Sunday, December 30, 2007

CNN + MSNBC Together At Last? How Jeffs Can Fit Under One Corporate Roof?


Do too many Jeffs spoil the broth? Jeff Bewkes? Jeff Zucker? Jeff Immelt? Could they all wind up in the same executive suite?

Bewkes, of course, is the new CEO of Time-Warner. And Zucker runs NBC Universal. And Immelt runs General Electric, parent company of NBCU.

By almost accounts, Bewkes is a smartie, in the good sense. (By contrast, his predecessor, Dick Parsons, was described, in virtually every profile, as "diplomatic." Well, big deal. Nobody thought of Bill Gates as a charmer, but he was a pretty good CEO in his day.)

So now Bewkes has inherited a mess of a company in T-W. But don't take my word for it:

"If you have been an investor in Time Warner for a one-, two-, three-, five- or seven-year time frame, you have not made money," said Michael Nathanson, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein. "Therefore you have to look at the construction of the company and ask, 'Why is the company built like this?'"


The preceding is an excerpt from an interesting piece in the 12/25 edition of The International Herald Tribuneby Tim Arango, who is also, of course a media reporter for the IHT's parent, The New York Times. So maybe the story ran in the Times, too--it's harder and harder to tell what runs where in this new-media environment.

But in any case, Arango goes through some of the options available to Bewkes:

Sell the slow-growth Time Inc.; spin-off the cable unit; beef up the cable networks by acquiring Discovery Communications or the Scripps Networks; merge AOL with Yahoo or MSN to better compete with Google.


"Better compete with Google"? That's an interesting angle. And The Cable Gamer is certainly interested in that angle, but I'll save that for another time. For now, I am more interested in this possibility, also from Arango's piece:

Or, something even more radical: merge with NBC Universal, an idea that has been publicly floated.


Now TCG believes that this is not accurate: I am reliably informed that the plan is in the works for GE (Jeff Immelt) to spin off NBCU (Jeff Zucker) sometime soon after the 2008 presidential election. And I still think that that's the most likely scenario.

But of course, times change; so maybe there's a new plan afoot, to bring Time Warner into the fold with NBCU. GE could afford it: its market cap is around $370 billion, whereas T-W's is around $60 billion. But of course, a big reason why GE stock has been on the downslope for the past six years is because of investor fears about the viability of NBC and its media properties, including Cable Gamers CNBC and MSNBC.

So would Jeff Immelt really want to double his media bet? The Cable Gamer doesn't think so. But one never knows, does one?

I wonder what Jeff Bercovici thinks!

Update: "TW Tops in Media Flops"--that's the headline in The New York Post on Monday.

"U PARTY WITH FOX NEWS 2008" -- Well Why Not?












This New Year’s Eve, Megyn Kelly and Bill Hemmer will be hosting a special New Year’s Eve program “U Party with Fox News 2008” on, duh, Dec. 31, 2007 from 11PM – 1AM EST. Megyn Kelly and Bill Hemmer will ring in the New Year live from New York City with FNC’s Greg Gutfeld, Courtney Friel, Griff Jenkins, Rick Leventhal and Jill Dobson.

A press release promises, "'U Party with Fox News 2008' will incorporate all of FNC’s viewer interactive capabilites including UReport, UAsk, UVote, UText and UChat." This Cable Gamer confesses that she did not know of all these "U's." There's obviously more technology going on at FNC than most viewers might realize.

Thursday, December 27, 2007

Come Back to Time-Warner, Carl Icahn!


Remember a couple of years ago when Carl Icahn wanted to break up Time-Warner? That is, spin off various parts of the company, in hopes of gaining more shareholder value?

It was February 7, 2006, to be exact, when Icahn, having bought a substantial minority stake in the troubled media conglomerate, proposed a four-way break-up of the company. But at the the time, T-W CEO Richard Parsons nixed the deal, proving yet again that most corporate boards of directors aren't worth much. Back in early '06, T-W stock was at $18.40 (down from its all time high of $91 in 1999).

Nice work, Dick! Twenty-two months ago, you chased away an investor/suitor who could have actually given T-W shareholders a boost. Nearly two years later, the stock closed today at $16.67, down more than 10% from the Icahn moment--but who's counting?

And now that Parsons is finally gone, replaced by Jeff Bewkes we see more confirmation that T-W is moving forward toward a corporate breakup, thanks to Bloomberg's Gillian Wee.

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

"Fox News Channel's evening news show provided more balanced coverage than its counterparts on the broadcast networks"


I report, you decide:

"The study also found that Fox News Channel's evening news show provided more balanced coverage than its counterparts on the broadcast networks."

There you have it--not from me, not from Fox, but from George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.

The Politico is that cool newspaper with incredibly insider-y political coverage. And here's a Cable Game-y item presented in full:

RELEASE OF THE DAY, from the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University: "TV election news has been hardest on Hillary Clinton this fall, while Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee have been the biggest media favorites, according to a new study … . The study also found that Fox News Channel's evening news show provided more balanced coverage than its counterparts on the broadcast networks."


Stay tuned, now, for the counter-onslaught from the likes of Media Matters, FAIR, etc.

Monday, December 24, 2007

"Was Barack Obama a Muslim?" Seems like a Fair Question to Ask--and More to The Point, for Obama to Fully Answer!









Are we in the process of nominating, maybe even electing, America's first Muslim president? Are the memories of 9-11 that faded in our minds?

Daniel Pipes, the conservative blogger who runs the Middle East Forum, is not one for liberal p.c. pieties. To wit, Pipes' brave posting today, in which he asks, "Was Barack Obama a Muslim?" Which is to say, Pipes is my kinda guy! And that's probably the biggest single reason I like Fox News, too. As Brit Hume says, "Fair, Balanced, and Unafraid."

So I am not in the least surprised that Pipes and Fox--along with a very few others, such as The Washington Times and The New York Observer--have been the only media portals to explore the question of what religion Obama might have picked up from his Kenyan Muslim father, or his Indonesian Muslim stepfather, or from his childhood and schooling in mostly Muslim Indonesia.

Indeed, even the Associated Press, not exactly a bastion of conservative eager-beavers, found some compelling evidence, including this nugget, from a news story dated January 24, 2007:

Obama's mother, divorced from Obama's father, married a man from Indonesia named Lolo Soetoro, and the family relocated to the country from 1967-71. At first, Obama attended the Catholic school, Fransiskus Assisis, where documents showed he enrolled as a Muslim, the religion of his stepfather. The document required that each student choose one of five state-sanctioned religions when registering – Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic or Protestant.


Note the key phrase there, about young Obama: "documents showed he enrolled as a Muslim, the religion of his father and step-father." Is the AP making that up? Are the documents at hand forgeries? But if they are genuine, isn't that a smoking gun?

Now some, including Pipes, therefore suspect that Obama's campaign might be lying when it says that "Senator Obama was never a Muslim."

But for the most part, of course, the MSM has not been interested in pursuing this story further; the AP story was almost a year ago, with little follow up, other than the declaration that the story has been disproved.

And of course, Obama Democrats are militant "We will not be swift-boated," said the Obama campaign. Please note that "not being swift-boated" doesn't necessarily mean that you will knock down a false charge with the truth--all it means is that you will hit back hardm with the truth, with a lie, or any other blunt object. In other words, John Kerry should have hired James Carville. No doubt the Obama campaign has absorbed that message, and perhaps they've even succeeded in intimidating the rival presidential campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton--that's how powerful p.c. can be.

Because certainly MSM enforcers, such as the left-wing Think Progress, have been extraordinarily eager, and effective, in shutting down any discussion of Obama's religious background. Few dare, it seems, want to risk being accused of "Islamophobia." Evidently, today, abiding by the fatwa against the hex on saying anything bad about Islam is a stronger journalistic value than seeking out the truth.

And of course, CNN, always anxious to move with the liberal MSM herd, was thus anxious to agree with the trendy groupthink on Obama. And so a key question about the man who is poised to win the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary--and thus quite possibly the Democratic nomination and the White House--was tossed down the memory hole.

And here's that key question: What about the Shahada?

Specifically, did young Barack Hussein Obama ever publicly recite the Shahadah? All Muslims do it, since the Shahada is at the core of their faith. So it should be an easy enough question for Obama--yes or no? All we need is a gutsy reporter to put the question to the Illinois Senator, preferably on camera, so we can all gauge his reaction. He declares, we decide!

The Shahada, of course, is the Muslim profession of faith. In the original, it's lā ilāha illā-llāh, wa muḥammadan rasūlu-llāh , or, if you prefer, "I testify that there is no god but God, and I testify that Muhammad is the messenger of God." That's it. And if you're curious as to what the Shahadah looks like in Arabic, take a look at the graphic above--which is, of course, the flag of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The sword is just a little peacenik touch that the Saudis added on.

If someone wants to so profess, that's OK, but if someone does so profess, then, in the eyes of Islam, that person is a Muslim. For life. And it's fair for others to know the truth, too, so that they can decide who to vote for based on all the information. After all, there is a "clash of civilizations" going on, between the West and Islam.

So where does Obama stand? Is he a Christian who is against Islamic domination? Is he a Muslim who is against Muslim domination? Or is he, mindful of his own twinned heritage, going to try to straddle the two cultures? Because, as the Wikipedia entry explains, "A single honest recitation of the Shahadah in Arabic is all that is required for a person to become a Muslim according to most traditional schools."

Now, suppose for a moment that young Obama did recite the Shahada--he did, to repeat, have a Muslim father and also stepfather, and he did live in a Muslim country. If so, then what is the status of Obama's faith now? The official answer is that he is a Christian, and he just offered a sweet Christmas message. So that's Christian, right? But wait! If you watch the video, you will see that Obama himself doesn't say, "Merry Christmas," one of his daughters does. Interesting!

And what about Obama's church? He is a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, a church with a strongly "Afrocentric" theology. And the minister at Trinity, Jeremiah Wright, has his own pro-Third World ideology; he once traveled to Libya as a guest of Muammar Qaddafi.

So let's have some more questions for Obama. If he is no longer a Muslim, that's fine with me. Although he might then be a liar. If he never was a Muslim, ever, then let him disprove the reports from Fox and elsewhere.

But I think that Muslims will care if he converted away from their religion. As Pipes points out, Muslims don't take kindly to apostates, or murtadd. Murtadd, one might say, is Arabic for "you're dead."

So maybe it's a Catch 22 for Obama: He might be lying to Americans, 85 percent of whom are Christians, or he might be lying to the Muslims, all billion or so of them around the world--and many of them, as we know, have guns and bombs. One shudders to think what might happen if Obama becomes the 44th President and then travels to some Muslim country where an Islamic purist is riled up at him. (Remember the hell that befell Salman Rushdie, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, both accused of various kinds of apostasy.

But in the meantime, inquiring minds want to know the real story about Obama and Shahadah. Seriously, we want to know.

Because the fate of our country is at stake in the next election.

A half-century ago, The Manchurian Candidate was fiction. Maybe today the Muslim Candidate is real.

In any case, let's have some more investigation. This isn't just a story of interest to Cable Gamers, this is a story of interest to all Americans.

Fox started it, Pipes picked it up, now let's see where Fox--or anyone else with some journalistic courage--can go next. Hopefully, such fearless inquiry will lead us to the truth! And who knows? Maybe the truth will be the best thing ever for Obama.

Sunday, December 23, 2007

"CNBC Threatens Fox Guests"




That's the headline atop a blog called 24/7 Wall Street. And here's the item, in full:

Perhaps GE (GE) unit CNBC should let Fox Business succeed or fail on its own merits. Threatening guests who appear on Fox with banning them from CNBC seems a bit thuggish.

In a note to Fox producers an executive at Jefferies & Co. said he could not appear on the new network without losing his place on CNBC. Arthur R. Hogan, the Director, Global Equity Product at the investment bank wrote Fox "CNBC has put pressure on me not to do spots for any other business news stations."

CNBC executive editor Nick Dunn must not think he can compete with Fox head-to-head. In another e-mail quoted by "Inside Cable News" he wrote a guest “Saw you on the new network. Please don’t make that a regular thing."

Lovely manners, Nick

Douglas A. McIntyre.

I report, with help from the always must-read Inside Cable News--you decide!

Why Fox Biz Looks So Cool



The Cable Gamer doesn't pretend to be much of a techie. But she has been struck by the cool look of Fox Business News, and she keeps seeing articles, like this one, from TV Technology.com, that explain what's going on, behind the camera, so that what's in front of the camera looks so bright and shiny.

I wish I were better equipped, intellectually, to wade through information such as this:

In its HD studios, FBN uses 11 Ikegami HD HDK-725P portable HD cameras to capture on-air talent. These portable HD cameras are equipped with an assortment of HD lenses, including six Canon Compact DigiSuper 22XS HD lenses (XJ22x7.3BIE-D). This new category of lenses was designed by Canon to have a compact size relative to HD portable cameras, making them better suited to studio use.

The sets are complemented by visual displays from two Christie HD projectors, four 103-inch Panasonic plasma monitors, a circular LED display that wraps around a structural column, and a wall of flat-panel displays. Multiple displays of video and graphics can be arranged onto the large-screen monitors on the set by a Vista Spyder video processing system for greater visual impact.

Fox Loves America--But Hey, I Only Report. You Decide.







Please watch this YouTube video on FNC sending cheer to the troops, and if you don't agree that FNC loves America, including our armed forces, I will eat my remote.

This segment shows Jennifer Griffin, although it seems to The Cable Gamer that E.D. Hill has been the single biggest on-air force on this wonderful effort.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, America!

Thanks to Thomas Charles Stewart III, and also, of course, to Johnny Dollar.

Jon Klein Re-Ups At CNN, Ups the Spin on Anderson Cooper, and Ups the Expectations Game on Campbell Brown




Once again, access = bias--or even better! OK, so CNN resigned Jon Klein for another four years. Oops, make that re-signed!

And The New York Observer's Felix Gillette seems really happy, perhaps because Gillette either sat in on Klein's peptalk to CNN-ers in NYC, or else he got a tape or a verbatim report.

Evidently Gillette was so happy with his insider-y status that a genuine howler got past him. Gillette wrote that Anderson Cooper "currently trails" FNC's Greta Van Susteren.

Currently? The Cable Gamer is still laughing over this one. “Currently”?!?!??! Try ALWAYS! According to The Free Dictionary "currently" is defined as "belonging to the present time." You know, as in temporary.

But there seems to be nothing "temporary" about Cooper's lagging behind Greta in the ratings, or in the demo. Has La Anderson ever won a month? That would be a no. Since he launched in November of 2005, Cooper has lost every consecutive month in both viewership and 25-54 demo to Van Susteren. Indeed, TCG hears from Nielsen that the Fox host has been #1 for 67 consecutive months! That’s a bit different than currently! How did Gillette miss that one?!

These things happen in the MSM, as well as the blogosphere. As alert Cable Gamers have pointed out, I predicted that "The Half Hour Comedy Hour" would be a hit. Well, I was wrong about that one! Oh well.

In the meantime, Felix will have more journalistic lives. And he offers some interesting stuff in his piece, such as this discussion of CNN's troubled first hour of prime time:

Mr. Klein suggested that Campbell Brown’s new 8 p.m. show, set to debut in February, would compete by being “more talk-oriented,” by featuring fewer “formal pieces,” and by on occasion capitalizing on Ms. Brown’s sometimes-comic sensibility towards the news, à la Comedy’s Central The Daily Show. “Jon Stewart should not corner the market on innovative uses of tape,” said Mr. Klein. “He wishes he had access to the amount of material we get in every day.”


So Klein is kinda raising the expectations game here. Campbell Brown has always struck me as a perfectly adequate anchor. So if she were just content to do some news and ask some questions on her forthcoming show, well, that would be OK--although she would still be overshadowed by Bill O'Reilly's ratings and Keith Olbermann's hype. But now Cambpell is supposed to be Jon Stewart? Using closely edited tape with the comic, or otherwise effective, timing of Stewart. That'll be tough, to put it mildly.

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Profiles In Courage--Keith Olbermann Style











Keith Olbermann is a very brave man. How do we know? He tells us so!

I mean he's not so brave that he, say, volunteered to serve in the military, or even to be, maybe, a volunteer fireman. Instead, Olbermann tells us, he nearly quit over MSNBC's running commentary, back in 2003, from controversial conservative talker Michael Savage. But you see, Olbermann didn't actually quit. And he kept his courage a secret for more than four years, before sharing his tale of heroism with Bill Moyers.

Here's the way Think Progress, a liberal group in DC, sums up the story, totally accepting Olbermann's spin, that he was, and is, a Man of Conscience:

Olbermann: I Nearly Left MSNBC In 2003 Over Michael Savage’s ‘Spattering Invective’

On PBS’ Bill Moyers Journal this past Friday, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann criticized right-wing radio host Michael Savage, who had a show on MSNBC in 2003. Olbermann recounted how he nearly walked off the set of his Countdown show once when MSNBC told him to run a commentary by Savage.

Describing why he was opposed to including the segment, Olbermann said Savage’s show was “basically just spattering invective on people he didn’t like“:

MSNBC hired a guy named Michael Savage. And he came on and did– not only did he do a show once a week that was basically just spattering invective on people he didn’t like and these people change from week to week, but it was terribly produced. I mean, it was an awful show.


Someday, maybe, Olbermann & Co. will run into some real heroes that they might compare themselves to. But until then, KO can pat himself on the back for ALMOST quitting his job. Almost.

Instead, he stuck around and got a big raise.

Monday, December 17, 2007

Cody Willard on "Foxy Business News"













Interesting piece on Cody Willard, co-host of Fox Business News' "Happy Hour," along with Rebecca Gomez. I confess I didn't know much about Cody, other than his fabulous Fabio-like hair. And yet why not, The Cable Gamer wants to know? Why shouldn't the male anchors be just a bit on the dreamy side. I know a lotta girls who would be happy to spend an hour with Cody!

Cody is from New Mexico, before making a fortune on Wall Street, and then turning to TV. This feature profile piece, appearing in The Albuquerque Journal,is lamentably behind a subscription wall, but here it is, "Ruidoso Native Cody Willard Is the Talk of Wall Street" because the piece, by Tracy Dingmann, is pretty interesting, and information wants to be free! (Ruidoso, btw, is a about 100 miles south of ABQ.)

Every evening at 5, lanky former Lobo basketball player Cody Willard bellies up to the bar, schmoozing about the just-concluded markets on Wall Street with anyone who will listen.
But Willard isn't just some schmo— the New Mexico native is the host of "Happy Hour" on the new Fox Business Network, a show broadcast live across the country every evening from the storied Bull and Bear tavern at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in midtown Manhattan.
The playful yet informative show features the outgoing Willard and his dishy co-host, Rebecca Gomez, as they interview guests ranging from celebrity chefs to porn stars to actual financial experts. Since its debut this past September, the exuberant "Happy Hour" has drawn raves from the normally brutal New York media.
The show— and Willard specifically— also have elicited positive buzz from the Wall Street Journal, New York Magazine, The New York Times and Gawker.com.
Newsweek magazine, citing the youth, good looks and general rowdiness of the "Happy Hour" hosts, suggested the new Fox network should be called "Foxy Business News."
There is a decidedly youth-oriented aspect to "Happy Hour," a look that wasn't achieved by accident, says Willard, 35.
"The six people who produce the show are 32 years and younger. The team is a young team, and it really stands out on the air."
More specifically, says Willard, "I'm surrounded by beautiful women all day, every day."
From bench to star
Not bad for a Ruidoso native who rode the bench for one miserable year as a walk-on under former University of New Mexico coach Dave Bliss.
So how did Willard rebound so nicely from his less-than-stellar college basketball career?
He took his degree in economics from UNM and ran with it. After graduating in 1996, Willard moved to New York and starting working for the money management firm Oppenheimer & Co.
In 2002 he launched his own sucessful money management company, CL Willard Capital, which quickly drew the attention of high-profile Wall Streeters. Willard was asked to write a monthly investment column for The Financial Times and TheStreet.com and was a regular guest on CNBC's "Kudlow & Company"— the host of which, Lawrence Kudlow, jokingly dubbed Willard "the James Dean of Telecom."
Willard was young, rich and smart— and then he got his own TV show.
"For the last 11 years, I feel like I've been on scholarship for the first time in my life," says Willard in a recent telephone interview from New York, contrasting his experience as a walk-on basketball player at UNM.

The Midas touch
It does appear Willard is living a charmed life. He lives in a giant artist's loft with tin ceilings in the heart of SoHo, surrounded by upscale shops and restaurants. He has put his money management career on hold for now— but it looks like the chance he took on a television career has paid off. Willard confesses he still can't believe the show has attracted such positive attention.
"You know, I've got to be waiting for that shoe to drop at some point," he says. "At some point, I've got to do something wrong. The media has been very nice to me."
Willard says he's at a loss to explain his appeal, but the consensus among TV critics seems to be that he grabs people's attention with his offbeat looks and exuberance, then wins their trust with his candor and expertise.
"What I strive to bring to the table is just the Ruidoso attitude of just calling it like I see it and being open and honest about any topic," he told the Journal.

Basketball bummer
Willard is proud to be from New Mexico and still keeps close ties to Ruidoso, where his parents live. His father, Lynn, runs the Ruidoso Animal Clinic there.
"It's a 30-year growth business. It's always made money— it's never had a down year," says Willard proudly.
His mother, Donna, teaches English to seniors at his alma mater, Ruidoso High School, and "is the gatekeeper to getting out of town," he jokes.
Willard isn't so proud of being a Lobo under Bliss, who Willard says he feels was "not forthright" with him.
According to UNM records, Willard played a total of seven minutes in five games. He doesn't hold back about Bliss in his regular blog, CodyWillard.com.
Because of his disgust with his experience, Willard says he has never watched another college basketball game.
For someone who attracts so much attention from the ladies, Willard has nothing serious to report in that department.
"I've had great girlfriends over the years and they never worked out," he says. "We have beautiful women on the show constantly, and people are always asking, 'When are you going to ask out one of the guests?' So far I've gone two months without asking anyone out. You can pretty much ask most people. I've never been a player."

It can't last forever
So what does Willard see in his future?
"I still have my money management company but I recognize that I can't do an objective news show and still have skin in the game in that way," he says. "Plus, you can't manage money unless you're bleeding for it every day. And I can't manage money every day if I have a TV show."
Willard says he would like things to slow down a bit and doesn't think of being on television as a long-term profession.
"I also need a life," he says. "It would be nice to slow things down. I have a three-year contract with Fox, but I don't control my destiny here in many ways. They're my bosses now. I'm working for the man.
"If this thing falls apart, if TV is not for me, I'm coming home to Ruidoso to coach high school basketball."

"Fox and the Democrats"












An interesting debate has emerged in the New York City media--why are the Democrats ducking Fox News?

On December 12, Jeff Bercovici, a smart writer/blogger for Conde Nast's Portfolio magazine, ventured into the touchy topic of why big-name Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton, won't go on Chris Wallace's "Fox News Sunday" show, and why it is that top Democrats frequently avoid Fox News--viz. the DNC pulling the plug on the Congressional Black Caucus presidential debate earlier this year. Bercovici slapped around Wallace pretty hard, but then reached his conclusion about the Dems:

They do it for the same reason they limit their press availability in general: because they're afraid of getting tripped up, caught in a flip-flop or a contradiction.

Then another blogger, Zachary Roth of The New York Observer,
weighed in with a response to Jeff:

But this isn't quite right, in my view. It's true that, as Jeff says, Democrats are more likely to get tripped up during an interview on Fox News than on other networks.

But then Zachary continues with more analysis, which doesn't make the Democrats look very good:

But they didn't start consistently snubbing Fox until liberal activists, led by watchdog groups like Media Matters, made it into an issue. (You can call that "pandering to the far left wing", as Mr. Wallace does, or listening to the wishes of your supporters, or whatever you like, but it's how politics works.)

Indeed, that is how politics works: The Democratic left has sought to anathematize Fox. And evidently that suits lefty Democrats, so that they can nominate lefties to office, and maybe even elect some of them.

But there's just one thing: What if the country is in a different place? What if the country is more conservative than liberal elites might admit, or even realize? That's the argument made by Jeffrey Bell in this compelling piece in The Weekly Standard, headlined, "Alive and Kicking: Reports of the demise of social conservatism are greatly exaggerated." Now The Cable Gamer is no policy wonk; but it seems to her that yes, indeed, the American people are a lot more conservative than the thought-leaders in NYC or LA. But take a look at the article!

And if Bell is right, then the Democrats have some serious rethinking to do. Harold Ford was on Fox News all the time in the last few years, talking about every possible issue. And while Ford did not win his Senate race in Tennessee, he came extremely close. For a black man in a former Confederate state, that's pretty good.

One could ask: Which one of the Fox-boycotting national Democrats has any chance of carrying Tennessee in next year's presidential elections? And if the Democrats write off the Volunteer State's 11 electoral votes, will they feel the same way about other similar states, such as Kentucky and Arkansas? And how different are Missouri and Virginia? Are they liberal? Pro-choice on abortion, pro-gay marriage? I don't think so.

TCG realizes that not everyone likes Fox, and that's OK. But if I were running for President, I would at least learn how to fake it.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Time Warner Breakup? Nah, Scratch The Question Mark. But I Have Some Questions Of My Own!














The New York Times' Tim Arango runs an an amazing story this morning--about the future of Time-Warner under Jeff Bewkes--that TCG thinks needs some more play: Time-Warner, the perpetually troubled and stock-price-depressed parent company of CNN, has brought in one Douglas Shapiro, described by the Times as "a well-known stock picker for Banc of America Securities, a subsidiary of Bank of America," who "joined Time Warner about a month ago and is expected to become head of investor relations under Mr. Bewkes, who will officially take the reins of the company on Jan. 2."

The Times continues, describing the Bewkes future:

One widely expected move is a complete spinoff of Time Warner Cable in the spring, when the company will be able to break off its cable unit without incurring a large tax bill. A sale of AOL’s Internet access business is also thought to be on the agenda.

As head of the department that communicates with Time Warner’s long-suffering investors — the shares have lagged since the ill-fated 2001 merger with AOL — Mr. Shapiro will probably spend much of his time explaining how Mr. Bewkes’s plans, which will be slowly unveiled in the early months of next year, will help improve shareholder value.


And it seems that Shapiro has been among the analysts talking about a spinoff/restructuring/breakup. And now--whaddya know!--he has gone from speculating about a breakup, in his analyst capacity, to helping plan such a breakup, and touting it.

All that's fine with TCG; everyone has to make a living--and somebody needs to undo the mess made by Jerry Levin and Ted Turner. (Remember when T-W was over $100 a share?) But now let's take a look at this, also from the Times story:

Mr. Shapiro left Banc of America in May and joined Time Warner about a month ago. In his last published report on Time Warner, in February, he had a buy recommendation on the stock and a price target of $25 a share. The stock has lately traded under $17 a share. In that report he recommended the stock partly because “we think there is a chance it pursues a restructuring eventually, including possibly divesting publishing or AOL, or even a full breakup of the company into is four logical components.”

Is it just me, or does that sound a little strange to you, too--this sequence of events? T-W stock was around 22 back in February, and Shapiro suggests that it was going to go to 25. Instead, it heads down, to 16.63, as I type this. So now Shapiro comes in, presumably with some sort of mandate to help break up the company. So now will the stock go up?

Isn't it kinda strange that Shapiro, who has been something of an umpire for T-W, in his capacity as an analyst, is now suiting up to get on the field as a player? One wonders what the law is on this sort of relationship--and relationship changing.

And so some questions: Who said what to whom? Whom did Shapiro talk to, at T-W, back in February? And since? When did his role shift from trying to squeeze information out of the company--a perfectly legit function for an analyst--to trying to squeeze a bigger pay package out of the company he was going to work for? At what point did Bewkes and Shapiro reach a meeting of the minds? And form a common plan for the future

Monday, December 10, 2007

"Bush League Justice" Premieres Tonight--So THAT'S MSNBC's Idea Of Fairness!?




Verbatim from TV Newser:

MSNBC's Live with Dan Abrams (which is soon getting a name change) will premiere a new series tonight called "Bush League Justice." Abrams writes on the MSNBC blog that the idea for the series "stems from my increasing frustration and outrage over how the Bush Administration has politicized the usually apolitical Justice Department."

"Bush League Justice" marks the latest in a push by MSNBC to take the offensive against the Bush administration, with Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, and the once possible hiring of Rosie O'Donnell. Jacques Steinberg of The New York Times wrote last month about MSNBC's "three-hour block of nighttime talk...in which the White House takes a regular beating."


Now TV Newser, of course, is too polite to say it: But what's really Bush league, here, is to say that such an obviously tilted show is good journalism.

NBC Gives Ground--So What About MSNBC and CNBC?




So NBC has backed down on its refusal to run ads paid for by Freedom's Watch, a conservative group urging support for the Iraq war.

That's great, but what about the steady drumbeat of anti-war propaganda that comes out of NBC's subunits? That question was raised by Newt Gingrich last Friday on "The Big Story With John Gibson," in which Fox News' Heather Nauert asked the questions.

I report, you decide:

NAUERT: It's the big outrage tonight. Who wouldn't want to thank our troops for serving in a country? NBC, that's who. The non-profit group Freedom's Watch has just launched two new ads that are running on both FOX NEWS and CNN. They wanted them also to run on NBC, but the peacock network said no way. Let's take a look at one of these ads and see if you can figure out what is just so troubling.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

People are gathering across the country to support our troops who are away from their families this holiday season.

We're proud of you.

Thank you.

These young men and women are heroes. They deserve our undying gratitude.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

GIBSON: So what is NBC's beef with the spot? It says it won't air the ad because Freedom Watch's website address appears at the end. The network says the site is too political and airing the spot would cross the line in their advertising policy. The non-profit group's CEO tells FOX this isn't the first time NBC has turned down its ads saying NBC specifically objects to its support for the war on terror. With us now, former house speaker and FOX NEWS contributor, Newt Gingrich, author of "Pearl Harbor, A Novel of December 8." And of course today is the day. So Speaker Gingrich, NBC nixes salute to troops. Are they showing their true colors?

NEWT GINGRICH (R), FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER: Well, of course they are. I have to say as an army brat whose dad served in the army for 27 years, I think this is such an outrage that I hope people will boycott NBC as long as they are so actively anti-our troops, and candidly actively against defending America. This is a network remember, which not only has Chris Matthews paid every night to attack the war and attack the president, not only is Keith Olbermann paid every night to attack the war and attack the president, this is a network which gave 35 hours to Al Gore for global warming propaganda, gave it to him, didn't sell it, gave it to them. For them to suddenly decide that thanking our troops is too controversial, I think is one of the most outrageously offensive things any network has done in modern times.

NAUERT: This is just an unbelievable PR thing on their part. I mean, they had to have realized that they would get a ton of criticism. We watched the ad right there. It's also up on Freedom Watch's website for people who at home want to watch it themselves. There is nothing offensive about it.

GINGRICH: I think the elite liberal executives at NBC, and I'm very surprised the general electorate allows this to happen, since they own the company. I think the elite liberals who patted themselves on the back about giving away 35 hours to Al Gore are patting themselves on the back tonight for standing up against any kind of right wing pressure, because in their mind, anybody who is in favor of our troops is right wing. Anybody who is in favor of defending America is right wing. And so I have a hunch that this weekend at their various and sundry left wing cocktail parties, they're all going to congratulate each other on how courageous they are for not showing this ad. But I think for any American who realizes at Christmastime what our families go through who have their mothers and fathers serving America, I think NBC's refusal to run these ads is just a stunningly dishonorable thing, and I would hope virtually everybody who is watching will decide to boycott NBC as long as NBC is boycotting American troops.

GIBSON: Mr. Gingrich, we just put a picture up a minute ago and I think most Americans don't know who it is. His name is Jeffrey Immelt, he is the chairman and CEO of General Electric. Now, you know, he doesn't wear his politics on his sleeve, near as I can tell. Can you possibly explain why General Electric isn't putting a stop to this sort of thing?

GINGRICH: I can, and I frankly raised it directly, because I think there should be some sense of accountability. I don't care how left wing, how anti-American defense, how committed to undermining the president the NBC executives are, there is no excuse for a public corporation being so totally one-sided. Again, notice the record, 35 hours for free to Al Gore for propaganda, but not even a paid ad on behalf of the troops who are defending America. That is such a one-sided, I think utterly dishonest policy that its in defense, what I hope that Jeffrey Immelt's going to look into it, and I hope they're going to take seriously judging exactly what NBC is doing.

The Cable Game In The DVR World





Advertising Age's Jack Neff offers a fascinating take on the long-term impact of DVR (Digital Video Recording), only exacerbated by the Hollywood writers' strike: In a nutshell, what if the entertainment industry never recovers--at least not in its current form? One big beneficiary, of course, will be cable news, because news is not scripted. News, like sports, demands to be watched in real time.

As Neff puts it in Ad Age:

Could the writers strike foreshadow life without advertiser support for scripted TV programs?

A media world without scripted programming -- something more likely as the strike drags on -- may start to look a lot like the coming world of heavy DVR penetration that could render ads on scripted TV shows largely powerless. If the strike forces advertisers to shift their focus to live and reality programming, it will effectively lift the curtain on a future in which live events command the biggest ad bucks and dramas and sitcoms lose much of their cachet. After all, if advertisers find effective ways to market without those scripted shows -- today or tomorrow -- some may never come back.

Dramas and comedies, the programs most affected by the strike, are the programs most vulnerable to time shifting and ad skipping by DVR users, according to research by TiVo and Information Resources Inc., which have been jointly tracking the behavior of households using DVRs for the past three years.


What's relatively immune to DVR-ing, by contrast is news. Breaking news. No point in recording that--you want to see it happen, when it happens.

Sunday, December 09, 2007

I Wonder If This Handsome Man Is In Legal Trouble. Or Maybe He's A DA. Or A Judge. I Don't Know. But He Must Be An Important Legal Figure...




...Or why else would he be on Court TV?

The Cable Gamer is not saying that Court TV has been dumbed down to the point of "Bay Watch," so I'll let the channel itself say it, with shows such as "Beach Patrol."

Oh, and by the way, it's soon to be called "TruTV,"according to The NY Post's Adam Buckman, in this interview with "T&A TVs" (that's Trunks and Abs, in case you were wondering) chieftain Marc Juris.

Thursday, December 06, 2007

The Cable Game Converges














OK, so I watched Mitt Romney's speech on religion in politics on my computer this morning--indeed, from his presidential campaign website. Yes, the speech was carried live, on all three cable networks, and on all their websites too, I am pretty sure, but mindful of the issue of convergence--when all media are funneled onto one screen--I wanted to see what it was like to watch it from Romney's own website. (Screen grab above.)

Of course, I generally prefer to consume my news along with intelligent commentary from experienced journalists, or with fair & balanced commentary from experienced experts. So I don't particularly recommend the "Mitt.tv" route, and besides, the sound quality on Romney's site was bad. There's a reason why TV emerged as the art and science that it is--because there're distinct skills required, distinct forms of professionalism required.

So TV has a distinct edge, when it comes to doing one thing well.

But what if we want to do a lot of things--What if we can't decide? What if we want to surf around? Specifically, what if I had wanted to watch the press conference by the Omaha cops in the wake of that tragic mass shooting at the mall yesterday?

It goes without saying, sadly, that cable is at its best with breaking news, when there's genuine suspense as the outcome. And that was the case on Wednesday, as the shooting news broke. As The Cable Gamer has observed many times on this site, news is the ultimate reality show. So we don't need a fancy set for fake "friends," mixed up with fake drama among fake "enemies." Nor do we need a bunch semi-scripted, semi-rigged contests among carefully selected "contestants."

All we really need, to enjoy our daily dose of drama, is the whole big wide world out there--the universe around us is our best "set." Thanks to webcams and wireless, everything can be news these days; that is, it can be processed into news, and consumed as news. To be sure, there's not a lot of money in such processing, but many won't care--such as the Romney campaign, for example: the campaign was happy to provide the TV show live and without commercial interruption, and it's still up there, on the site, seven hours later, and presumably will forever.

In the meantime, blogs, vlogs, Flickr, MySpace, etc, are all providing folks with the rudiments of a "TV channel." Most of what's posted will be judged as trivial, of course, but everything is important to somebody. And yes, the audience for each little mini-performance and micro-event might be negligible, even non-existent, but to repeat, if somebody took the time to post it, then it's important to an audience of at least that one person. And in a world of unlimited choice and competition, the consumer is truly sovereign in his or her choices; we might pause to ponder, for example, just how many ways a news consumer could have consumed Romney's speech today, in live real-time form. That should put the best efforts of each discrete news provider in a perhaps depressing perspective.

It's no longer the networks saying, "You Sit, You Watch," it's now the customer saying, "Catch Me If You Can."

But to go back to my question above: What if I really wanted to watch the Omaha cops, or maybe pandas playing, or maybe the paint drying somewhere, courtesy of some webcam? The Internet provides that option, albeit in an unstructured way. And so the question is who will bring some order to that challenge, within the familiar framework of news.

Because the trend is going to continue. Because if young Europeans prefer the Net to TV, then the truth can't be much different for young Americans. And on both sides of the Atlantic, those youngsters will age soon enough, and eventually they will all be the prime consumers that all advertisers hunger for.

So the cablers will eventually have to figure all this out.

PEACOCK PURGE: ZUCKER PLANS MAJOR CUTS HOPING TO SAVE MILLIONS

That's the headline atop the NY Post, describing how NBC's onetime "wunderkind," Jeff Zucker, is slashing costs at NBC and MSNBC. I guess that's what wunderkinds do it: they shrink the operation.

Admittedly, the Post is owned by the News Corporation, which also owns Fox News and Fox Business News, both rivals to NBC properties, but the story is either accurate or it isn't. We'll soon see.

Happy holidays, Peacockers!

If it's any consolation, all those getting the axe should know that it's nothing personal with them--this is all a part, the Cable Gamer has been reliably informed, of a long term effort to shape up NBCU before it is spun off by GE.

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Get Well Soon, John Roberts!














The Huffington Post's Rachel Sklar adds some valuable new detail on the medical condition of CNN anchorman John Roberts. Hang in there, John!

And a reminder to all of us: Don't let some unexplained pain go untended. Be careful, get tested, listen to doctors!

"FNC Top News Channel In Annual Survey"

I report, you decide. Here's the data.

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

CNN Sued!? According to Drudge


UPDATE: Conservative Group to Sue CNN Over On-Air 'Hitjob'
Tue Dec 2 2007 15:53:11 ET

"Citizens United (CU), and its President David Bossie, have retained counsel to pursue claims against CNN for reporting in a November 28th CNN show called Broken Government -- 'Campaign Killers,' hosted by Campbell Brown, that David Bossie and CU were part of a 'fringe militia.' CU through counsel will seek a formal apology and public retraction of those statements, and for calling Bossie a 'dirty trickster.' If no retraction is forthcoming, CU will then bring legal action to hold CNN accountable for these and other misrepresented facts. These baseless allegations were a disservice to CU and its 500,000 members, CNN and its audience, and to general principles of responsible, fact-based journalism."

Developing...

The Cable Gamer comments: With discovery--that is, both sides fishing around in each other's files, in advance of the lawsuit--this could get messy.

MSNBC vs. Fox News--The Cable Game Heats Up!


So MSNBC has a new strategy for its third-rated channel: Attack first-rated Fox News all the time. Very interesting.

The Cable Gamer understands that the fight for ratings sometimes means throwing elbows. And that's fine; indeed, such elbowing helps make the Cable Game as fun as it is. But as ace blogger Johnny Dollar explains over on YouTube, MSNBC has taken elbow-throwing to new sharpness.

And here, at Phillyburbs.com is a new blogger, Eric G, that I was not familiar with, who goes into such great detail, in a piece headlined, "Whaaa, Fox News is better than me" that I am going to quote it at great length:

Is it just me or is someone on MSNBC talking about Fox News every five minutes? MSNBC’s morning show, “Morning Joe” features news anchor-wannabe Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough constantly taking pot shots at Fox. Keith Olbermann’s nightly “Worst Person of the Week” is usually someone associated with Fox. Don’t believe me, just check out his homepage on MSNBC.com today where he attacks a Fox publicist. Failed news director Dan Abrams makes Fox the nightly subject of his rants on his segment, “Beat the Press.” I hear Fox News so much on MSNBC that sometimes I am not sure I’m on the right channel.

It is amazing because just about everyone on MSNBC will blast Fox as an “attack machine.” Yet rarely do I ever hear Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, or Neil Cavuto going on the attack and nitpicking everything MSNBC does. As a matter of a fact it is rare to hear them mention MSNBC at all.

I am an equal opportunity viewer when it comes to my news and politics. However there is something that gets old real fast when it comes to snotty news anchors nitpicking at every, little thing that their competition who is crushing them in the ratings is doing. Fox fan or not, it is actually quite a turn off after awhile and it comes across like a bunch of jealous school kids who sit at the table in lunch making fun of the other kids who won’t play with them.

In an unintentionally funny moment last week on Dan Abrams’ show, Abrams went off on his usual nitpick of a minor error on a Fox News broadcast. We aren’t talking about anything groundbreaking other than Fox putting the wrong name underneath the person speaking on a video feed. In a surreal moment in the next segment Dan introduced his guest and the camera went on the wrong person and stayed there for a few moments. The irony of it all is I didn’t hear a blip about this on Fox News television or radio. Nobody cares and that is the saddest fact of all.

Hey Dan, they may have screwed up a byline but you screwed up an entire network. Great job as news director, how about some more Paris Hilton discussions.

The bitter pill of hypocrisy was swallowed a few weeks ago prior to a Republican debate. Fox, along with other outlets questioned the choice of Chris Matthews hosting the debate. Fox not only accused Matthews of being openly partisan but played comments from a recent speech backing it up. Fox questioned the integrity of the debate and had opinions discussed from both sides of the board.

You would have thought that Fox called for the head of Chris Matthews the following day on MSNBC. All of the above suspects went on a tirade the next day calling Fox an attack machine and questioning how dare they even try and make it a story. This is the same network that attacked Fox for making the Imus controversy a story, yet they were having 20 minute segments on every one of their shows talking about it. Don’t believe me? Check out the following You Tube clips. ...

John Gibson of Fox finally responded to the months of brow beating that Fox has taken on MSNBC. It probably was not the wisest move because anyone can twist anything to suit their own opinions. However, in my opinion Gibson was on the mark with his response to MSNBC, and Dan Abrams specifically for the hypocrisy they have been spreading for months in regards to Fox. ...

The bottom line is that I don’t need to take my cue from geeky, arrogant, snobby, cocky news anchors trying to look hip making fun of their competition. I really could care less about whether someone missed their cue or mispronounced a name in a story. That kind of stuff is only funny when Emmitt Smith does it on Sundays and Mondays. When you constantly attack someone for being an attack machine you look rather small and pathetic. There is a reason your network is in the tank, nobody (but me apparently) is watching, and you replaced your news director in a last ditch effort to fix the mess.

Now go home and get your freaking shinebox Danny!

Sunday, December 02, 2007

"The Corrupt News Network"



That's the headline atop Tim Rutten's scorcher of a column in Saturday's LA Times, concerning CNN's handling of the recent Republican debate.

I report, you decide, as Rutten puts a new, even more mordant spin on what earlier critics have called "The Clinton News Network."

Here's the smokin'-est part:

In fact, this most recent debacle masquerading as a presidential debate raises serious questions about whether CNN is ethically or professionally suitable to play the political role the Democratic and Republican parties recently have conceded it.

It's OK, Erin Burnett, We've All Done It--NOT!













CNBC's Erin Burnett says that she so, so, sorry that she called George W. Bush a monkey. Video here, thanks to Ian Schwartz.

Indeed, Erin assures us that she has "the utmost respect" for the President. Sure, Erin, that's why you called him a monkey.

Saturday, December 01, 2007

FoxBusiness.com "walloping" CNBC.com?






Welcome to The Cable Game 1440 Wall Street!

The Cable Gamer has always been amused that the various NBC Cable Game properties--MSNBC, CNBC, and NBC itself--have made such a hash out of their websites. Remember when MSNBC was going to "converge" the worlds of TV and the Net? That didn't happen, and recently, Newsweek magazine dropped out of its partnership with MSNBC. And CNBC and NBC reinvent their websites every few years. They certainly have the deep pockets--thanks to long-suffering GE prexy Jeff Immelt and his shareholders--but they never seem to be able to make it work.

A case in point is this item from 1440 Wall--excerpted here:

The launch of Fox Business Network has not gotten off glitch free, but considering the enormity of the task, so far, so good. We were expecting more in the way of problems. And we would expect Roger Ailes to begin tinkering with his lineup soon, which means the channel and its personalities will begin to gel.

It is no surprise CNBC biased contributors have taken their fair share of potshots at Fox; franchise player Jim Cramer was even vowing to "wipe the floor" with them at a recent book signing. But CNBC is getting its arse kicked by Fox in one important area....the internet. And with several properties to play around with, pundits are speculating on Murdoch's ultimate web strategy:

Many predict Murdoch also has plans for Dow Jones' MarketWatch. Kramer believes it's the perfect property to kick start FoxBusiness.com, which has surprised many rivals by exceeding 2.1 million unique users in its first month (versus the 821,000 uniques at CNBC.com, relaunched a year ago). Expectations were low for the site due to Fox News' lackluster foray into the Web. Observers have also slammed its design. But the site's managing editor, Ray Hennessey, said FoxBusiness.com has an advantage FoxNews.com did not: It was built in conjunction with the channel. "Where things have gone wrong is there is an absolute disconnect between Web and TV presence," he said. "We did it [right]. We're not an afterthought."

Hennessey sees no indication the site will be melded in some fashion with MarketWatch or WSJ.com, believing News Corp. is stronger with multiple assets.

Fox Business Network is working to get wider distribution on cable operators nationwide; they have approximately 35% to 40% of the CNBC's distribution. It is possible consumers who can't get FBN on their TV are hitting up Fox on the net, but it would not entirely explain the difference in unique users. And Fox might even pad their lead as new cable subscribers are added in the years ahead. Web measurement is notoriously inaccurate, but this is an ass kicking so far. Lace up the boxing gloves, two media heavyweights are going toe to toe. But the battle for the internet looks like it is game over, and we are not even out of the first round.

Where Have You Gone, Anna--I Mean Ashleigh Banfield?





I'm not sure that anyone really cares anymore, but here's an update on the whereabouts ofAshleigh Banfield. You remember Ms. Banfield, right?

She was going to be the next Katie Couric, or something, sending the liberal MSM into a tizzy of anticipation, but then people noticed that she couldn't get a rating. Paul Farhi of The Washington Post called her "The Anna Kournikova of news," and that nailed her. She was all looks--or, in her case, eyeglasses--and nothing more.