and Sen. Barack Obama, who received money from News Corp.'s Peter Chernin.

That's the same Peter Chernin who attended a 2004 Kerry-Edwards fundraising event at Edwards' request, according to Murdoch's camp.

But, if you're Edwards, apparently it's never too late to take a stand.

John Edwards, Hypocritical Fraud--but Boy, is He Pretty!

John Edwards has had many poses in his life. He was a millionaire North Carolina trial lawyer for a couple of decades, then he ran for the US Senate in 1998 as a moderate "DLC"-type Democrat. In that ideological incarnation he didn't just vote in favor of the Iraq war, he co-sponsored the Iraq war resolution.

That centrist pose held for him through 2004, when he ran for president. He managed to get John Kerry to pick him as his vice presidential running mate, on the promise that he could deliver some Southern electoral votes. It didn't happen: the Kerry-Edwards ticket was blanked out in the South by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

After that defeat, Edwards, preparing to run for the presidency again in '08 (what else did he have to do--take care of his infant children? take care of his cancer-stricken wife?), Edwards decided to veer way to the left in pursuit of the nomination; he announced for president this time around in Katrina-afflicted New Orleans, using poor black people as a campaign prop. And in the last year or so he has recanted his Iraq war vote, even as he has been pushing big tax increases and other liberal schemes, including mandatory national health insurance and a return to school busing--the classic dopey liberal scheme of the 70s.

These were big ideological shifts, but it was all easy for Edwards, because that's what trial lawyers do: they say anything, they take any position, to win.

And besides, Edwards could say that he was totally keeping faith with what mattered most to him, which was... Edwards. Especially his foppish handsomeness, which is undoubtedly his greatest asset. As this video makes clear, he kept focused on feeling and being pretty. So, of course, this self-proclaimed "man of the people" was not only getting $400 haircuts, he was actually charging them to his campaign--until he got caught. Of course, he can afford it himself, since his trial-lawyer boodle has been supplemented by overseas investments and doing no-show work for a hedge fund.

Now Edwards has a new schtick: blasting Rupert Murdoch, and blasting Hillary Clinton for taking a small campaign contribution from Murdoch, when he himself took nearly a million dollars from Murdoch for a book.

But here: In the spirit of I-report-you-decide, I will let The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz detail just what a hypocritical fraud Edwards is:

But now that Murdoch's News Corp. has struck the $5-billion deal for Dow Jones, John Edwards is upping the ante. Edwards was the first of the Dems to refuse to debate on Fox News, which won him plaudits in the lefty blogosphere, and here's the latest:

Former senator John Edwards, who has been throwing punches at Rupert Murdoch and his Fox News Channel, demanded yesterday that the other Democratic presidential candidates return contributions from Murdoch's media conglomerate.

"John Edwards will never ask Rupert Murdoch for money -- he won't accept his money," said a statement e-mailed to supporters.

Not so fast, Murdoch's people say. His publishing unit, HarperCollins, paid Edwards a $500,000 advance -- and $300,000 in expenses -- for his 2006 book "Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives."

"We assume the senator is going to give back the money from his advance," News Corp. spokesman Brian Lewis said.

Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz said his boss donated the book payments to charity and that the expense money went to staffers and vendors. Citing the announcement that prompted Edwards's e-mail -- Murdoch's $5 billion deal to buy Dow Jones -- Schultz said, "This is about whether or not Murdoch should expand his media empire and use the Wall Street Journal to further promote his right-wing agenda."

The Edwards demand was aimed squarely at Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has received more than $20,000 from News Corp. executives, including $2,300 from Murdoch and $4,600 from company president Peter Chernin. Sen. Barack Obama has gotten $2,100 from Chernin. Lewis noted that Chernin appeared, at Edwards's request, at a 2004 fundraiser for the Kerry-Edwards ticket.

While the Edwards mailing accused Fox of trying to "demonize the Democratic Party and call it 'news,' " he has boycotted the cable channel only since Jan. 23. Before that, Edwards appeared on Fox programs 33 times.

So, John Edwards, before you demand that Hillary return $20,000, why don't you return the $800,000?

The New York Times' Desperation is Showing

The Times' Russ Buettner must've hated the assignment he got: to produce one more hit piece on Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, and Fox News. Sure, it was fun for Russ to be guaranteed the front page for his story, but along with that visibility came the mission of producing some news--something we didn't know. And yet on that score, Russ failed. The Cable Gamer had to read the piece twice before it really sank in that there was nothing new in the story, "In Fox News, Giuliani Finds a Friendly Stage."

Everyone knows that Ailes and Rudy Giuliani have been friends for 20 years, and that they have worked together--in past campaigns, and also when then-mayor Giuliani worked to get Fox on New York cable, so as to protect the 600 jobs that Fox News was bringing into Manhattan in 1996 (it's a lot more jobs than that now--thanks, Rudy!).

What is new, and kinda cool, is the chart that the Times produced (shown on the left here, although you need a magnifying glass!) depicting the number of occasions in which various presidential hopefuls appeared on TV. The chart does, in fact, show that Giuliani appeared more times on Fox than on any other cable channel--115 times through the first six-and-a-half months of 2007.

So does that make Fox the "Giuliani Channel"? Only if, by the same Times-ian logic, MSNBC is the "Joe Biden/Chris Dodd/Mike Huckabee Channel." Each of those candidates, two Democrats and a Republican, have been on MSNBC more times than Giuliani has been on Fox.

Furthermore, applying the Times' dopey metric to CNN, we could call that channel the "Duncan Hunter/Bill Richardson Channel." Both Hunter and Richardson were on CNN 104 times.

And what of the "John McCain/John Edwards Channel"? That would be NBC, which had McCain on 88 times, and Edwards on 80 times. And of course, a lot more people watch the broadcast networks than the cablers, so by pure eyeballs, NBC has "delivered" a lot more for McCain and Edwards than any of the cable newsers have for their most-booked guests.

But it's a free country, with freedom of speech, freedom of booking guests--and freedom for viewers to watch, or not watch. Each network has made its own choices, depending on its own choices, commitments, and biases.

So while the chart is cool, this is a silly story that the Times has whomped up. But then, of course, "Pinch" Sulzberger is a silly man.

Who's on First? I Mean, Who's in First? That would be Fox News

TV Newser lists the top cable news shows, "in the demo"--that is, audiences 25-54, and finds that 12 of the 15 are on Fox. La Anderson Cooper, the emo newscaster who strains for the "Gap ad" viewership, is a miserable 16th, and Krazy Keith Olbermann, who increasingly resembles Howard Beale of "Network," is down at 20th.

So yes, CNN and MSNBC are in a duel--a duel for distant second place.

Another Hit Piece Coming, per Drudge

NYT EXAMINES MURDOCH, AILES, GIULIANI AXIS
Wed Aug 01 2007 14:39:11 ET

Having failed to thwart a Murdoch purchase of the WALL STREET JOURNAL, the NEW YORK TIMES intensifies battle with the NEWS CORP. empire on Thursday, newsroom sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

The paper is preparing a provocative examination of Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani's relationship with FOX NEWS chief Roger Ailes.

TIMES reporter Russ Buettner has been pestering and pumping Murdoch executives for details on Rudy and Roger, company sources claim.

The duo "have been pulling for each other for nearly two decades," reports Buettner.

"Ailes served as a consultant to Giuliani's first mayoral campaign. Giuliani officiated at Ailes' wedding and intervened when FOXNEWS blocked from securing a cable station in the city."

NYT editors have set a Page One placement for the report, insiders claim.

The Battle for Second Place -- Updating the Update!

"Fox News Dominates July News Ratings/MSNBC Narrows Gap on CNN in All-News-Network Battle"--that's the headline atop Steve Donohue's piece in the must-read Multichannel News.

Donohue continues:

Fox News Channel dominated the all-news ratings race in July, while MSNBC posted the best growth in the category and narrowed the gap on CNN.

Fox News averaged a 1.2 primetime rating in July, down 14% from the same month last year. CNN averaged a 0.6, down 25% from 0.8, and MSNBC posted a 0.5 rating, up 67% from July 2006.

CNBC’s primetime ratings were flat, with a 0.1 primetime average. CNN Headline News posted a 0.4 rating, up 33% from the 0.3 it averaged in July 2006.

Fox News accounted for 13 of the top 15 programs on cable news in July and 11 out of the top 12 in the adults 25-54 demo that advertisers target on all-news networks.

The O’Reilly Factor was the top cable news program, averaging 1.9 million viewers. Also in the top five: Fox’s Hannity & Colmes (1.4 million viewers); The Fox Report with Shepard Smith (1.3 million); Special Report with Brit Hume (1.19 million); and On the Record with Greta Van Susteren (1.16 million).

And it was nice of Donohue to mention CNBC in his piece--or maybe it wasn't so nice, since the dying biz cabler is pulling a 0.1 in prime time.

The Battle for Second Place in The Cable Game-- Update

The steadily insightful Tim Cuprisin explains The Cable Ratings Game lucidly, as he always does, writing in The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

There's an interesting second-place battle among the three cable all-news channels.

July numbers out this week from Nielsen Media Research show CNN and MSNBC are neck and neck, with both of them well behind longtime first-place finisher Fox News Channel.

The top-rated MSNBC show: "Countdown with Keith Olbermann," with 672,000 viewers. CNN's now-canceled "Paula Zahn Now" averaged 546,000 viewers.

But both are in the shadow of the No. 1 show in all cable news, which airs in the same 7 p.m. hour: The Bill "O'Reilly Factor," which averaged 1.9 million viewers.

Fox News had 11 of the top 13 shows. Rounding out the top five are "Hannity & Colmes," "The Fox Report With Shepard Smith," "Special Report With Brit Hume," and "On the Record With Greta Van Susteren."

Fox Takes the High Road

TCG is no political expert, so she has to rely on bloggers and others to fill her in on political nuance. For example, I did not know that the Florida Republican Party, under the leadership of Party Chairman Jim Greer had made a deal with Fox to host a first GOP presidential debate, and then tried to undercut that deal by running another debate, with CNN, first.

But as we have seen, thanks to Hugh Hewitt and others, the Republicans have wised up and backed out, leaving the Sunshine State debate in a state of confusion. Here's some background from a Big Head DC:

According to insiders involved in the Florida debate, “Greedy Greer” conveniently forgot that the GOP made an agreement with FOX News Channel to have FNC’s debate in October serve as the first debate in the state for the 2008 race. Greer, who has yet to pass up a media opportunity, heard rumblings that CNN wanted to bring its YouTube debate to Florida for GOP candidates. Instead of respecting the agreement with FOX, Greer revealed his apparent man-crush on Anderson Cooper and Co. by publicly partnering with YouTube and CNN for the September 17 debate.

OK, that's one blogger's take--note the sly treatment of "La Anderson" Cooper. But what I found interesting was that Fox News, which was the victimized party here, chose not to escalate the fight. If Jim Geer took the low road, along with CNN, took the high road.

"MoveOn Gets Someone to Bite on Faux Fox Protest"--that someone is you, David Bauder!

Advertising Age's Ken Wheaton totally nails the AP's David Bauder. I mean, totally nails him.

Cable Gamers will recall that various lefty groups have been trying to boycott Fox for a while now. TCG opposes boycotts on principle, but OK, they happen.

But Wheaton, writing under the headline "MoveOn Gets Someone to Bite on Faux Fox Protest," catches Bauder simply parroting lefty propaganda. Because Bauder is ideologically sympathetic and can't restrain himself? Or because Bauder is simply lazy, and is grateful that MoveOn could simply spoonfeed him some news? Interesting questions.

Here's Wheaton:

What's left unsaid in the AP piece is that MoveOn has been pitching this story for weeks now. According to the AP piece, "the groups want to first concentrate on businesses running local ads, as opposed to national commercials." That seems to contradict the AP's own story which points out that the groups have been trying, with absolutely no success, to target Home Depot.

Wheaton continues:

By its own admission in press materials, this is the "fourth stage" of MoveOn's attempt to take down the "Republican spin machine."

In other words, this is an on old story, and an old story about a not-successful boycott crusade. Ergo, according to Wheaton, "it isn't news."

David Bauder has done a lot of good reporting. TCG hopes that he will get back to journalism, as opposed to being a stenographer for a lefty pressure group.

The New York Times Slimes Rupert Murdoch--Again. Brian Stelter, Are You Part of This?

Cable Gamers know that The New York Times has had in for Rupert Murdoch for decades--and that the Fading Grey Lady, led by Upper Class Twit of the Century Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr., above--really turned on the gas in the last few months, as The News Corp closed in on its successful effort to buy Dow Jones.

The deal went through, of course, because it made sense for Murdoch and the owners of The Wall Street Journal to come together for some synergy, especially with Fox launching its business channel.

But the Times couldn't let go. It filled up its Wednesday edition with anti-Murdoch stuff of the lowest order, including this rambling slag as the lede, being the second, third, and fourth grafs of a story in the business section:

It’s a sad day for journalism,” declared Jason R. Bader, a Wall Street lawyer who picks up The Journal every day on his way to work and said he had been watching the story develop with disdain.

Sitting under a tree at lunchtime in Zuccotti Park at Broadway and Liberty Street, Mr. Bader said he feared that The Wall Street Journal would take on the tone of another News Corporation media property: Fox News Channel, which he considers sensationalist and biased.

“Rupert Murdoch is the devil and I will never believe another word out of that paper,” Mr. Bader said. “I will never read it again.”

Shame on co-authors Louise Story and Angel Jennings, for devoting so much ink to Bader's rant.

Also, TCG couldn't help but notice that Brian Stelter , the legendary "TV Newser" blogger who got a job at the Times, is credited with "additional reporting." TCG always liked Brian, and so he will be given a pass from criticism--for now. It will be interesting to see if Brian drinks the Times' liberal Koolaid in the years to come, shifting from being the good reporter that he was to just another lefty hitperson.

Bob Barker: No Price is Right for Animal Cruelty

TCG just watched Bob Barker on FNC's "Big Story," with Julie Banderas, from over the weekend--thanks, TiVo!

Barker really stuck to Michael Vick, the accused dog-fighter.

"I understand the maximum is six years and I certainly would hope they would give him the full six years…I would like to have it be longer but that's what it is. However, he's going to pay a high price, Nike has dropped him now or suspended him and so has Reebok."

The Vick story has been heavily covered by Cable Gamers--and a good thing, too.

Update on CNN's pro-Democratic non-debate--moved to December

According to Time's ace reporterette, Ana Marie Cox, writing in the Swampland blog:

The Ron Paul campaign announced, and other campaigns have confirmed, that CNN is moving the YouTube debate to another date, possibly in December.

Evidently Republicans have wised up, thanks in large part to the heroic warning efforts of Hugh Hewitt, who has been warning his readers and listeners about the questions that CNN picked out from the YouTubers:

They are full of lunatic assumptions and hard left fevers. Which is why Josh Marshall, Andrew Sullivan and bunches of other pundits unfriendly to the GOP want the Republicans to drive up to the debate in Michael Dukakis' tank wearing John Kerry's Teletubby HazMat suit and take questions culled by CNN's lefties for two hours...

Love of the new technology shouldn't trump political common sense, and for either of the front runners to agree to this looney format is to risk a great deal of hard work and the contributions of thousands of supporters for very little upside. Listen to today's show when it is posted tonight and you'll get a sense of the questions piling up in the YouTube in box. The moonbat brigades are just beginning to assemble, and the question queue is already beyond bizarre.

So much for "the most trusted name in news"--maybe CNN will need a new "gimmick" now, as Jon Klein put it so memorably once.