The Chris Matthews Challenge to MSNBC--Is He, Or Isn't He? For the Sake of Fairness, All Pennsylvanians--And All Americans--Should Know For Sure.

TV Newser runs the photo above and pointedly asks, "Are You Sure He's Not Running for Office in Pennsylvania?"

The Cable Game claims no inside information about, but it's obvious that Chris Matthews is giving serious thought to running for office in the Keystone State, home of the Philadelphia Phillies, whose cap Matthews is wearing--perhaps US Senator in 2010, the seat currently held by Republican Arlen Specter.

But of course, Matthews is currently hosting "Hardball" on MSNBC. And there's an obvious conflict--or at least there should be--between practicing journalism and running for office.

So which will it be? MSNBC should not allow anyone to do both--to appear on its air, while politicking for one party, in one state.

MSNBC should confront to Matthews and get a clear, contractual understanding of his intentions. Matthews should either totally swear off political ambitions, no ifs, ands, or buts--or else immediately resign his MSNBC gig immediately and make an honest man of himself.

MSNBC will issue no such ultimatum to Matthews, of course, because the network is deeply in bed with the Democratic Party. But NBC, parent to MSNBC, and GE, parent to NBC, should be held accountable, too, for any connivances by Matthews and MSNBC to benefit one political party.

And let's also put that question to the sponsors of "Hardball"--do they really intend for their advertising dollars to be used to help one political party at the expense of another?

Sen. Specter, and the Republican Party--and for that matter, all Americans--should demand, as a matter of simple fairness, that Matthews not use MSNBC as a political platform.

Benny & The Jeffs -- Jeff Zucker Hearts Ben Silverman and Jeff Immelt Likes It: This Weird Corporate Threesome Will Not Last

Should corporate America be an opportunity for top executives to express themselves by living vicariously through the high lifestyles of subordinates, no matter how such high-styling costs shareholders? No matter how "beautiful" they are? The answer would seem to be "yes," if you're NBC chief Jeff Zucker and his boss, GE chief Jeff Immelt.

The high-living exec in question is NBC Entertainment chiefBen Silverman, who has lotsa sizzle, but not much steak. Sort of like MSNBC!

Richard Siklos, writing for Fortune, paints a devastating portrait of Silverman, who holds a mysterious grip on his job, despite poor performance.

OK, so Silverman is a flaky, quirky guy, who doesn't, for example, show up to meetings that he calls with the likes of Dick Wolf, the legendary TV producer. (Why would Wolf object to being stood up by Silverman? What has Wolf done to develop, maybe, a big ego, having only created a steady stream of hit TV shows and won a ton of awards?) But all of Silverman's managerial defects might be excused if his schtick was actually working. But here's Siklos:

The method has not, so far, produced hits. For the first few weeks of the new TV season, NBC was stuck in third place and had no entertainment programs ranked in the top 20 most-watched shows.

OK, that's not so good. But maybe Silverman is more interested in something else--the Ben Silverman show. And on that score, he's succeeding. Here's more from Siklos:

But if NBC's new shows haven't generated a lot of buzz, Silverman himself has, with a persona that seems equal measures Ferris Bueller and Sean "P. Diddy" Combs. Last year he threw a bash in a rented mansion featuring a caged white tiger to greet guests. In meetings he has been known to pull out dinner chimes and play NBC's trademark three-note call sign when he hears something he likes.

Who couldn't like a guy like that? But wait, there's more:

He's a contributing editor to women's magazine Marie Claire who wears custom-made T-shirts emblazoned with "handpicked," one of his favorite words. He's not only like a character in HBO's Entourage, but recently performed a cameo on the show, playing himself. Silverman volunteers that one of his colleagues calls him "the Paris Hilton of NBC."

Got that? Silverman proclaims that he's been compared to Paris Hilton. Yikes, when that comparison got laid on Barack Obama last summer, it nearly cost him the election. Paris Hilton is glamorous and everything, but nobody wants her for her brain.

So why does Silverman survive? Siklos explains that he has solid support from his boss at NBC, Jeff Zucker. And why does Zucker like him so much? Check out Zucker's own explanation:

"Ben is one of those unique characters who attracts attention," says Zucker. "He's young, single, wealthy, and beautiful. There are a lot of reasons to be jealous of Ben before you even put him in this job."

Does it seem like maybe Zucker has a bit of a crush on Silverman? Well, yeah. "Beautiful"? "Jealous"? That's not the normal language of executive attaboying--that's the language of barely sublimated... well, you know. There doesn't seem to be a Mrs. Silverman, but what does Mrs. Zucker think?

Zucker is a corporate suit, but underneath all that conformity, he's also got a wild side, that only gets to come out occasionally. But when it does emerge, alas for Jeff, it gets slapped down fast. Here, for instance, is how super-blogger Nikki Finke, slapped down Zucker for his Cheeveresque--West Coast version--weirdness of Zucker, under the telling headline, "Has NBC Uni's Jeff Zucker Lost His Mind?"

You be the judge: I'm told this promo is supposed to air April 3rd before the return of NBC's My Name is Earl. In it, Jeff Zucker offers not just a recap of the show's fall season but also some zingers about issues left over from the writers’ strike. Worse, it shows him leering at Alyssa Milano's boobage and signing off as "JZ out...". I wish this were a hoax -- but it's real. At what point did NBC's "Must-See TV" degrade into "JZ TV"? UPDATE: NBC just confirmed to me that Zucker taped the intro "at the request of Earl's creator, Greg Garcia". And in response to my query, Garcia emails: "It was my idea. We had to do a recap of the show because we'd been off for so long, and I thought this would be a funny way to do it. The writers wrote the whole thing, I asked Jeff if he would do it, and he was cool enough to say yes. I loved the way it turned out, and I think it's fucking hilarious." Well, I bet it never airs:

And then there's the video, which can still be found on Finke's "Deadline Hollywood" site. So that's Jeff Zucker, folks, exposed in all his wild-side glory. Yes, he's married, yes, he has kids, yes, he works in a corner office at Rockefeller Center, and yes, most of the time he manages to restrain himself, confining his ambitions to corporate upward mobility. But at the same time, from her admittedly armchair analyst's chair, it seems to The Cable Gamer that there's a hidden side to Zucker, that he really wants is to be a bad--as in, ba-a-a-d. It's a free country, of course, but Zucker is badding around with the money of GE shareholders.

And on that score, here's some news: GE stock is down by almost three fourths in the last seven years.

That's a cold reality that's hard to spin away from. It's been a steady slide, in fact, since Jeff Immelt took over the company from Jack Welch back in 2001. The problem, of course, is that GE is a conglomerate, making everything jet engines to light bulbs to TV shows. And keeping track of all that requires serious work--the kind of work best done by drudges in suits. And in fact, Immelt is a suit.

But here's the rub: Like Zucker, Immelt has a secret wild side, too. Anybody can be a corporate chieftain, he thinks to himself; he wants to be seen as more. Immelt wants to be seen as thoughtful, and expressive, and creative. He wants to be hip and green and be pals with Obama & Co. So Immelt keeps MSNBC around, just so he can party with top liberal Democrats who will help him win puffy profiles in The New York Times.

That was the plan, at least. But in fact, it's hard to be a good CEO. It takes a full-time commitment--more than a full-time commitment, in fact. You can't dilletante your way to success, like Silverman. And you can't show undue favoritism toward such dilletantes, as seems to be the case for both Zucker and Immelt.

If you do, your corporate performance will suffer. Unless Zucker and Immelt want to devote themselves full time to rapping and liberal do-gooding, then they need to focus more on their actual jobs. And if they don't, well, TCG has been predicting for a long time that GE will be broken up soon.

Because if Benny & The Jeffs want to goof around, they will have some fun, well, they can. But if their pleasures come at the expense of GE's stock price, well, that's when the flame of fame flickers.

D. L. Hughley, Breaking Some News Uncontroversial

The Cable Gamer TiVo'd "D.L. Hughley Breaks The News" on Saturday night, but didn't get a chance to watch it till tonight.

A couple of TCG commenters got ahead of me, suggesting that Hughley's show was anti-Barack Obama. I didn't see it that way, although, of course, I posted their comments, as I do with all comments that are not abusive or obscene.

And for my part, I thought that the show was clearly pro-Obama. Funny a lot of the time, but still unmistakably anti-John McCain and anti-Republican. It's a free country, but you can bet Hughley, his own personal political preferences notwithstanding, was more free to do a Bush-bashing show on CNN.

A few more points:

First, D.L. gets credit for doing it live, in front of an audience.

Second, he cut a little close to the bone in the bit with reporter Josh Levs, pretending to be a fact-checker, and calling some of D.L.'s assertions into question. "I didn't know CNN checked facts," D.L. shot back. It was funny, but as noted, it cut close to the bone.

Third, the interview with "Freddie Mac"--not the government-sponsored company, but an actual black guy dressed up a "Mac Daddy"-type pimp--was funny, I thought, although I recognize that some Cable Gamers didn't like it.

But all will agree, I suspect, that the scene was then flattened by the intrusion of real-life CNN business reporter Ali Velshi, who just talked fast, which is not the same as being funny. (And there's the question of whether or not Velshi had any business being on a comedy show--more on that later.) But Hughley did insert some comedic common sense when he noted the absurdity of "A guy making $3.35 an hour getting a million dollar house." Yes, that is absurd, and only a slight exaggeration--which is the best kind of humor.

Fourth, it was an inspired idea for D.L. to travel to Elon College in North Carolina to a Palin rally. Yes, he poked fun at the apparently all-white crowd, and yes he made clear his own pro-Obama sentiments. But once again, he saved himself with a degree of self-deprecation. When a Palin fan cracked on Obama's record, D.L. joked, "I have a record." And at the end, he got a lot of Palin fans to hold up signs proclaiming, "Palin-Hughley 2012."

Fifth, speaking of Palin, he also And she interviewed a black woman who defeated Palin for Miss Alaska back in 1984. That was good staff work. And playing on Palin's comment about being able to see Russia from Alaska, he joked that he can see the moon from his house, but that didn't make him an astronaut.

Sixth, he did a quick survey on black presidents in Hollywood history, from Sammy Davis Jr. portraying a boyish "President of Pork Chops" in a 1933 movie to to James Earl Jones playing a more serious President in "The Man" (1972), to Morgan Freeman in "Deep Impact" (1997).

Seventh, any doubt as to where Hughley was coming from was erased when he brought in Scott McClellan, the renegade former Bush White House press secretary who authored a George W. Bush-bashing memoir. "Isn't he pretty much one of the worst presidents ever?" Hughley asked.

McClellan kept his restraint, allowing that Bush was "misguided," and "engaged in self-deception," but then launching into his familiar riff, attacking the "permanent campaign culture in Washington. All of which proves that McClellan is always good at staying on his talking points, whether pro-Bush or anti-Bush is the line of the day. McClellan endorsed Obama on the air--that endorsement had been reported before, but Hughley still had a first for TV.

Still, Hughley never mentioned the obvious moral hazard in the case of McClellan. If the former Bush aide had stayed loyal to W., do you think that anyone at CNN, or elsewhere in the liberal media establishment, would have cared a whit about his opinion on anything? But if Scottie is going to be a Bush-basher, well, then, by all means, bring him on. If Hughley had made fun of, or even wryly noted, McClellan's post-White House conversion--now that would have been interesting, and unpredictable. Instead, Hughley took the predictable route: He just let McClellan diss Bush; indeed, he encouraged him to do more.

And still on the subject of politics, D.L. took a dig at Rush Limbaugh for criticizing Colin Powellfor endorsing Obama: "Colin Powell has voted for more white guys than Rush Limbaugh has voted for black guys."

Finally, he brought in three CNN International reporters, Matthew Chance, from Moscow, Jaime Flor-Cruz, from Beijing, and Mallika Kapur, from Mumbai, for some un-funny questions. As with Velshi, I wonder if these comedy turns, however unfunny, represent an erosion of CNN editorial standards. Oh wait, I think I know the answer to that question.

CNN Toots Its Digital Horn

This press release, from CNN, makes a pretty good case for the strength of CNN Digital's operation.

TCG doesn't pretend to understand all these web metrics, but if one enters the three cable news websites--CNN.com, Foxnews.com, and MSNBC.com--into an independent site-traffic measurer, such as Alexa.com, it seems like CNN is a solid first, Fox is second, and MSNBC is a distant third.

As TCG notes, one day soon, Convergence will come, and then the web eyeballs will really make a difference for the mothership brand.

D.L. Hughley, Breaking the News

I am looking forward to D.L. Hughley's show on CNN at 10 pm ET tonight, "Breaking the News." Comedy is hard, but it's not that hard, if Stephen Colbert can do it.

But seriously folks, the news cries out for additional interpretations. Show me people who cut through the crap, from Jon Stewart to Bill O'Reilly, and I will watch.

Hughley is going live, without a net--one more reason to watch.

Fox & Fun

The Los Angeles Times TV reporter Matea Gold has always been a TCG fave. This article here, on FNC's "Fox & Friends," is a well-observed case in point--it captures the freewheeling spirit of Steve Doocy, Brian Kilmeade, and Gretchen Carlson, plus whoever else is bold enough, or silly enough, or desperate enough, to come on their air.

Asks Carlson: "Would you want to watch some boring old stodgy newscast?"

Adds Kilmeade: "I mean, that's the way we are in real life," as he looks to his cohosts, Doocy and Carlson: "He's sarcastic, I'm sarcastic, Gretchen's got an attitude."

Sez Doocy: "We take the news seriously, but we don't take ourselves seriously."

Good for them!

Liz Claman, Networking at the Fox Business Network

One of the keys to success in The Cable Game is "the get." That is, who can you get on your show? On your air? Oprah Winfrey and some kid web-casting from his basement, a la "Wayne's World," have access to pretty much the same technology, but people watch Oprah for her, and for her guests--her gets.

Of course, such "getting" is hard work. And as Marisa Guthrie details in Broadcasting and Cable, Claman is willing to work hard. Guthrie quotes an old boss at KCBS in Los Angeles, Jose Rios, recalling admiringly, "Liz always had an incredible work ethic. She always had her nose to the grindstone. You don't have to manage the process with her. You just give her the goal.”

That was 20 years ago. And today, she's still at it:

On a recent afternoon at FBN's New York studios, news breaks that GE has arranged to sell $3 billion in preferred stock to Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway. Tracey Byrnes, an FBN analyst, muses: “Someone should call [former GE CEO] Jack Welch.”

Claman picks up the phone next to the flat screen TV tuned to FBN's coverage of the chaos on the trading floor and GE's free-falling stock. In seconds, she has Welch's assistant. Claman's doggedness and enthusiasm combined with a market acumen honed over a decade on the business beat means CEOs take her calls.

“I don't have the M.B.A.,” she says, “yet CEOs still want to talk to me, it seems.” Claman probably talks to Buffett more than most business reporters. She had the first major interview with the then somewhat mercurial CEO in 2006 while at CNBC. When she jumped to FBN, Buffett offered to be her first interview on her first day on the air.

“She jumped in with both feet and brought an enormous Rolodex,” says Kevin Magee, executive VP of FBN. “I've got a picture in my office of her interviewing Warren Buffett and Bill Gates at the same time. That's $120 billion worth of people in those chairs. And I don't think we could have gotten them without her.”

FBN and Claman are still #, but they are trying harder. In a year or two, don't be surprised if there's a big change. Maybe even less time than that.

Huck is a Hit

TV Newser offers an excellent update on the Mike Huckabee TV show on Fox.

It's a hit, according to TVN, the #1 show on cable news on Saturday nights.

And "Huckabee" is a reminder, too, of an ancient TV truism: the more things change, the more they stay the same. Huckabee's show recalls the variety shows of a half-century ago: a chatty charmer does some humor, an interview, brings in some big-name guests, does a little music, and voila!

Campbell Brown Plays the Liberal Game--And It's Paying Off For Her

CNN's Campbell Brown knows where her bread is buttered. As noted here at TCG, she is moving left, looking for an audience. And it's working, at least in terms of getting buzz--a front page piece in The Washington Post "Style" section, bylined by Howard Kurtz, certainly counts as buzz, big buzz.

Brown was never known for having any particular point of view in the first decade or so of her TV career. I mean, we can assume that all along she had acceptable liberal views (or if she didn't, that she kept them well hidden, as one pretty much has to day while working one's way up the chain). But now she is really coming out of the closet... as a liberal. Oh wait! Her boss at CNN, Jon Klein, calls it "common sense journalism." Ri-i-i-ght. That's what they have to call it, so that the goats out there in Heartland will hopefully watch.

But the fact is that she is moving left. Kurtz cites four instances of her "telling it like it is" in his piece--her disingenuous "free Sarah Palin" rant, her attack on Palin for connecting Barack Obama to Bill Ayers, and her attack on John McCain for "inciting crowds" in his campaign stops, and yet another attack on the McCain campaign for "race-baiting." No wonder Nicolle Wallace, a McCain aide, is quoted in Kurtz's piece, labeling Brown "one-sided."

And what about the counter-examples, of Brown calling out the Obama campaign? The best that Kurtz could find is Obama spokesman Bill Burton characterizing Brown as "tough." Ah yes, we all remember that interview, don't we?

Kurtz, always thorough and fair-minded, quizzes Brown on the question of opportunism. And her answer was revealing, because in her words we could see the gears of her mind grinding:

"That, to me, is a bit ridiculous," Brown says. "There was never any grand plan of 'Oh, maybe this will get us ratings.' . . . Anybody in cable has to be willing to open themselves up and share that with the audience. Otherwise you're just flat."

It's a safe bet that when she answers, "there was never any grand plan"--there was a grand plan. The lady doth protest too much.

Here's what TCG thinks happened. She could see that just being a bland centrist--left of center counts as "center" in NYC--wasn't going to get her much, as Paula Zahn and Connie Chung discovered in the same time slot. So she had to move one way or another: She could move right--which is occasionally permitted at CNN, viz. Lou Dobbs--or she could move left, seeking the big audiences being generated by Keith Olbermann and, also, Rachel Maddow, who has become something of a cable phenom. And so that's what she did. And the proof is on the tube every night now. Yes, she is still third in the ratings, but she is moving up some, and she is getting buzz. If nothing else, her speaking fees have just increased, and she is a sure bet to receive a bunch of honorary degrees.

Kurtz reports that after the election, her show will be dubbed, "Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull." Well that's good alliteration, I will give her slogan that much. But the real b.s. is the claim that there's no bias in Brown.

Obama Vs. Fox

Do you get the feeling that Barack Obama is obsessed with Fox News? He brought up Fox in the last presidential debate, he brought it up again at the Al Smith Dinner last night, and here, in the pages of The New York Times Magazine, he spills on FNC to Matt Bai. It's quite a read:

"I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls," Obama told me. "If I were watching Fox News, I wouldn’t vote for me, right? Because the way I’m portrayed 24/7 is as a freak! I am the latte-sipping, New York Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, politically correct, arrogant liberal. Who wants somebody like that?"

I mean, gee. As we all know, much of the MSM is completely in the tank for Obama, and he worries about Fox? Thinks that Fox is that powerful to be affecting the election by two or three points--quite possibly, the margin of victory in this election?

Well, maybe it is. Certainly Fox stands out, in contrast to the Obama herd.

Andy Lack: Falling Upward

The Cable Gamer has always had a high opinion of Bloomberg News. The terminals, that is--they are full of information; nobody can be a legit Wall Streeter without a "Bloomberg," and if you happen to be visiting a master of the universe, they are fun to peruse.

But as for the Bloomberg TV channel, and the online video presence, not so much. The channel has always been cluttered and un-television-y, and dominated, editorially, by retreads, such as Al Hunt, the former in-house liberal at The Wall Street Journal and his coterie of snobby liberal friends, such as ex-Time staffer Margaret Carlson.

But now, speaking of liberal retreads, I seethe news that Bloomberg has just hired the even more over-the-hill Andy Lack to run its new-media operations. Lack was hot in the 80s, at CBS, and then he floundered at NBC and floundered even more at Sony. So of course, ever since he has been networking around Michael's restaurant on W. 55th, angling for another gig.

Lack long ago lost his mojo. But it's no big deal. Bloomberg can afford to make mistakes. And Mike would rather be mayor for life, anyway, so who cares what happens to the operation?

And speaking of Carlsons, I am sure that Tucker Carlson will soon be pitching a show for Bloomberg.

The Biz Cable Game: Aaron Barnhart Shouts Out The Winners and Losers!

Aaron Barnhart, who writes/blogs for The Kansas City Star, has always been a Cable Game fave; he is always incisive, always fair-minded.

Here's what he wrote yesterday about the winners and losers of recent TV; the whole piece is worth a whole read, but here's the most cable-newsy stuff, appearing under the headline, "what's working," and "what's not." Under "what's working," he included:

Fox Business Network. FBN has languished in digital-cable obscurity because it didn't have what Fox News had: enemies. Now it has one in CNBC resident screamer Jim Cramer. FBN is buying TV ad print ads that ask "How Bad Is Cramer?" and "Can You Afford to Watch CNBC?" They'd be tacky if they weren't so true.

And under "What's not," he had this:

Jim Cramer. In 2006 he yelled: Sell Apple! In 2007 he shouted: Bear Stearns is fine! A few weeks ago: Buy Wachovia! Last week on "Today," he ordered viewers to panic-sell their stocks. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day -- problem is, Cramer never stops.

As an update, TCG was watching CNBC this morning, and there was... an ad for FBN, slamming Cramer.

Fox has its enemy, indeed, and I think that Cramer will be spending more time with the fam soon enough.

Cable Wars! And a Prediction on The Fate of Jim Cramer. (Hint: Not Good.)

In the old days, we had tabloid newspaper wars. Now we have cable news wars, as ably reported on TVNewser. Either one is fun!

But on a more serious note, CNBC's Jim Cramer has been so egregious that TCG predicts that, for one good reason or the other, he won't be on the air much longer.

See It Now --One Reason Why Cable News Is So Compelling, Although MSNBC Might Want to Upgrade Its Tech-Safety Standards

You never know what's going to happen. You may think you know, you may hope you know--but you never know. That's the appeal of sports, gambling--and the news. Sometimes it's big events, sometimes it's merely human stories. But it's always interesting.

This morning, The Cable Gamer was watching MSNBC's "Morning Joe." The topic, of course, was the previous night's debate; the McCain campaign's Nicolle Wallace was seemingly read to square off with the Obama campaign's Robert Gibbs. Spin doctor vs. spin doctor. Nothing new there.

Gibbs took the first question, from Mika Brzezinski, and, speaking from inside the debate arena gave a predictable assessment: Obama won the debate.

Then it was Wallace's turn. She was outside the arena--it's fairly standard for the networks to separate the disputants, providing different backdrops. But instead of putting out her own familiar spin, Wallace said, and I am paraphrasing here, "It's been raining here in Nashville, and I want you to know that just overhead, there's a big pool of water on a tarp that I am afraid is going to spill on me. And I want to give a shout-out to Robert, because he gallantly offered to switch places with me."

Mika purred a nice response.

And then Wallace went further, eyeing the water overhead: "Because I am afraid of getting electrocuted here, I have to ask, could you repeat the question?"

It was quite a moment. And because it's live, as scripted as the moment might be, it's still unscripted.

But note to MSNBC: Don't kill anyone on your air. Don't even be so sloppy that your guests feel at risk of being drenched.

Why Is Jim Cramer Still On the Air?

The New York Post's John Crudele clobbers CNBC's Jim Cramer, for being not just wrong, but extravagantly wrong:

The loudmouth host of CNBC's "Mad Money" frantically told investors before Wall Street opened yesterday to take their money out of the stock market.

But he forgot to apologize for telling them the exact opposite for the past year - a time when the value of their stockholdings declined by an astounding one-third.
Now I realize that the Post is owned by the News Corp., which also owns Fox Business News, but still, if Crudele is right, and Cramer is so wrong, then, well, the facts simply speak for themselves.

And Crudele cruelly adds these comments, culled from blogs:

"Lest we forget," wrote one blogger, "Cramer announced the end of the housing crisis some time ago (I've got street creds, he said). He also predicted 14,500 for the Dow in '07. The man is a shameless advertisement for his own products, books, TV show, etc."

Wrote another: "I have studied Jim Cramer's main recommendations for one year. Conclusion: He is absolutely the best contrarian indicator I have come across in over 25 years of investing."

TCG wonders further: If Cramer is that wrong, all the time, could it be that it's not an accident, or an error, but rather, a function of knowing what he wants to do? Suppose he were selling what he wants others--the suckers--to buy. Wouldn't that explain, perfectly what the phenomenon of Cramer being "wrong" all the time? From his personal point of view, maybe he's not wrong, he's right. Just wondering.

Fox Wins The Cable Game--Across the Ideological Spectrum

The great TV blogger Johnny Dollar produced an interesting analysis of just exactly who, of what ideology, watches cable news. Here's his conclusion:

The results could not be more clear. In both total day and primetime, the Fox News audience is far more balanced ideologically than those of the other news channels. And once again, more Democrats watch FNC than either MSNBC or CNN.

Campbell Brown Moves Left, Reaps Reward from the New York Times

On September 24, The Cable Gamer noted that CNN's Campbell Brown had engineered a significant shift for herself. Once seen as a pretty but bland anchor of no particular distinction, she launched into a rant on her show: "Free Sarah Palin," she proclaimed, as if the spunky Alaska governor was, in fact, any sort of prisoner. As we all saw Thursday night, John McCain's running mate is plenty free to say what she thinks. As TCG noted at the time, Brown's rant was merely a semi-clever way of attracting attention--posing as a defender of Palin, while really being a basher of Palin, and her candidacy.

Advantage: Democrats.

But why should Brown worry about what the The Cable Gamer thinks, when she got a big fat reward in The New York Times? The Times' TV guy, Jacques Steinberg, took down everything that Brown said at face value, portraying her newfound liberalism as merely an upsurge in brave truth-telling.

Yeah sure. When Brown bashes Barack Obama, that will be brave.

"Why Doesn't The NYT Disclose Its Relationship With CNBC?"

Wall Street Fighter reports, you decide:

The New York Times, long heralded as the shining star in the world of journalism, has been doing a lot of writing about CNBC lately. This is understandable since the network has been leading the way in market coverage during this financial crisis. But don't you think they should tell us about their 'bed buddy' relationship?

A TV Watershed: Cable Eclipses Broadcast

Bill O'Reilly beats Katie Couric. Cable beats broadcast! The Cable Game gets gamier!

Monday's "O'Reilly Factor," combining both the 8 pm and the 11 pm airings, beat out the weekly average of "CBS Evening News" last week--even though Couric was interviewing Sarah Palin.

This is the first time, TCG is pretty sure, that this has ever happened.

In addition, Fox News beat CBS and NBC News on debate night last Friday.

This trend, of course, is a long time coming. In a world of clickers with "favorites" built into their remotes, there's simply no difference anymore between cable and broadcast.

In addition, FNC beat CNN and MSNBC. Indeed, the Olbermann Netwrk came in, as usual, dead last. TCG keeps thinking that one of these days, MSNBC's buzz will settle down to the same level as its ratings. But of course, that will never happen, so long as the tottering remains of the MSM still get to call the shots.

UPDATE: And it'll be interesting to see how O'Reilly does tonight, as he interviews Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Barney Frank, whom O'Reilly labeled a "big fat toad" last week, because of his role in the Fannie/Freddie scandal. That should be good fireworks!

Joe Scarborough Volunteers His Own Idea For A Republican-Launched "October Surprise," Feeds Left-Wing Conspiracy Crazies

Is Joe Scarborough trying to make Republicans look bad? To the amusement of his lefty MSNBC audience? TCG reports, you decide.

On "Morning Joe" just now, Scarborough and his Merry Band of Bush-Bashers--helped out this morning by veteran Democratic politico Bob Shrum--were sitting around badmouthing Republicans, like they always do. Specifically, Chuck Todd was projecting an Obama victory this November.

Whereupon, Scarborough joked, "Somebody at the RNC needs to call Ahmadinejad fast."

Nobody else on the set picked up on it, but Scarborough's implication was clear: The Republican National Committee should somehow stoke up Iran's leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to get him to do something anti-American (never a hard sell for Ahmadinejad) and thus help the hawkish, national-defense-minded Republicans. In other words, an October Surprise.

Now I am pretty sure that Scarborough was joking, but he didn't explicitly say that he was joking. And so I am equally sure that out there in left-wing crazy land, somebody will take note of what Joe said, and spin it into a conspiracy theory--which lefties will be happy to believe, since it is a smear on Republcans. Just like anyone with a voice that can be overheard, people on TV have a responsibility to not say provocative and inflammatory things, especially when the subject is national security.

But hey, most likely, Scarborough doesn't care--he is worming his way into the affections of the lefty Kos-sack Netroots Nation, which will guarantee his longevity at the Olbermann-Maddow network. No doubt he will be invited to make a speech, soon enough, to some lefty nut group, to explain the workings of those evil Republicans.