Sunday, November 30, 2008

Chris Matthews: The Plot Thickens. A Modest Proposal for MSNBC--And An Update on Dan Abrams





So FiveThirtyEight.com sez that Chris Matthews is running for the Senate in Pennsylvania. Matthews responds, saying, "It is absolutely not true."

OK, but now we see this AP storywhich I will quote from extensively, starting with the headline: "Official: Matthews weighing Senate run." That would seem to suggest some fire underneath all that smoke, huh? Here's the rest of the story:

A Pennsylvania Democratic Party leader says MSNBC pundit Chris Matthews may be considering a run for U.S. Senate in 2010.

The Patriot-News of Harrisburg reports Matthews met with state party leaders this past week in Washington to discuss a possible bid to unseat Republican Sen. Arlen Specter.

Party official Mary Isenhour says she left the meeting feeling that Matthews still hadn't made up his mind.

The 62-year-old Matthews hosts MSNBC's "Hardball" and provides political commentary on NBC's "Today." He ran unsuccessfully for a Pennsylvania congressional seat in 1974.

There was no immediate comment from Matthews on Saturday. A reliable home telephone number could not be located and a representative of MSNBC did not immediately return a call.


So what's going on here? Is this some sort of "Rashomon"-like situation, where different people see the same set of facts differently? Could be.

But there's one way to settle this. Matthews should go on "Hardball," his MSNBC TV show, on Monday night and level with the viewers--and the voters. What steps has he taken? Has he raised money? Has he made promises in exchange for support? Most of all, is he running, or not?

In the meantime, the suits at MSNBC/NBC should answer all the "what did you know and when did you know it"-type questions.

To repeat: The Cable Gamer thinks that Matthews has a perfect right to run for the Senate in Pennsylvania. And if the people of PA think that President Obama needs a smart spewtron fan in the Senate, they should elect Matthews in 2010.

But the Hardballer should not be able to use his MSNBC gig to support his candidacy, nor should viewers have to put up with deliberate "softballing" of Democrats as he sucks up to big D's in pursuit of his political career.

This principle of one thing at a time is important to keeping trust with audiences: MSNBC should understand that any high-profile side-deals by its talent will inevitably pollute the brand.

That's why Dan Abrams should not be able to use his MSNBC gig--or the continued appearance of an MSNBC gig--to push his own private venture. (Which reminds me to check: as of Sunday morning, the MSNBC website still lists Abrams as "Chief Legal Correspondent for NBC News and MSNBC.")

Abrams doesn't seem too anxious to clear up the confusion, does he? Or maybe it's his enemies doing it to him, trying to make Abrams look bad. If so, the enemies are winning.

Friday, November 28, 2008

Memo to Politico's Michael Calderone: When The Facts Change, Your Reporting Should Change--Esppecially When The "Facts" Come From Michael Wolff!










Politico has quickly established itself as the hottest, buzziest publication in Washington DC. And much of the time, that buzz-rep is deserved--Politico has had scoop after scoop this year. And so by now, that "halo" of buzz is presumed to encircle all of its staffers--even those who don't really deserve it. Why? Because of course, buzz is only valuable if it's also accurate. Inaccurate buzz is bullshit, pardon my French.

And it appears that Politico's media writer, Michael Calderone, has crossed that line, from buzz to b.s. And the cause is, once again, that b.s.-iest of buzzsters, Michael Wolff.

Having gotten a sneak peek at Wolff's new book, The Man Who Owns The News: Inside the Secret World of Rupert Murdoch, Calderone seems not to have noticed that some of the biggest and buzziest claims in Wolff's book--that Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes had become estranged, that Murdoch had become a pro-Obama liberal--have been disproven.

Consider this from Calderone:

“The embarrassment can no longer be missed,” Wolff wrote, in another section of the book. “He mumbles even more than usual when called on to justify it. He barely pretends to hide the way he feels about Bill O’Reilly. And while it is not that he would give Fox up—because the money is the money; success trumps all—in the larger sense of who he is, he seems to want to hedge his bets.”

Wolff describes Murdoch as not wanting News Corp. to be defined by Fox News. And so last year’s purchase of the Wall Street Journal, he wrote, “was in no small way about wanting to trade the illiberal—the belligerent, the vulgar, the loud, the menacing the unsubtle—for the better-heeled, the more magnanimous, the further nuanced.”


Well, if all this were true, then why did Murdoch just re-up with Ailes for five more years? Back on November 20, I wrote this about Wolff's line about a Murdoch-Ailes split:

But now comes news that makes me wonder if any of Wolff's book is accurate, beyond the page numbers. The headline of the News Corp. press release reads, in big type: "NEWS CORPORATION SIGNS ROGER AILES TO NEW FIVE YEAR CONTRACT." And here's a money quote from Murdoch:

In making the announcement, Mr. Murdoch said, "Roger has done a remarkable job building FOX News into a force in journalism and built a great asset for News Corporation. I have complete confidence in his talent and his editorial judgment. Under his leadership, I believe that FOX Business Network will become the strongest competitor in financial television news."

In other words, the whole thrust of Wolff's take on Murdoch has been proven to be incorrect--by Murdoch himself. By word and deed, Murdoch has reaffirmed his confidence in Ailes. As the News Corp. press release adds:

The new agreement states that Mr. Ailes will continue to oversee FOX News, FOX Television Stations (FTS), FOX Business Network (FBN), My Network TV and Twentieth Television. He will also continue serving as a senior advisor to Mr. Murdoch on television and news matters.


Did you get the part at the end about Ailes "serving as a senior advisor" to Murdoch? Sorry, I am sure you did, but did Calderone?

For his part, Calderone lays great stress on Wolff's claim that Murdoch considered endorsing Barack Obama in the general election. Well, that's interesting, and if Murdoch had, in fact, endorsed Obama this year, then Wolff would've deservedly gotten credit for getting the scoop on that bit o' news. But, uh, it didn't happen: The New York Post thunderously endorsed John McCain in September, and The Wall Street Journal editorial page was steadily hostile to Obama. All of which reduces the value of Wolff's insight into Murdoch's ultimate intentions, wouldn't you say?

For his part, Calderone seeks to cover for Wolff and his errors, concluding, "It's still not easy to pin down Murdoch." Actually, Michael, it is easy: You simply have to watch what Murdoch actually does, as opposed to relying on what someone such as Wolff says he will do. It might not be buzzy to wait till all the facts are 100% clear, but it is good journalism. You can trust hunches, but only up to a point. And you really can't trust them after they have been disproven!

So why is Calderone covering so strenuously for Wolff? Why is the Politico man repeating Wolffian spin, even after it's been overtaken, and falsified, by events? The answer is tucked away in Calderone's story: "Politico obtained a copy of Wolff’s book, to be released Tuesday, under an agreement not to publish its contents before today."

So, you see, Calderone made a deal with Wolff to get (relatively) early access to the book. What sort of deal? What might Wolff have wanted in return? Well, most obviously, Calderone might have committed to not pointing out the glaring errors in Wolff's book. Calderone might have even promised to spin those glaring errors into close calls, as in, "Murdoch came this close to endorsing Obama, even if, admittedly, he ended up endorsing McCain."

Calderone might be willing to play footsie with sources, even if that means shading the reality--but it's a gross disservice to readers. Calderone seems to have been so hungry for the buzz of an exclusive sneak peek into a new book that he forgot that in addition to seeking out buzz, he also needed to use his b.s. detector.

Note to Politico editors: Watch Calderone. He will sell out your paper's reputation for buzz, no matter how spurious that buzz might be. And down that road is not only the destruction of an individual reporter, but of a whole journalistic brand.

Abrams Update--Are Dan's Angels Protesting Too Much?










Methinks that a poster using the euphonious--but obviously anonymous--name of Aelora doth protest too much. Aelora added this comment to my Dan Abrams post from yesterday:

I was going to point out that Dan no longer works for NBC/MSNBC except as a consultant (and for this, his fans are very sad!), but apparently Mr. Abrams took care of that. :)

I will say, you should probably do your research before making accusations. It wasn't a terribly difficult fact to discover. I wouldn't base my conclusions on a link to MSNBC that hasn't been updated since early 2007, and you probably shouldn't, either.


Well excu-u-u-u-se me! And thanks Aelora, for reminding me of the fact that I really had done my homework yesterday when I first posted on Abrams. I mean, what a silly girl I am: I thought that if I went to the official website of NBC/MSNBC, I would be getting the straight story about Abrams and his status with NBC/MSNBC.

Specifically, if Abrams is no longer the "Chief Legal Correspondent for NBC News and MSNBC," then why does it still say that he is on the NBC/MSNBC website? (Which I linked to on Thursday, see screen grab above, from yet another visit to the site, taken about five minutes ago this Friday night.)

I mean, isn't MSNBC supposed to the most computer savvy of the cablers? After all, the "MS" in the name stands for Microsoft, which was a co-corporate parent for MSNBC back in 1996.

Why wouldn't the casual observer think that Abrams is still "Chief Legal Correspondent for NBC News and MSNBC"?

And maybe Abrams hasn't really minded the confusion. Which might explain why his billing as "Chief Legal Correspondent for NBC News and MSNBC" is up there, even now, as I write these words. D'ya think that I am the only one out there who might be confused by such a site? Could it be possible that fatcat corporate clients might get the idea that they could hire an active bigfoot TV reporter to also be their for-hire p.r. consigliere at the same time? And that said reporter/p.r. adviser was connected to lots of other reporters and opinion leaders?

Come on Dan--come clean. If you really have broken your employee connection to NBC/MSNBC, to pursue your own private interests, you should at least let the news nets know.

Chris Matthews Update--One Source Says He's Definitely Running





Verbatim from FiveThirtyEight.com, which became a must-read political blog during the election campaign. 538's Sean Quinn reports, you decide:

Chris Matthews Staffing Up for Probable Senate Run in 2010

[EDIT -- 8:26 AM. I am changing the reporting and headline slightly to more cautiously reflect what our sources are telling us. Matthews, we have strong reason to believe, is hiring staff for a run at the Senate, although there have certainly been candidates in the past who have staffed up but subsequently elected not to run. -Nate]

Chris Matthews, it appears, is in.

FiveThirtyEight has been hearing for some time that Matthews is serious about running for the United States Senate, but it took a trip to Georgia among the Georgia-runoff-congregated and well-connected Obama organizer throng to confirm.

According to multiple sources, who confirmed the Tip O'Neill staffer-cum-MSNBC host has negotiated with veteran Obama staffers to enlist in his campaign, Chris Matthews is likely to run for United States Senate in Pennsylvania in 2010. Matthews, 62, would run as a Democrat. Arlen Specter, the aging Republican incumbent, will be 80 if he chooses to run for re-election.

Preliminary public polling suggests Matthews would start at a deficit, in part because Matthews' name recognition is lower than Specter's.

-- Sean Quinn at 6:30 AM


Now the questions for MSNBC: How will Phil Griffin and his superiors handle this? Will they even report on it, let alone take action? Or will MSNBC further accommodate the partisan ambitions of Democrats?

Abrams Replies to The Cable Game, Re: Questions About Abrams Research



To his great credit, Dan Abrams responded to my post of yesterday (the original is in the comments section for the previous post, below).

I will reprint Abrams' comment in its entirety here:

Its thanksgiving so ill keep this brief. I am no longer an anchor or correspondent at NBC or MSNBC. So there is no confusion (as you suggest) when I go to work at Abrams Research. I have, however, become an outside legal analyst for NBC just like every other outside legal or political contributor or analyst who has his or her own law firm, consulting firm or works for a private business. You are not suggesting that there should be a different standard for me right?

As for the media you cite, The Observer piece was quite fair and I would encourage your readers to evaluate if they think it supports the proposition you suggest. Jessica Pressler from New York Magazine was forced by her editors to retract much of her latest attack on me and to Gawker's credit, they published a response from me that clairifies my position.

This is not a close call. I am no longer a "newsman" as you suggest. Rather I am an outside analyst.

i would hope that you would make the appropriate corrections. I wish you all a wonderful day with your families.

Dan Abrams
CEO
Abrams Research


The Cable Gamer never wants to attack anyone unfairly. And upon reflection, TCG considers the Abrams case to be a close call, ethically speaking: If Abrams is truly just an outside analyst, then he does, indeed, have a point--he has a right to pursue his career any way he sees fit. If he is just another talking head, making a living doing something else, then fine. Full stop.

But on the other hand, to the extent that Abrams failed to make that distinction clear when he was launching Abrams research--over the past number of weeks, or maybe months?--then TCG thinks that he played a cute little game. Perhaps he benefited from his NBC/MSNBC perch in order to collect clients and contacts for his new venture. I think it's safe to say that there wasn't as full disclosure here as there could have been.

In any case, the real issue, so far as TCG is concerned, is not Abrams, but rather MSNBC/NBC. TCG thinks it's an outrage, for example, that MSNBC has let Keith Olbermann drive the whole network way to the left. And TCG thinks it's an outrage that MSNBC is part of a company, GE, which got a $139 billion loan guarantee through another subsidiary, GE Capital. Which is to say, MSNBC seems to be part of a political operation that made a bet on Barack Obama and now stands to win, bigtime, in the Washington power game in the Obama Era.

And TCG also thinks it's outrageous that Chris Matthews has been using his MSNBC perch to advance his Pennsylvania political career.

And now Abrams seems--not just to me, but to a lot of others--to have been using his MSNBC/NBC perch to advance his private business agenda. Maybe TCG got that wrong, although Abrams' response does not entirely persuade me that I did.

As I noted in my post this afternoon, I deliberately waited before reacting to the news of Abrams Research, just to let the story "breathe." But this was the context in which I viewed the Abrams story. There was already plenty of smoke to justify my "fire" hypothesis.

But if Abrams wants to put these accusations to rest, he can fully disclose all the conversations he had with anyone--in or out of NBC/MSNBC--over the past few months, as he was formulating the business plan for Abrams Research. He is welcome to do that right here on TCG. And if he is not willing to fully disclose everything, well, I would hope that MSNBC/NBC will.

And if none of them fully disclose, well, I will maintain my suspicions.

And of course, my larger suspicions about MSNBC will continue.

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Dan Abrams Has a Conflict of Interest. NBC & MSNBC Have a Problem. But None Seem to Care.





The Cable Gamer has resisted talking about the new venture of NBC/MSNBC personality Dan Abrams, because, frankly, it was so stupefying that Abrams would even try such a thing that TCG figured she was missing something. How could someone who appears on the air as a newsman also be setting himself up in the p.r. business? I mean, it just boggles the mind that someone would sell himself and Abrams Research like this while still on the air:

The firm's CEO, Dan Abrams, offers businesses a trusted media advisor and attorney who ran one of America's most significant media businesses. His years of experience as a legal reporter and anchor uniquely position him to unite legal and corporate communications strategies.


And so, rather than write anything, I kept quiet. But now it appears that yes, indeed, Abrams plans on being both a newsman and a paid adviser to the class of people that he covers. But there's no conflict of interest, he assures us.

The key point here is that "CEO Dan Abrams" is still an employee of NBC and its corporate offspring, MSNBC! Every time he goes to work, he will inevitably have to ask himself, "Where am I working?" Am I working for NBC/MSNBC, or for my own company?" And surely that will be hard to keep separate--more like impossible.

What's worse, of course, is that Abram not only wants to sell himself, he also wants to sell other journalists--650 of them in his roster of potential hirelings, by his count. Consider his pitch to corporations, on the Abrams Research website:

By targeting the appropriate media professionals in particular fields and locations, we can offer businesses cost-effective insight into how the relevant media will best respond to any strategy, campaign, product, initiative or crisis. These experienced media "insiders" and/or authors can also serve as on-the-ground guides in almost any region of the world or area of expertise, offering valuable perspective on the local media landscape, specific journalists, government officials or even crucial details about local customs. Furthermore, our network includes some of the top investigative journalists who can help research and/or prepare reports for prospective acquisitions or mergers.

Now there's nothing wrong with expertise. And it's even OK if reporters and other media types wish to leave journalism and go to p.r. or other kinds of corporate work. But by definition, you can't be doing both at the same time, or even in the same time frame--as in, negotiating a corporate gig while working as a journalist. You can't be reporting on stories, nosing around for scandal, and then, at the same time, go trolling around for business from the very same people you cover. That's corrupt.

Fortunately, Abrams has been slapped around pretty hard, by Felix Gillette, writing for The New York Observer, by Jessica Pressler in the pages of New York magazine, and even by Hamilton Nolan online in Gawker.

Unfortunately, all this criticism doesn't seem to have stopped Abrams, or his bosses at MSNBC/NBC.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Jon Klein, In His Own Words--Unfortunately For Him




The Cable Gamer doesn't exactly know what to make of The Huffington Post these days. The politics of Huffpo are overwhelmingly liberal, but the site's media criticism is quite often insightful, and always seems to be bolstered by facts and hyperlinks. And that makes Huffpo a must-read for Cable Gamers.

A case in point is Danny Shea, who noted earlier this week that CNN prexy Jon Klein mostly gets an admiring press--which he doesn't quite deserve. In Shea's words:

While TVNewser recently threw Klein's words back at him at once comparing his 2007 declaration that CNN is a "real news network" and his 2008 announcement of a D.L. Hughley comedy news show Klein often goes unchallenged by the media press. Just last week, for instance, the New York Observer ran a story about CNN's spending spree quoting Klein as saying, "We can afford more people on our air and off our air. So, goddamn it, we're going to have more people" without mentioning, say, that the network came under fire over the summer for trying to spin layoffs in the Chicago bureau as a nationwide expansion.

Piling up prodigious research, Shea revealed some interesting gaps between the CNN chief's promise and performance. Here, for example, is some of what Shea found--he invited readers to join him on "A trip down Jon Klein's Predictions That Didn't Pan Out memory lane":

Aaron Brown: The Washington Post wrote in 2005, "One month after announcing that Anderson Cooper and Aaron Brown would continue to be the 'fire and ice' of CNN's 'NewsNight,' CNN/US President Jon Klein said ice is toast." Indeed, Klein assured the Philadelphia Inquirer in October 2006, "There's no plan to slowly phase out Aaron...he's doing a really good job" only to fire Brown one month later.

"American Morning"/Miles O'Brien: In June 2005, a Dallas Morning News article on CNN's hard news focus described the pitch for a retooled "American Morning" featuring Miles O'Brien and Soledad O'Brien: "In a morning television landscape littered with mindless entertainment, there will be one name you can rely on for no-nonsense news: O'Brien." Miles O'Brien was replaced by the network in 2007. Klein also told the Los Angeles Times in 2007 that "American Morning can really catch on with viewers." Of course, the show recently lost a weekly ratings race to MSNBC's "Morning Joe" for the first time, and "Fox & Friends" beats both shows by significant margins.


And, amazingly, considering the politics of Huffpo, Shea added this mockery of CNN's designs against Fox:

The Fight Against Fox News: In that same 2005 Dallas Morning News article, Klein said Fox News "should be [nervous]. Because we haven't even started trying yet." In 2006, in response to a question about why CNN still trails Fox News, Klein said, "I don't know, but we're going to change that." As recently as this month, the New York Times wrote that "Jonathan Klein, the president of CNN/U.S., predicted that his channel's approach -- news without an overt ideological spin -- would prevail in the long term."

The only problem, of course, is that CNN still reliably trails Fox News on a day-to-day basis. In fact, according to Nielsen ratings, CNN has lost 4% of market share over the past four years (Klein's tenure) while Fox News has gained 5%. CNN may win the big nights Election Night, for instance, which it won by over 3 million viewers) but it doesn't retain them, according to an article this weekend in Broadcasting & Cable. Even Larry King has become vulnerable to a surging MSNBC (in the form of Rachel Maddow), and on a nightly basis, the race is more between MSNBC and CNN for 2nd place than between CNN and Fox News for first.


And then Shea concludes:

Jon Klein may be "happily irrepressible," as Jon Friedman put it in his 2006 profile, and so it's unlikely as he moves into his next four years running CNN that he'll monitor his words any more closely. But given the track record of how his bold statements and predictions have panned out, the media press will need to do a better job of that for him.


So this rigor aimed at CNN? The Cable Gamer can think of two possible explanations:

First, Huffpo is carrying MSNBC's water, big time, trying to knock the center-left network, CNN, off stride in its battle with the hard-left MSNBC.

Second, Arianna's site--once dismissed as limousine-liberal vanity project--is now emerging as a serious journalistic player.

To be continued.

"A Post Election News Collapse? Not Quite."










There's been a lot of instant conventional wisdom that cable news viewing has fallen off after the election. And indeed there has been some falloff, from the political peak.

But even more than politics, the real stock and trade of cable news has been breaking news. See it now. News at the speed of live, as Shepard Smith likes to say. And so, tragic as it is, Wednesday's terrorist attacks in Mumbai reminded us all of the real value of cable news. And not just the American cablers, but also other outlets, such as BBC and up-and-coming Asian cablers, such as Star News.

But closer to home, Alex Weprin, writing for Broadcast & Cable, observed that the MSM, in its eagerness to dismiss cable, had gotten a little ahead of its reportorial supply lines:

The Washington Post had a story Friday about how cable news channels were seeing serious declines in viewers now that the election is over.

While it is no surprise that news channels would lose viewers after a very long (and extensively covered) election, the raw numbers don’t always tell the whole story.


Facts are stubborn things. And so Weprin concluded that Fox--not exactly a favorite of WaPo--was still doing the best:

In addition, Fox News was also able to stay near the top of the cable network rankings. Fox went from the number one network in primetime on all of cable election week to number three the week after. Fox was behind only ESPN and USA, which typically lie at or near the top of the rankings. By comparison, CNN fell from number two to 10, while MSNBC dropped from four to 11.

Make no mistake, to the surprise of no one the news networks saw a decline in viewers, but at the end of the day Fox News weathered the post-election storm better then the competition.

Chris Matthews Should Resign--And MSNBC Should Account For Its Campaign Contributions to the Democratic Party. Five Questions for Phil Griffin.











So Josh Drobnyk, writing in Wednesday morning's LA Times under the banner headline, "Democrats may play hardball in Pennsylvania/MSNBC's Chris Matthews could be in the mix of candidates hoping to win Republican Sen. Arlen Specter's seat in 2010," reports that, "The Philadelphia native has been toying with a run for months, and this week he sat down with state Democrats to discuss the prospect of taking on the five-term GOP senator."

I seen any news about those Matthews political meetings on MSNBC. Drobnyk further adds, "Matthews, 62, who didn't respond to a request for comment, has dismissed questions about a run in recent months as he lays the groundwork behind the scenes. His contract with MSNBC expires in June."

Now here are five sets of questions for MSNBC chief Phil Griffin:

1) When did you first become aware that Matthews was preparing for a Senate run? Did Matthews tell you himself, or did you just hear about it through the grapevine? Did you ask him to restrain himself? Or did you encourage him? What instructions did you give to your p.r. staff when asked to respond to press inquiries?

2) Did you check with your in-house legal counsel on the ethics of such an arrangement with Matthews, in which a high-profile employee uses his perch at a publicly traded company (General Electric, parent to MSNBC and its parent, NBC), to advance a personal partisan political agenda?

3) Did you notify your MSNBC editorial staff, suggesting that a report be done on the Pennsylvania Senate race, and cautioning said staff against any possible interference from Matthews or his agents?

4) Did you discuss the Matthews matter with your colleagues and/or superiors at NBC News, NBC, and GE? If so, what was their reaction?

5) Finally, do you think that you have been fair to the people of Pennsylvania? And not just to incumbent Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, but to other Democrats in the Keystone State, who don't have the advantage of a nightly cable news show to advance their career?

And of course, the same questions could be asked of Steve Capus, Jeff Zucker, and Jeff Immelt.

But in the meantime, if he had any honor, Matthews would resign from MSNBC. It's fine if he wants to be a candidate, but it's not fine if he has an unfair advantage in the media.

Isn't the Federal Election Commission supposed to keep track of unfair campaign contributions? This would seem to be a good case for the FEC to look into.

Monday, November 24, 2008

Fox Biz: #2 and Definitely Trying Harder










Fox Business News, still carving out its niche--that's a nice way of saying that it's still #2 behind CNBC, although it is clearly gaining--is always trying new things.

One good example was a recent series of reports by FBN anchor Brian Sullivan, as he traveled back to his hometown, Winchester, VA, to report on local economic conditions.

The Cable Gamer has noted, in the past, that CNBC has been inordinately preoccupied with covering Wall Street, and pushing the Wall Street agenda, at the expense of the Main Street agenda. CNBC's bias was never more obvious than during the debate over the (first) bailout legislation, in September and October, when the likes of Maria Bartiromo fairly demanded that Senators and Members of Congress across the country pick up the tab for all this Wall Street foolishness. It was clear bias on the part of CNBC, with only a few honorable exceptions, such as Rick Santelli, who comes across as a principled opponent of all bailouts, even for people like him.

But in the meantime, FBN's Sullivan goes beyond the world of high finance, in search of stories--and thus back to Winchester. It's all part of a FBN series, called "Opportunity in America: My Hometown."

And here's the way one local paper, The Winchester Star, capsulized Sullivan's reporting, which was a masterpiece of fairness and balance:

“Winchester is not immune to the economic downturn,” he told viewers throughout the nation Friday. “But Winchester, maybe more than a lot of other small towns with a manufacturing base, has basically been able to reinvent itself.”

Shivering near the Confederate soldier statue by the Old Courthouse Civil War Museum, Sullivan described an ever-evolving city moving from apple-growing and manufacturing to a place bustling with white-collar health care, university, and government jobs.

He assembled an all-star cast of local characters to prove the point.

On the steps of the Old Courthouse, Jim Davis, interim president of the Top of Virginia Regional Chamber of Commerce, told Sullivan that organizations such as Valley Health and the Federal Emergency Management Agency provide stable employment.

Tracy Fitzsimmons, president of Shenandoah University, and Mike Halseth, CEO of Valley Health, joined in to respectively discuss their ballooning education and health care campuses.


Sullivan's affection for his hometown was unmistakable: As he said to the paper, “It’s nice to see Winchester doing so well,” Sullivan said between shots. “Places like Loudoun Street make Winchester special.”

And another paper, The Northern Virginia Daily, seemed similarly impressed by Sullivan's willingness to get out to get the story, quoting him waxing lyrical about his hometown:

"I think Winchester needs to grow, but it needs to keep what makes it Winchester, which is the beautiful and historic downtown area, because the national chains are great and they bring some jobs, but I'm a big fan of shopping local, supporting the local shopkeeper, keeping the historic downtown beautiful, because that's what separates Winchester from so many other places that have just become one big strip mall.

"Winchester has a lot of opportunity to grow, but I do believe it needs to grow in the right way."


That's one thing that The Cable Gamer has always liked about Fox News: It covers the story, but it's always obvious that Fox loves America. And the same positive spirit is on display, too, at Fox Business News. People will notice.

*Sigh* He's No Todd Thomson













Maria Bartiromo, who once enjoyed a close relationship with ex-Citigroup exec Todd Thomson, has now moved on.

Friday, November 21, 2008

"Roger Ailes Naysayers Left With Egg On Their Faces Following Contract Renewal" But Maybe Those Naysayers Should Be Covered in Something Stronger


















The quote above is verbatim from the headline atop the media vertical ofThe Huffington Post today. But it doesn't go far enough.

Huffpo's Danny Shea, in contrast to his Huffpo colleague Katharine Zaleski (see previous post), endeavors to set the record straight, and call out inaccuracy. But even so, Shea doesn't go far enough in pointing out the mendacious reporting of a third reporter who contributes to Huffpo, Charlie Warner. So let The Cable Gamer finish the job.

So let's take a look at what Shea wrote earlier today. Note the by-name smackdown of sometime Huffposter Warner. It was Warner who confidently--and wrongly--predicted five months ago that Ailes would be pushed out of Fox News. So here's Shea:

Roger Ailes' 5-year contract renewal may seem like obvious news to the casual media-watcher — the network maintains significant ratings leads over its competition and Ailes has been the network's architect since its founding — but at least one industry insider predicted Ailes' exit earlier this year.

Writing for the industry website JackMyers.com, an influential commentary newsletter in the advertising community (and one that often cross-posts its columns here on Huffington Post), Charlie Warner reasoned why it would make sense that Rupert Murdoch would boot Ailes from the network's top job.

"It makes sense. Murdoch is no dummy and he sees the shift in the country's tastes and mood," Warner wrote. "The wily Murdoch is the ultimate pragmatist. He sees that the country is fed up with the Bush-Cheney-Rove war, corruption, big-business favoritism, neo-conservative idealism, and economic incompetence."

Thus, Warner, concluded, "FOX News, which Roger Ailes created and still heads, has had its run, as has George Bush, but like all entertainment programming, FOX News's novelty and divisive personalities have worn thin and people want (yes that word again) change."

In light of the news that Ailes' contract was renewed yesterday — first reported by the Huffington Post — some in the business are questioning Warner's and Myers' credibility as industry forecasters. TVNewser wrote that Warner's "gossip" was "[ripped] to shreds." A spokesperson for FOX News responded to Warner's post on Jack Myers, saying, "You would think with all the talented writers looking for work that Jack Myers would actually have people with contacts from this century working for him."

Myers made the following statement to Huffington Post:

The post at MediaBizBloggers.com related to Roger Ailes was the personal opinion of Charlie Warner and did not reflect my opinion. It also ran independently at Huffington Post and I am sure Huffington Post editors are not assumed to share or be responsible for the opinions of bloggers. I have great respect for Roger, who is a personal friend and I personally did not agree with Charlie's prediction. Roger has done and continues to do excellent work and is an important leader in our industry. All our MediaBizBloggers are completely free to voice their own opinions without censorship.


Translation: You're on your own, Charlie!

But actually, Shea's repudiation of Warner doesn't go far enough--not nearly far enough. What Warner actually "reported," back in June was that he, Warner, had gotten the scoop that Ailes was a goner. Here's exactly what Warner wrote on June 11:

I had lunch last week with a good friend who is wired into the media business, and the first thing he asked me when we sat down was, "Have you heard that Roger Ailes is out at FOX?"

Now that's pretty specific, isn't it? Warner didn't just say that maybe Murdoch was thinking that it was time for Ailes to go, or that Ailes (who is, after all, 68) might be thinking that it was time to maybe retire. That would have been a plausible speculation--plus, of course, maybe some liberal wishful thinking. Instead, Warner quoted a "wired" friend, who said, according to Warner, "Have you heard that Roger Ailes is out at FOX?"

Now, The Cable Gamer thinks that Warner's source wasn't so wired in--or maybe that the source doesn't even exist. Perhaps Warner wanted to confer on himself some pseudo-authority to justify his provocative and attention-grabbing "Ailes Out?" headline. Perhaps Warner was gambling that Ailes would, in fact, be leaving Fox. In which case, Warner would look like a one-man Woodward & Bernstein, with this own knowledgeable Deep Throatwell wired somewhere inside the media biz.

But instead, Warner looks like something else: Either a reporter who relies on dubious sources who speak without knowing, or else like a reporter who simply "piped a quote," as journalists call. (Others might call it "fabrication."

And yet Warner must have at least a partial friend at Huffpo, in the form of Shea, or Shea's editors: Because in smacking down Warner, Shea didn't smack the man down nearly as hard as he could have--or as TCG will.

Shea's report today didn't cite the specific "quote" that Warner had offered as evidence. Instead, Shea wrote that, "Charlie Warner reasoned why it would make sense that Rupert Murdoch would boot Ailes from the network's top job." Note the key word, "reasoned," which makes it sound like Warner was analyzing the situation, as opposed to purportedly reporting on it. Analysis is nice, but reporting is golden--if the reporting is true, of course.

To repeat: Warner didn't write, five months ago, that he had reasoned that Ailes would be leaving. Warner wrote that he had heard, from a trustworthy source, that Ailes was leaving. Big difference there--and Warner should be called on it.

Any journalist or blogger can have an opinion on something, but it's just an opinion, unless evidence is put forth to bolster the claim that it's true. And if that evidence turns out to be false, that's bad for my credibility. And if it turns out that I simply made it up--well, then, maybe I shouldn't be working as a reporter.

And that's my strongly held opinion.

Rick Sanchez, Idiot. And CNN Knows It. So Why Does CNN Continue to Enable--And More to the Point, Employ--Sanchez?










So Rick Sanchez made a fool of himself on CNN, trying to make it seem to gullible viewers that George W. Bush was being snubbed by world leaders at the recent economic summit in Washington. And The Huffington Post, being gullible, fell for it. Sanchez and HuffPo were so desperate to make Bush look bad that they ignored the basics of fact-checking and common sense.

Interestingly, the very first comment from a reader on HuffPo--obviously not a fan of Bush's, but fair-minded nonetheless--caught Sanchez' error:

This has been pretty much de-bunked by now. I saw on CNN that before entering this particular room, each of the participants was individually greeted (complete with handshake) by Bush, photo op included. THEN they entered the room for the scene shown in this video - and it was the first opportunity to great EACH OTHER.

I'm not even 1% a Bush fan, and I'm as eager as the next person to let my feelings about him be known, but this situation is just a case of "it's not what it appears to be".


And yet interestingly, CNN itself had to come along, in the form of Jeanne Moos, and thoroughly debunk Sanchez's stupid story.

So now the question: Why is Sanchez still on the air? Maybe CNN figures that mistakes made in a "good cause"--bashing Bush--are always forgivable.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Hey Michael Wolff! I Want My Money Back!! Your Tell-All Is a Tell-It-Wrong!!!


















Vanity Fair author--and failed venture capitalist and failed would-be news mogul--Michael Wolff caused quite a splash in October when he alleged a big split between News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch and his friend and colleague, Fox News chief Roger Ailes.

In widely publicized--the MSM couldn't get enough of it--excerpts of his semi-authorized biography, The Man Who Owns the News: Inside the Secret World of Rupert Murdoch , Wolff asserted that Murdoch, influenced by his new wife and her chic Manhattan friends, had grown embarrassed by Ailes and Fox News. Indeed, that Murdoch himself had changed. As Wolff put it, "Here’s the headline: Rupert Murdoch is becoming a liberal—sort of."

Wolff continued:

He’s come to like the liberals more than the conservatives. Bono and Tony Blair and the Google guys and Nicole Kidman and David Geffen are his and Wendi’s circle. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and real-estate scion and New York Observer owner Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump are regular invites to the Murdochs’ for dinner. Liking Wendi’s friends so much better than his own (actually, he really had never had any friends), he finds himself with an increasingly divided temperament.


And Wolff zeroed in on Murdoch & Ailes:

It’s life with Wendi versus life with Fox. (And, too, it’s The Wall Street Journal—and maybe The New York Times—versus Fox.)

Fox has been his alter ego. For a long time he was in love with the Fox chief, Roger Ailes, because he was even more Murdoch than Murdoch. And yet now the embarrassment can’t be missed—he mumbles even more than usual when called on to justify it; he barely pretends to hide the way he feels about Bill O’Reilly. And while it is not possible that he would give Fox up—because the money is the money; success trumps all—in the larger sense of who he is, he seems to want to hedge his bets.


As noted, Wolff had a lot of access to Murdoch and to his extended family. So the "news" that Murdoch was weary of Ailes and Fox reverberated around the political-media world.

In fact, Murdoch protested loudly that Wolff's characterizations were inaccurate. But the beast was loose, the buzz was out there: Ailes was on the way out; some even said that Fox would be transformed into another liberal network, like CNN, or a lefty network, like MSNBC.

But now comes news that makes me wonder if any of Wolff's book is accurate, beyond the page numbers. The headline of the News Corp. press release reads, in big type: "NEWS CORPORATION SIGNS ROGER AILES TO NEW FIVE YEAR CONTRACT." And here's a money quote from Murdoch:

In making the announcement, Mr. Murdoch said, "Roger has done a remarkable job building FOX News into a force in journalism and built a great asset for News Corporation. I have complete confidence in his talent and his editorial judgment. Under his leadership, I believe that FOX Business Network will become the strongest competitor in financial television news."


In other words, the whole thrust of Wolff's take on Murdoch has been proven to be incorrect--by Murdoch himself. By word and deed, Murdoch has reaffirmed his confidence in Ailes. As the News Corp. press release adds:

The new agreement states that Mr. Ailes will continue to oversee FOX News, FOX Television Stations (FTS), FOX Business Network (FBN), My Network TV and Twentieth Television. He will also continue serving as a senior advisor to Mr. Murdoch on television and news matters.


One can like or dislike Murdoch and Ailes, but what's undeniable is that the two men like each other--and they just made their professional connection crystal clear.

Also, The Cable Gamer reckons that the emphasis on Fox Business News is important--and a signal that Ailes will focus on FBN during his next hitch. Watch out, CNBC!

But that's for the future. The issue for now is the pathetic Michael Wolff, and how he blew a story, big time--or, more likely, got it wrong on purpose, just to sell some books to Fox-hating liberals. So I, for one, want my money back, the money that I paid for his obviously worthless book. It wasn't a tell-all, it was a tell-it-wrong.

UPDATE: The always valuable TV Newser adds another angle this afternoon, noting the misreporting of The Huffington Post:

Today's announcement that Roger Ailes has signed a new deal with News Corp. rips to shreds this Huffington Post post. Back in June, Charles Warner wrote:

I had lunch last week with a good friend who is wired into the media business, and the first thing he asked me when we sat down was, "Have you heard that Roger Ailes is out at FOX?" "No, I haven't heard a thing,' I said, 'but it makes sense.' Murdoch is no dummy and he sees the shift in the country's tastes and mood.'"

With friends like that...

Anyway, we asked Fox News for a response to Warner's reporting gossip. A spokesperson tells TVNewser, "Perhaps it's time for Charlie to leave the stage and ride off into the sunset before he embarrasses himself any further.


Sorry Charlie!

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Chris Matthews Is A Blowhard (You Knew That). The Downside of MSNBC's "Probama" Strategy (Jeff Immelt Didn't Know That)













The Cable Gamer has detailed MSNBC's Pro-Obama strategy: Suck up to the Obama Left, and thereby get all the Barack Obama fans to watch as MSNBC-ers (and to a lesser extent, NBC) cheerlead for the O-Man. (That's Obama, not Keith Olbermann, in case you were wondering.) In addition, TCG has noted the unforeseen upside: GE Capital, sister company to MSNBC (as well as to CNBC and NBC) is now on the receiving end of a $139 billion--that's billion with a "b"--federal loan guarantee, as part of the overall Wall Street bailout.

OK, that's the good news for MSNBC.

The bad news is that to implement this strategy, MSNBC had to rely on some loose cannons. Very loose. One such cannon, of course, is Olbermann. And another is Chris Matthews. Any publicly traded corporation--with all the scrutiny, and the presumption of sober seriousness that comes from being the vessel of shareholder ownership--that links its fate to loose cannons will, eventually, find itself blown up.

And Matthews is our case study for today--still busy, as he has been for the past year, trashing Hillary Rodham Clinton.

One can read this item, from The New York Post's "Page Six," and see clear signs of chronic puffing, an early indicator of inevitable inflation, followed by blowing up:

HARDBALL" host Chris Matthews and the other "castratos" at MSNBC shouldn't hold their breath waiting for a Hillary Clinton interview.

Matthews, who once opined that men who supported Clinton were "castratos in the eunuch chorus," forgot the cardinal rule for those who are often mentioned on Page Six - he didn't take a good look around on the Acela train from Philadelphia to Washington Saturday before he started bad-mouthing the New York senator.

An avowed Clinton lover who was sitting next to Matthews reports: "He was in business class wearing a red baseball hat that said Penn on the back, and the fat [bleep] fell asleep on the train and snored with his mouth open."

During the ride to DC, Matthews awoke from his nap. A fellow passenger asked him, "What's the news tomorrow?" - to which Matthews loudly started talking about President-elect Barack Obama possibly picking Hillary as his secretary of state.

"I don't understand it," Matthews bellowed. "Why would he pick her? I thought we were done with the Clintons. She'll just use it to build her power base. It's Machiavellian. And then we'll have Bill Clinton, too. I thought Obama didn't want drama. He's already got [chief of staff Rahm] Emanuel and [transition team leader John] Podesta. He'll have even more drama with her.

"She's just a soap opera. If he doesn't pick her, everyone will say she's been dissed again, we'll have to live through that again."


Now, is it really wise for Matthews to be carrying on the feud against Hillary, even after his man, Obama, has won the nomination and the election? Do the suits at MSNBC, and parents NBC-Universal and GE, really want to keep attacking her--and by implication, all of her supporters? And all of those who don't want to think that a commentator, and his network have been completely captured by one liberal sliver of the population?

The picture of what Matthews actually believes is a bit muddled, however. As "P6" further notes:

Matthews seems to be playing both sides of the fence. The host, who apologized to Clinton last year for claiming she got where she was because "her husband messed around," said on-air last Friday: "Look, I think that since she lost the fight for the nomination, [Clinton] has been not just a good soldier, she has sang the tune of [Obama]. She's been illustrious, she's been admirable . . . her spirit seems to be with him."

A rep for Clinton declined to comment while a rep for Matthews didn't return e-mails.


So which are we to believe, Chris? What you said on the Acela (which squares with what you said on MSNBC air for a year), or what you have said, here and there, since the election? I think that the obvious preponderance of evidence is that Matthews' train talk is the real Matthews.

And that's a problem for MSNBC as it tries to negotiate its way into 2009. Will it be all Obama-olatry all the time? If so, that'll be hard to watch, even for Democrats--especially Hillary Clinton-type Democrats.

And eventually, all those non-Obama Democrats, to say nothing of independents and Republicans, are going to be asking Jeff Immelt, CEO of GE, why the rest of us must subsidize the left-liberalism of GE's MSNBC's unit.

GE is a bigger company than MSNBC, and there might well be some non-Obamans inside the corporate structure, although of late, you wouldn't know it.

Monday, November 17, 2008

Keith Olbermann's Boss Decides That He Likes the Free-Money Media Game. One Analyst Suggests GE Will Need More Bailing Out--A Lot More.




By all accounts, except maybe his own, General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt has been a failure. I mean, the stock is down at 16, down from 40 just two years ago.

But things might be looking up for the I-man, thanks to Uncle Sam. As first reported in The Wall Street Journal, as as noted here at TCG two weeks ago--and now all over--GE is now lining up to receive the benefit of a $139 billion federal loan guarantee for its subsidiary, GE Capital--which is to say, GE is getting a subsidy. And of course, if GE gets a subsidy, then so does every subset of GE, including the news networks NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC.

Immelt and his GE team, including NBC-Universal prexy Jeff Zucker, have no obvious ability to run a media operation, as indicated by the sharp decline in NBC's election-night coverage. Although much-smaller MSNBC was up, which perhaps

But now Immelt is saying that he wants to do more media, telling The Financial Times, "There are going to be some opportunities in media consolidation."

But maybe the situation is more serious: One blogger, James Quinn, writing for writing for The Cutting Edge, asks bluntly, "Could General Electric Collapse?" and answers with a ream of data:

One look at GE’s balance sheet will convince an inquirer that the firm indeed does not deserve an AAA rating. AAA companies do not need to take the desperate actions that GE has taken in the last few months. Something is seriously wrong at GE.

And for this, Quinn asks, Immelt was paid $72 million from 2002 to 2007? As the stock has fallen 68 percent?

Here's more from Quinn, detailing why he thinks that GE is closer to junk than AAA:

Most people know GE as an industrial conglomerate that makes light bulbs, appliances, and jet engines. Its advertising agency has positioned GE as a "green" company with an advertising campaign called "Ecomagination", stressing wind power, hybrid locomotives, and environmentally friendly products. But it is easy to see why GE’s ad campaign should be called "Bankomagination." Truth: GE is actually a bank disguised as an industrial conglomerate. The GE Capital division truly dominates the results of the entire company.

Let’s look at GE Capital, which has three subdivisions GE Commercial Finance, GE Money, and GE Consumer Finance. In 2003, GE Capital generated $5.9 billion of larger GE’s $17 billion of profits, or 35 percent. By 2007, GE Capital was generating $12.2 billion of larger GE’s $29 billion profits, or 42 percent. Being a bank during the boom years of 2004 to 2007 did wonders for GE’s bottom line. Being a bank now is a rocky path to destruction.

GE Capital is enormously leveraged to consumers throughout the world. GE Capital provides credit services to more than 130 million customers, including private label credit card programs, installment lending, bankcards and financial services for customers, retailers, manufacturers and health-care providers. This massive portfolio is heavily concentrated in credit cards for Wal-Mart, Lowe’s, IKEA, and hundreds of other retailers throughout the world. Billions are tied up in debt consolidation to home equity loans. The division also owns 1,800 commercial airplanes, leasing them to 225 airlines worldwide. GE Capital has also been a huge benefit to the industrial side of the company’s business. GE Capital provides financing for customers that buy GE power turbines, jet engines, windmills, locomotives and other big ticket items.

The crucial question is this: can the people and companies who received loans from GE Capital pay them back? GE’s entire future is highly dependent on the answer to this question. But look at the trillions in global defaults towering throughout the industrial world.

The GE's AAA rating allows GE Capital to borrow funds at lower rates than all banks in the United States. Its cost of capital has been 7.3 percent. Losing that rating would be disastrous to GE Capital. Between 2002 and 2006, GE Capital did what most other banks did—they levered up. The company’s ratio of debt to equity rose from 6.6 to 8.1 during the heady years when profits quadrupled. Then, GE Capital jumped into the subprime mortgage market in 2004, buying WMC Mortgage. It sold the bleeding subsidiary in 2007, after racking up losses of $1 billion that year. It also unloaded a Japanese consumer lending company at a $1.2 billion loss that same year, 2007.

It is clear that risk management has taken a back seat to profits at GE Capital. GE Capital’s profits plunged 38 percent in the 3rd quarter, the main reason for GE’s earnings miss. Analyst Nicholas Heymann of Sterne Agee wrote: "Investors now understand that GE uses the last couple weeks in the quarter to 'fine-tune' its financial service portfolios to ensure its earnings objectives are achieved. It turns out, it really wasn't miracle management systems or risk-control systems or even innovative brilliance. It was the green curtain that allowed the magic to be consistently performed undetected."

Egan-Jones, an independent rating agency, calculates that by now, GE is levered ten-to-one, a more conservative and higher number than the company's own stated eight-to-one figure. Cofounder Sean Egan believes that, depending on the off-balance-sheet holdings, actual leverage could be still higher. His firm rates GE not with a AAA but with a single-A. Looking at GE’s Balance Sheet between 2003 and today, a deteriorating situation is clearly tracked. Long-term debt grew from $172 billion in 2003 to $381 billion by the 1st quarter of 2008, a 121 percent increase. Their long term debt to equity ratio grew from 68 percent to 77 percent. Short-term debt grew from $157.4 billion in 2003 to $218.7 billion in the latest quarter, a 40 percent increase. The 70 percent increase in profits between 2003 and 2007 were undoubtedly juiced by the use of prodigious amounts of debt. Stockholder’s equity is at the same level as 2004. With cash of only $59.7 billion and short-term debt of $218.7 billion, the freezing up of the credit markets has put GE at major risk when trying to rollover their debt.

All indications point to a company in trouble. Mike Shedlock, a brilliant financial analyst, recently quoted an insider at GE Capital. "Sales personnel are not allowed to make any more loans this year, and are being told to try to get their customers to pay off their loans. All prepayment penalties are waved for closing loans and GE Capital is about to launch a new incentive scheme for the salespeople that makes it worth their while to get their customers to agree to participate." This sounds like the actions of a company desperately trying to pay down debt. The risks and unknowns for this company are many.

GE announced plans during the summer to sell its lighting and appliance business. It expected to get $5 to $8 billion for these divisions. But it has found no buyers. GE announced that it wanted to sell its private label credit card business, with $30 billion of outstanding receivables. It is not surprising that no buyers have appeared for that business either, especially since it is widely known that many of these receivables are owed by subprime borrowers. GE does not provide bad debt figures for these portfolios. Paying Warren Buffett 10 percent on preferred shares when their cost of capital has been 7.3 percent is a sign of intense stress. GE has $74 billion of commercial paper outstanding that rolls over every few days. GE was rumored to be unable to rollover this paper. They are now utilizing the Fed’s short-term funding facility. This is a sign of weakness.

GE holds $53 billion of off-balance-sheet assets that are pieces of securitized debt, some of which are hooked to interest rate swaps with counterparties that are now troubled. The value of these assets is a complete unknown, but is likely to be worth far less than $53 billion. GE’s recent 10Q had the following disclosure: "GE Capital has exposure to many different industries and counterparties, and routinely executes transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including brokers and dealers, commercial banks, investment banks and other institutional clients. Many of these transactions expose GE Capital to credit risk in the event of default of its counterparty or client. In addition, GE Capital’s credit risk may be exacerbated when the collateral held by it cannot be realized upon or is liquidated at prices not sufficient to recover the full amount of the loan or derivative exposure due to it." Much of GE’s debt is covered by credit insurance. This insurance is virtually worthless, as the credit insurers have collapsed.

GE has $43 billion of long-term debt maturing by June 30, 2009, with another $38 billion due by December 31, 2009. The terms for refinancing this debt will be much worse than the previous terms. GE convinced the U.S. government to insure $139 in debt for GE Capital using the new FDIC program. Why does a AAA company need a government guarantee? Rumors of a dividend cut have been swirling in the business press. GE spokesmen have guaranteed the dividend only through 2009. Many other banks have promised no dividend cuts in the last year, only to cut dividends a month later.

The most hazardous unknown for GE is the global recession that will likely ravage the company in 2009. Their five main businesses (Technology Infrastructure, Energy Infrastructure, Capital Finance, NBC Universal and Consumer & Industrial) will all be under severe stress in 2009. Technology Infrastructure is dependent on airline and military spending. Airlines are struggling just to survive and conserve cash. The Obama administration is likely to reduce military spending dramatically. Energy Infrastructure is dependent on wind, oil and gas companies. With the spectacular decrease in oil prices, these companies are massively cutting capital budgets. Financing for large projects has dried up.

The conclusion are inescapeable. GE Capital is dependent on consumer credit, commercial lending & leasing, and real estate. This division will be overwhelmed by a tsunami of deleveraging in 2009. Consumers will be defaulting in record numbers and commercial real estate has just begun to implode. NBC Universal is reliant on advertising revenues from companies and consumer spending on entertainment. Every leading company in America will be reducing advertising budgets in 2009 and consumer discretionary spending is collapsing. The Consumer & Industrial sector is dependent on consumer’s spending money on appliances. A housing collapse has led to collapse in appliance sales, which will continue in 2009.

The future does not look bright for GE. A perfect global storm will hit GE in 2009. GE is like a giant supertanker loaded with debt that is in danger of being swamped by this perfect storm. A collapse of GE, with hundreds of billions in supposed value, would not bring good things to life. It would bring about the mother of all bailouts.


So yes, GE might yet need another bailout. But fortunately for Immelt, he has plenty of folks on his corporate team well wired into Washington--not just the usual lobbyists, but bigtime Obama/Democratic suckups, including Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and Chris Matthews.

So even if the real GE fails in the free market, Immelt can call upon his liberal friends to make him a big winner in the Beltway market.

Sunday, November 16, 2008

"What the Hell Was CNN Thinking?"


Pepper Miller asks that question in Advertising Age's blog, "The Big Tent." And the subhead was equally damning: "'D.L. Hughley Breaks the News' Sets Us Back 20 Years."

Her whole piece is worth reading, but here's the best stuff:

Seems to me that if this audience was already tuning in to CNN's real news, why did the network have to go to such extreme measures to keep them? Why does CNN believe that youth intellect -- and particularly Black youth intellect -- has to be couched in buffoonery and stereotypes to be relevant? Importantly, CNN has turned off a lot of its loyal Black (and White) boomer viewers -- many of whom appreciate and love D.L. as much as I do.

CNN: What were you thinking?

...

I'm not alone in my opinion. Boyce Watkins, one of the most highly sought-after African-American scholars and Black social commentators, wrote a rather scathing review and commentary about D.L.'s show. Wrote Watkins in D.L. Hughley's Def (and Dumb) Comedy Jam on CNN:

"D.L. Hughley Breaks the News" was something I simply cannot forgive. I am a loyal fan of Katt Williams, Chris Rock, Dave Chappelle, Richard Pryor, Wanda Sykes, Eddie Murphy and other cutting-edge and incredibly talented comedians. I don't wear my "Black Panther hat" everywhere I go, and I have as many guilty pleasures as anyone when it comes to laughing about things that might be considered offensive. I also say this as a moderate fan of Def Comedy Jam. ... The truth of the matter is that there must be a point where the line is drawn, like realizing that you don't put a porn shop inside a church or bring a gun to a baby shower. It is amazing that CNN would sign off on this show right before such an historic and politically sacred event sending a clear message to African Americans that the only way to get their attention is to "be really black and make us laugh."

Additionally, I could not find one of my peers who connected with the show.

...

As it stands now, none of this works for D.L., the CNN brand or the Black community.

Friday, November 14, 2008

Bloomberg News Asks: Will Time-Warner's Dick Parsons Use His Barack Obama Connecti to Undercut Corporate Good Governance and Honest Markets?




The Cable Gamer doesn't normally chronicle issues of corporate governance, but when one of the companies involved is CNN, and when the overall market is in such trouble--well, both of those concerns attracted my attention to this story.

Indeed, at a time when corporate honesty--especially on Wall Street--is at such a premium, it's interesting, and disturbing, that Richard Parsons, chairman of the board of Time-Warner, has become such a well-connected fellow in Washington. He is now a member of the Transition Economic Advisory Board for President-elect Barack Obama.

So what, you ask. So this: Bloomberg News' Jonathan Weil did something brave when he wrote this stinging commentary on T-W wheeling and dealing, suggesting that T-W trickery could soon become part of national policy:

At Cable News Network, the motto for Anderson Cooper's show is ``Keeping Them Honest.''Campbell Brown's credo is ``No Bias. No Bull.'' Here's a story for them: Time Warner Inc.'s biased B.S. -- balance sheet, that is.

The company that used to broadcast the Goodwill Games is playing fast and loose again with a different kind of goodwill.

At $8.61 a share, Time Warner has a stock-market value of $30.9 billion. Yet according to the balance sheet Time Warner released last week, just one of its assets, goodwill, by itself was worth $42.5 billion as of Sept. 30. The company, which owns CNN, also showed $52.1 billion of other intangible assets, mostly cable-television franchise rights.

The market knows those asset values can't be right. Time Warner executives just won't admit it. Meanwhile, Time Warner said its net income last quarter was $1.1 billion, down slightly from a year earlier. The stock, down 48 percent this year, now trades for about half the company's official book value, or assets minus liabilities.

The pretend asset values should concern all Americans, not just Time Warner stakeholders. That's because Time Warner's chairman, Richard Parsons, has Barack Obama's ear as a member of the president-elect's Transition Economic Advisory Board.

It's a safe bet that Parsons, who also is a member of Citigroup Inc.'s board, won't be pushing Obama to champion straight talk in financial reporting. While slogans about truth- telling might help CNN's ratings, implementing those values at headquarters would hurt Time Warner's profits.


Weil is saying that T-W is claiming $42.5 billion in "good will." Good will is a legit accounting concept, but as Weil observes, it seems over-large relative to T-W's overall book value of $30 billion. In other words, T-W's good is a third larger than the value of all of CNN's programming assets, down to Anderson Cooper's emo, or John King's computer screens, or Larry King's suspenders.

As Weil makes plain, such dubious accounting tactics are not unique to T-W:

As of yesterday, there were 165 U.S. companies worth less than their goodwill that also traded at a discount to book value, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Combined, these companies had $364.8 billion of goodwill on their books. That was $137.6 billion, or 61 percent, more than their market values. (The figures exclude companies with market capitalizations of $100 million or less.)

And Weil seems to skeptical of most,if not all, of them.

But the point, of course, is that unlike all those other companies, Parsons is wired into Washington. And now it seems that Parsons-type accounting is destined to infect Washington, and our national policy on accounting and finance issues.

Sell!

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Mission Accomplished: MSNBC Helps Deliver the Bacon for Sister Company GE Capital, for the Benefit of GE


Bloomberg News' Rachel Layne and Rebecca Christie have all the gory details of the federal government's $139 billion gift to GE Capital. Headline: "GE Wins FDIC Insurance for Up to $139 Billion in Debt."

$139 billion going into the same fungible pot of money that pays for NBC News, CNBC and MSNBC--neat! Where do all the other news outlets go to get such a cash infusion?

The Cable Gamer has been following this story for a week now. As I wrote, "The Fix is In." And I hate to say, I was right. Here are the key points from the Bloomberg story:

General Electric Co. said the U.S. government agreed to insure as much as $139 billion in debt for lending arm GE Capital Corp., the second time in a month it has turned to a federal program designed to help companies during a global credit crunch.

Granting GE Capital, which isn’t a bank, access to a new Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. program may reassure investors and help the unit compete with banks that already have government protection behind their debt, said Russell Wilkerson, a spokesman for the Fairfield, Connecticut-based company. Coverage would be for about $139 billion, or 125 percent of total senior unsecured debt outstanding as of Sept. 30 and maturing by June 30.


Nice work, Keith Olbermann! Your candidate, Barack Obama, won the election, and now you parent company, GE reaps huge benefits. You've earned your big new paycheck.

In fact, more than earned it. Way more.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Any Fact-Checkers At MSNBC?


















Apparently not.

This story, detailing how David Shuster of MSNBC got totally suckered, is hard to explain. So I'll let The Huffington Post--a vital resource for Cable Gamers, even if it generally tilts left--explain it:

A former campaign adviser to John McCain named Martin Eisenstadt has outed himself as the proud source of the "Sarah Palin doesn't know Africa is a continent" story. The New Republic and MSNBC have picked up the Eisenstadt scoop.

But it's not at all clear that Eisenstadt exists. William K. Wolfrum of Shakespeare's Sister, who was suckered by Eisenstadt during the campaign, did some digging and concluded, "There is no M. Thomas Eisenstadt. There is no Eisenstadt Group. There is no Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy. M. Thomas Eisenstadt is a hoax."

To be clear, none of this means the Africa story is false -- just that it didn't come from this source. Huffington Post has been told on background that Martin Eisenstadt was not one of Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron's sources.

Jonathan Stein at Mother Jones writes of being tricked by Eisenstadt on another scandal:

A few hours ago, we (okay, I) posted a blog about a man claiming to be a McCain adviser who made ridiculous comments on Iraqi television about building a casino in the Baghdad Green Zone. In addition to the inherent absurdity of it, there was a lot of arrogance, cultural insensitivity, and racism thrown in. Other blogs had posted on the guy, and when I checked him out before posting I found his blog and a foreign policy institute claiming his employ. Turns out the blog and institute, like the adviser, were an elaborate hoax. It didn't help that the guy, in creating his fictional foreign policy expert, closely mimicked the name of a real foreign policy expert.

Here's why I got taken: I received an emailed press release reporting that the supposed McCain adviser had apologized for his comments about the casino. You're welcome to disagree with me, but I had no reason to believe that someone would invent a persona, a blog, a foreign policy institution, a video with a fake Iraqi television station, a press release, and an organization or email entity to send out said press release.

But frankly, there was enough info on the web that I should have sussed this thing out. This is a long way of saying I apologize and that I'm more than a little ashamed. I've taken the post down. Kudos to the inventor of this whole thing. My only consolation is that if I had as much time on my hands as he clearly does, I probably would have figured this out and saved myself a fair amount of embarrassment.

Even if he did exist, Eisenstadt doesn't appear to have been high up enough in the McCain campaign to be privy to Sarah Palin's private utterances. According to his own bio, his role in the campaign was "offering advice and liaising with the Jewish community in particular."

The New Republic has retracted its blog post; MSNBC's David Shuster very quickly admitted that "there may be some indications" the story was made up.

Monday, November 10, 2008

Al Gore, Snob














The Cable Gamer has no opinion on Al Gores's energy and environmental policy. I mean, I am a little skeptical that it will be as easy to no-carbon in ten years, as the former Vice President says, but I can always be persuaded that science can work wonders.

However, my opinion of Gore on one topic is cemented--he is a snob. Consider these comments, made in (where else?) San Francisco, as reported by Caroline McCarthy of CNET:

One of the main reasons why our political system has not been operating very well until this election is the deadening influence of the television medium as it has been operated.

In other words, Gore is still pushing the "vast wasteland" meme put forth by FCC Chairman Newton Minow a half-century ago. It was always a snobby thought, and now Gore has, uh, recycled it, deriding what people choose to watch as "deadening."

And all this time, I thought that Gore's speaking style was deadening!

Revealingly, Gore's answer to the TV status quo is Current TV, which is also deadly. Gore co-founded Current in 2005, as a way, I suppose, of letting proto-Obama supporters show their videos and stuff. Think of Current as a dumb version of YouTube, only without the fun.

But in the meantime, Gore thinks that the TV shows that the rest of wish to watch are "deadening." He didn't say why, but of course, to a San Francisco crowd, he didn't have to. Everyone in his live audience would undoubtedly take it as a given that the stuff that the proles watch is obviously deadening. (Although maybe there were a few regular TV watchers in the audience--although they were surely too intimidated to do anything other than applaud as Gore bashed them for their bourgeois taste.

Jon Friedman on Fox's Fate




Is Fox doomed in the Age of Obama? Jon Friedman writing today for Market Watch, takes up the issue:

The logic goes that because a left-leaning Obama is now in power, Fox will be in decline. Some people say that the voters who swept the Illinois senator into office will reflect his liberal views and turn away from Fox. I'd suggest three words of caution:

Not so fast.


Friedman answers:

News Corp. unit Fox News is No. 1 today in the cable ratings, and has been for nearly seven years. (News Corp. also owns MarketWatch, the publisher of this column.) There are three main reasons to suspect that it can stay there:

Fox can take comfort in knowing that its core audience of politically conservative Americans is loyal to the point of being rabid. That won't change one bit, even with a Democrat in the White House.

Under Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News since its inception, the unit has never been complacent, and it won't start coasting now.

Fox, which loves to portray itself as the underdog, can now rally the troops to a fever pitch by reverting to its favorite public posture: The Outsider.

"Salty Joe" Scarborough








TV Newser has the video of Joe Scarborough saying the "f" word on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" just now.

And of course, comedian Andy Borowitz has the best take:

MSNBC to Launch ‘Fucking Joe’

Scarborough's Show in Porned-up Format

Just minutes after “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough dropped an F-bomb live on the air, MSNBC announced that it was re-launching the show to capitalize on its star’s salty vocabulary.

“Starting on Tuesday, MSNBC’s morning show will be known as ‘Fucking Joe,’” said MSNBC spokesperson Carol Foyler. “We want to send the message that if you tune in to this show, you’ll get a unique mix of breaking news and XXX-rated chat.”

MSNBC’s decision to reformat the show to accommodate Mr. Scarborough’s weakness for expletives surprised many in the cable industry, especially since the show owes its origins to the cancellation of shock-jock Don Imus’ ill-fated morning program.
But for Mr. Scarborough’s part, the move to “porn up” his morning show came as no surprise.

“This move is a fucking home run and anyone who doesn’t think so is a fucking cocksucker,” Mr. Scarborough said, adding, “Fuck.”

Around the cable industry, insiders expressed surprise that Mr. Scarborough had slipped into profanity while on the air.

“I never thought Joe Scarborough would be the first one to drop an F-bomb on that show,” one observer said. “I thought it would be Andrea Mitchell.”

Saturday, November 08, 2008

MSNBC's Phil Griffin--A Made Man In Obamaland

















The New Republic magazine just published revealing article entitled, "Obama's Washington: The O-List/The 30 people who matter most--in order."

And here's one entry, of particular interest to Cable Gamers:

30. Phil Griffin
President, MSNBC
He's the man who unleashed Olbermann and Maddow--and made MSNBC the left's answer to Fox. It's been ratings gold, but the Obama administration poses a slew of knotty dilemmas: Will Olbermann and Maddow defend the administration against its critics? Or will they fulminate when it inevitably disappoints Obama's lefty fans? By all accounts Griffin, recently described as a "hippie," isn't exactly a disciplinarian. Olbermann once declared, "Phil thinks he's my boss."


And there you have it, folks. Perhaps TNR should've listed Olbermann and Maddow. Or perhaps all three of them.

But I guess there's no point in wondering about MSNBC's biases, in the years ahead.

Thursday, November 06, 2008

Obama Suck-Up Watch. Chris Matthews Could Win By Unanimous Consent. Does Chris Want the Senate? Does MSNBC Want the Money? Or both?



"I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new Presidency work"--that's a great thought from an Obama staffer, or maybe even from an American citizen, but journalists aren't supposed to talk like that.

The Cable Gamer is pleased to see that the increasingly independent The Huffington Post is calling 'em as it sees 'em. And that means calling out the increasingly grotesque Obama-alotry of MSNBC. Here's Chris Matthews in action:

Chris Matthews appeared on "Morning Joe" Thursday morning, and in the context of discussing the Obama transition — and Rahm Emanuel's motives for waffling on the chief of staff position — told Joe Scarborough it is not his job to question Emanuel's motives.

"You know what?" Matthews said. "I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new Presidency work."

Scarborough and co-host Mika Brzezinski pressed Matthews on his claim, asking if it his his job as a journalist to make the Presidency work.

"Yeah, that's my job. My job is to help this country...to make this work succsesfully, because this country needs a successful Presidency, more than anything right now," Matthews said.

"As Americans, Chris Matthews, we are all rooting for the success of Barack Obama," Scarborough said. "America is at a perilous time. But you just talked about being a journalist, and your job as a journalist is not to question motives. Then, two seconds later, you said your job was to make this Presidency a success. That's curious."

Later, Scarborough said, "We all wish [Obama] well, we just don't think it's our job to make this work anymore than it was a journalist's job to make the Iraq War have a successful launch."


As TCG has noted previously, it looks like the fix is in for GE Capital to get its piece of the $700 billion bailout, so why is Matthews sucking up so hard? Saying things like, "I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new Presidency work"? Ah yes, there's the Pennsylvania Senate seat, currently held by Republican Arlen Specter, that Matthews is reportedly eyeing.

Or who knows--maybe Matthews just loves Obama. Then the question is, where are the editorial standards at MSNBC? Sorry, had to ask.

MSNBC vs. CNN! Olbermann Trashes Brown!! (And Justifiably So.)












The Cable Gamer has always wondered what Keith Olbermann would do if his main man, Barack Obama, were to win the presidency. I mean, Olbermann's whole schtick is to attack people. When Republicans George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were riding high, it was obvious who liberal Democrat Olby would go after. In addition, for the past year or so, KO has been KO-ing rivals to fellow Democrat Obama for the White House--first Hillary Rodham Clinton, and then, of course, John McCain and Sarah Palin. And of course, Olbermann has always slapped around Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, et al.

But now what? And now who? TCG has wondered, in the past, if Olbermann would turn on Obama. And maybe he will--it's hard for anyone, even The One, to live up to Keith's exacting standards.

But for now, Olbermann is going to turn his guns on CNN, as The Huffington Post (see screen grab above) noted this morning:

Olbermann chided Brown for mistakenly claiming that the last time the same party controlled the White House, the Senate and the House was under Jimmy Carter.

"The talking point got out enough that the anchor of another news broadcast at this hour reported yesterday that last time it happened it," — and here Olbermann turned on his Brown impression — "didn't go so well, and people who have been worried about the possibility of one party controlling the White House and Congress. 'The last president to do that, of course, was Jimmy Carter.' Swing and a miss. Her colleague tried to correct her. 'Bill Clinton.' Swing and another miss. Correct answer: George W. Bush, that current guy. Early 2001 and again from 2003-2006."


Now it must be said that Olbermann is right here, about Brown. She is an airhead. Pretty, of course, but dumb. She has been told to "speak out" more, but that means reading a script that's put in front of her--she is only as smart as her talking points, and that leaves her vulnerable to staff errors and weak when it comes to ad libs.

But of course, Olbermann doesn't want to be just right, he wants to be righteous. And so it was fun for him to defend Obama and attack someone else.

So we can expect him to overkill on Brown, just as he does on everything else. But will he be able to contain himself when it comes to Obama? Will he really be able to go for four, or even eight, years of Obama without blowing a gasket? Do watched pots ever boil?

CNN Makes a Play for the MSNBC Audience












Doesn't every liberal newshound want to wear a t-shirt celebrating Obama's victory? Jon Klein sure hopes so!

The text reads, "Obama inspires historic victory/I just saw it on CNN.com." Just $15 at cnn.com.

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

GE Capital-gate Update: The Politico Adds Details, Suggesting The Fix Is In




Yesterday, The Cable Gamer pointed out that two cable news properties, CNBC and MSNBC, stood to benefit indirectly from the government's bailout of Wall Street--which, coincidentally (not) was expanded on Election Day to include GE Capital; GE Capital, of course, like CNBC and MSNBC (and also broadcaster NBC), is a subsidiary of corporate giant General Electric. So in other words, Uncle Sam is channeling money, circuitously but surely, to MSNBC and its news network siblings.

And now The Politico--not a Cable Gamer, but a hot publication nonetheless--adds some telling new detail about the dealings: The U.S. Treasury Department, nominally controlled by George W. Bush but in reality controlled by Wall Streeters who lean Democrat (at least now) is throwing itself open to input from the incoming team of President-elect Barack Obama. So the Obamans will not have to wait even two months before getting control of the money spigot.

This report should make all the rest of us even more interested in knowing where the money goes, because it's now being overseen, at least in part, by an incoming administration with its whole political life ahead of it, as opposed to the deeply lame-duck Bush bunch.

As The Politico's Victoria McGrane and Eamon Javers explain, not only are Obamans moving in before they officially take power, but they are planning on keeping tight control of the bailout: "Financial observers expect the incoming Obama administration to make the bailout effort their own." Well of course they do! Why wouldn't the Obamans want to get control of disbursing $700 billion, even before their man is inaugurated on January 20? Why wait?

Reuters reported Wednesday night that the planned bonus for MSNBC is coming along nicely. Oops, I meant to say that the $700 billion "TARP" (Troubled Asset Relief Program--not that it matters, because you or I never going to see a dime of it), is now going to include GE Capital, among other companies. I misspoke when I called it a bonus program for Keith Olbermann & Co.--sorry!

As Reuters' David Lawder sums up:

On Tuesday, a source familiar with the Treasury's thinking said the department was exploring how to best expand its capital injection program to provide more liquidity to credit markets, including help for specialty finance firms such as General Electric's GE Capital or CIT Group Inc.

The Treasury said it has made no final decisions on actions it might take, but said any further steps would be made in a "clear and efficient manner while ensuring that the taxpayer is properly protected."


Translated, that means that they are moving forward on the plan. And yesterday, TCG observed:

And now GE Capital is in line to get money from Uncle Sam. All of a sudden, the long strange trip of MSNBC, way to the political left, starts to take on a certain logic. Sure, MSNBC has taken some hits for its obvious pro-Obama bias, but at the same time, MSNBC has surely made some friends. Maybe, in effect, MSNBC placed a bet on Obama. ... All of a sudden, the "go left" plan starts to look like Machiavellian genius.

I mean, if you were the Obamans, wouldn't you think of MSNBC as your favorite news outfit? And so if you got the chance to shovel some aid their way, wouldn't you consider it? You might. And for their part, the Obamans have already considered it--more than considered it.

Yes, indeedy, but just to make sure that they can close the sale with Uncle Sam, GE's corporate children are continuing to butter up Obama. Tonight on NBC Nightly News (which is so in bed with MSNBC that it uses MSNBC's URL a news segment), like last night, the whole tone was pro-Obama. In one egregious editorial choice, Brian Williams' newscast showed cute happy Obama supporters, while the Obama opponent was a ridiculously old and odd-looking man. And on "Hardball," Chris Matthews said that thanks to Obama, we would have government of, by, and for the people for the first time, adding that there would never be a Katrina on Obama's watch. (Now how does he know that?)

So that's the deal, folks, hiding in plain sight: The GE Three--NBC, CNBC, and, most obviously, MSNBC--slather praise on Obama and everyone around him, and in return, the government shovels money GE's way. That's a deal that will send thrills up Matthews leg, to say nothing of GE CEO Jeff Immelt.

But for the sake of the rest of us, what's needed is an investigation. How do these deals get done? When was contact between the government and GE Capital first made? Were there any lobbyists involved? You get the idea.

It's possible, of course, that there's an entirely innocent explanation. Perhaps it's all just a coincidence. But if that's the case, if nobody is doing anything wrong, then let's see all the evidence. Let's see a fully transparent accounting of why the U.S. Government wants to give money to the liberal private media.

And, while we're at it, let's see all the details about who else is getting the money, and a full accounting of all their subsidiaries, including media subsidiaries.

Something tells TCG that this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Rewarding Pro-Obama Propaganda on MSNBC: GE Capital-gate -- The First Scandal of the Obama Era? What Will GE Subsidiaries NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC Do?





Isn't it interesting that on the very day that Barack Obama wins the presidency, the U.S. Treasury department announces a change in its $700 billion Wall Street bailout program--a change that would benefit MSNBC, the most pro-Obama news network? And also benefit NBC, which is also no slouch when it comes to pro-Obama-tude? The common connection, of course, is GE, and its subsidiary, GE Capital.

Sounds like payback to me, or is it payoff? We can presume that it's all legal, according to the fungible "legality" that has prevailed in Washington for the past six weeks, since the bailout was proposed and enacted. But of course, the bailout program--which seems to change every few days--is not not in the least transparent, and it gets murkier and murkier, leaving the taxpayers and other interested parties to search for clues where they can be gleaned.

So how, exactly, is the bailout going to be benefit MSNBC? And NBC? How is money going to pass from the folks on Main Street to the sharpies on Wall Street, and then to the Obama-loving likes of Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, David Gregory, and Andrea Mitchell?

(And let's not forget CNBC, which shamelessly shilled for the bailout when Congress was considering it. At the time I just thought that Maria Bartiromo & Co. were sticking up for the class interest of Wall Street--now it looks like they were sticking up, directly, for their own corporate interest in CNBC as a wholly owned subsidiary of GE.)

Here's the way the deal is going to work, as reported by Deborah Solomon, writing in The Wall Street Journal this morning, and confirmed everywhere since:

The Treasury Department is considering using more of its $700 billion rescue fund to buy stakes in a broad range of financial companies, not just banks and insurers, after tentative signs of the program's success, according to people familiar with the matter.

In focus are companies that provide financing to the broad economy, including bond insurers and specialty finance firms such as General Electric Co.'s GE Capital unit, CIT Group Inc. and others, these people said.


That's clear enough, isn't it? GE Capital now in line to get bailout money. Are there any rules and procedures determining who gets what? Or can the Treasury just look up at, say, the election returns and make a big policy change? Apparently so.

But in the meantime, GE investors are happy at the news that the federal gravy train is chugging their way: GE stock price jumped this morning: the Reuters headline was, "GE, CIT rise after report on bailout funds."

The Cable Gamer doesn't pretend to be a Wall Street expert, but I have always been fascinated by the relationship between the cable newsers, CNBC and MSNBC, and their corporate parent, NBC. And then, in turn, the relationship between NBC and its corporate parent, General Electric. But of course, GE--the sixth-largest company in America, according to Fortune mag--has many other "children," too, including, interestingly enough, GE Capital.

And now GE Capital is in line to get money from Uncle Sam. All of a sudden, the long strange trip of MSNBC, way to the political left, starts to take on a certain logic. Sure, MSNBC has taken some hits for its obvious pro-Obama bias, but at the same time, MSNBC has surely made some friends. Maybe, in effect, MSNBC placed a bet on Obama. That sure would explain why, during the Democratic primary campaign, MSNBC was the flagship of pro-Obama-ism in the media, mobilizing Dems to support the Obama even over Hillary Rodham Clinton. And then, during the general election, well, every night of MSNBC coverage was a five-hour Obama-infomercial. Does anybody doubt that the Obamans will remember who their friends were? That MSNBC will be the favorite cable news network for many VIPs in Obama world? All of a sudden, the "go left" plan starts to look like Machiavellian genius.

And now, we learn this morning, that the government stands poised to return the favor to MSNBC's parent--in a very real way, a boost to the corporate bottom line. Does the government do anything in increments of less than a billion dollar these days? Probably not. So a billion or more to GE Capital will surely trickle down, some of it, to all the other GE properties, including the news networks.

Now technically, of course, the Treasury is still in the hands of the Bush administration, but everybody knows that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson is much closer to the Democrats than to the Republicans, and that his key aides and advisers are all Wall Streeters. Which means that when they all cycle through the revolving door, back to Wall Street, it would make sense for them to have plenty of friends among the Democrats who will now control both the executive and legislative branches. (Who needs Republicans anymore?)

So there you have it. Now it's not a done deal yet, and GE/GE Capital is being cautious: "This is not something we expect," said spokesman Russell Wilkerson. "If it were offered, we would evaluate it." But if you translate the coy corporate-speak, GE will eagerly take the money. And those long-suffering GE shareholders, having watched helplessly as their stock has declined by two-thirds over the last seven years, since Jeff Immelt took over from Jack Welch, will cheer. But of course: if the government hands out money, people will have their hand out.

The final proof, of course, will come if, in fact, GE Capital gets a big bailout check from the government. If it does, well, from a legal point of view, there's probably not much that could be done about it--now doubt the smartest lawyers on Wall Street and in Washington will all swear to the total legality of the transaction.

But from a political point of view, from a fairness point of view, Republicans and conservatives--and fair-minded folks of all partisan and ideological persuasions--should be outraged by what seems destined to happen. The mere idea that the the government would seek to give money to media outlets is an outrage.

It was bad enough that the government created a 12-digit slush fund to bail out Goldman Sachs and all the rest of 'em on Wall Street. But it's even worse if the money goes to the media--that's not just bad policy, that's a threat to the First Amendment.

Do we really want the government subsidizing the private media? Being able to reward favorable coverage with financial favors? Do we really want the federal government being able to dangle cash outlays, or the prospect of such outlays, over the heads of news outfits? After all, if the government can bestow money on MSNBC through GE, then what other corporate connections might be made in the future? That is, what other corporate media chief might decide that he or she needs a bailout--perhaps of some distant subsidiary, the connection to which the public doesn't see? The possibilities for deep corruption are endless.

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant," wrote Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis decades ago. He was right, of course, but sunlight doesn't do as much good if the light only falls on the corruption after it has happened.

But this time, we've been tipped off. Now is the time to raise a stink, lest Olbermann & Co. reap a huge bonus for their politicking, a bonus provided to them by American taxpayers.

At a rock bottom minimum, if GE, or any subsidiary of GE, gets government bailout money, it should announce in advance that it will spin off its media subsidiaries, so as to separate government financial benefits from media services to the government.


Surely all the serious journalists at NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC would want that insulation--so they can never be accused of tilting their coverage in return for financial gain. Because right now, it looks like GE shrewdly deployed its media assets to gain political leverage on Uncle Sugar--and it worked!

Monday, November 03, 2008

Google vs. The Media




Peter Osnos is not really a Cable Gamer, but the publishing veteran has been around the media for his entire career, and he continues to be interesting. (Even as he, like so many media types, now finds himself working for a non-profit foundation, albeit a foundation with a strong orientation toward the media.)

In this column published by The Century Foundation, Osnos notes that book publishers are being more energetic in protecting their rights than newspaper owners. Indeed, the publishers recently won a big settlement against Google and its online book operation.

That's a strange turn of events, because book publishers are seen as a sleepy, behind-the-times bunch. But as Osnos argues, it's newspapers, not publishers, who are letting Google kill them, by putting their content online, for free, all searchable by Google.

Osnos concludes:

This is a complicated subject, as the hefty book publishers’ accord makes plain. But the issue itself is very clear: the collection of quality news is expensive, and it is seriously threatened. Google drives a very hard bargain in pursuing its business interests, but can be brought around by persistence and grit. There is a vast amount of money changing hands for news these daysA way has to be found—and fast—for those now making money from the distribution of news to pay for it.


OK, so that's newspapers. But now question for Cable Gamers: What about TV? After all, it's only a matter of time--and not much time--before Google, which owns YouTube, figures how to make TV video all searchable.

One who seems aware of this looming threat is Rupert Murdoch, who recently explained his view of Google to Australian reporter Terry McCrann. Murdoch tells the reporter that he likes the Google Guys but that his personal affection for them does not fully extend to their business relationship. Here's Rupe on Goog, explaining the need for the search company to have a significant competitor:

Then he gets serious. "It - Google's dominance - is a danger to us. We want to see Microsoft still strong. To get Yahoo, to at least have a base of perhaps 20-25 per cent of the search business. To hold on to it. To try to be a competitive factor.

"So when it comes up for our sites, to let out the search business, I would prefer two bidders," he says dryly. "Not one."


In making that argument, Murdoch echoes, interestingly enough, a similar declaration, made two years ago, by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to Business Week. Ballmer echoed Osnos, too, when he observed that Google's business model is to wipe out copyright holders, aka, the media: "And what about the rights holders? At the end of the day, a lot of the content that's up there is owned by somebody else."

And Ballmer continued:

The truth is what Google is doing now is transferring the wealth out of the hands of rights holders into Google. So media companies around the world are all threatened by Google. Why? Because basically Google is telling you how much of your ad revenue you get to keep.They better get some competition. Us. Yahoo! Somebody better break through or you can short all media stocks right now. As long as there are two, you can hold onto media stocks.
The key phrase, above, is Ballmer's argument that if Google doesn't get competition, then all media stock values will go down. So Murdoch and Ballmer agree: Google needs competition.

That's a big question, which will affect publishing, newspapers--and, yes, cable news--in the years ahead. Perhaps, in fact, the biggest question.

Jeff Bercovici on Media Chumps and Champs of 2008







Jeff Bercovici, of Conde Nast Portfolio, is always interesting. And so his list of "champs and chumps" has plenty to provoke just about everybody.

Here's one choice passage:

CHAMP: MSNBC

"The liberal Fox News": Such a simple formulation, yet it took the 2008 election for MSNBC to turn it into a consistent, winning strategy. It's only in the past two months that the network has gone all-in, dumpin 9 p.m. host Dan Abrams for Keith Olbermann protégé Rachel Maddow, whose instant draw helped the network top CNN in the 25-to-54 age group for the first time ever in October.

CHUMP: MSNBC

On the other hand, pro wrestling gets good ratings, too. MSNBC's new positioning has made it -- and, more alarmingly, NBC News as a whole -- a bogeyman for those who think the media is already liberal enough. Signs that the lunatics were running the asylum abounded at the Democratic National Convention, where Olbermann, Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough couldn't keep their mutual contempt off-camera. That led to Matthews and Olbermann getting taken off anchor duty, which only raised the question: What the hell were Olbermann and Matthews doing anchoring straight news coverage?


But all the nets take their licks from Bercovici.

Huckabee! and Bill Maher--The Secret of His Success












Mike Huckabee has a hit on his hands with his new Fox show. And he has made it the same way that he made his political career--with a gentle manner that overlays a firm conviction, and a firm faith.

A case in point is Huckabee's recent interview with Bill Maher, who released the new anti-religion movie, "Religulous." That title is Maher's melding of "religion" and "ridiculous"--funny, huh?

But Huckabee kept his cool, and his interview made for an enjoyable and informative segment--no shouting or screaming. It was obvious that "Mike" and "Bill" liked each other well enough.

And a hat tip, btw, to TV Newser, which caught the segment, which was nearly lost in the weekend-before-the-election shuffle.

Sunday, November 02, 2008

Ben Affleck Nails Norman Bates--I Mean, Keith Olbermann











Thanks to TV Newser for getting all the details of Ben Affleck's guest-star turn as Keith Olbermann on "Saturday Night Live" last night.

The Cable Gamer thought that the skit, overall, wasn't that funny, but that Affleck totally KO'd his KO impersonation. He absolutely captured Olbermann's twitchy weirdness, the sense that underneath it all, there's more than a little bit of Norman Bates in Olbermann. You remember Norman, from Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho," don't you? It's a TCG fave--here's Keith, I mean, Norman. (It was Affleck-as-Olbermann's reference to his mother that really triggered the Norman comparison.)

As an aside, "Fox News Watch," which also aired last night, took up the question of what TV personality, or TV show, has had the most impact on the election. Jane Hall put in a plug for "SNL," which is certainly a reasonable proposition, given the enormous impact that the show has had over the last year, from Barack Obama's appearance last Halloween to Amy Poehler's dead-on impersonation of Hillary Clinton to, of course, Tina Fey channeling Sarah Palin.

But there are other possibilities; for example, Obama himself has said that Fox has cut two or three points off his vote total. And surely Sean Hannitygets a special mention, as the crusading pundit who broke the Reverend Wright story, among others.

But Jim Pinkerton made the best point: If, in fact, Obama ends up winning this presidential election--having been 30 points down against Hillary just a year ago, being surely about the most implausible general election candidate ever--then one has to give the "most influential" to MSNBC. That is, the combined weight of all those MSNBC propagandists, who trashed Hillary before trashing John McCain, will have had its desired effect: President Obama.

And yes, Keith Bates will get no small part of that "credit."

Saturday, November 01, 2008

Olbermann to be "savaged" on "Saturday Night Live" Tonight?





Michael Calderone
, of The Politico, reports, you decide:

Ben Affleck, who’s hosting “Saturday Night Live” this week, was rehearsing a skit this afternoon mocking Keith Olbermann when Olbermann himself got past security to watch, according to a source with knowledge of the incident.

A source described the skit as “savage,” in portraying Olbermann as a deranged person living at home with his mother. Affleck, said a source, became uneasy with Olbermann in attendance at the 3 p.m., closed-set rehearsal.

But Olbermann, through a spokesman, was complimentary of his first time being mocked on "SNL" — a position his MSNBC colleague Chris Matthews has been in over the years.

“I’m not Sarah Palin,” Olbermann said. “I know how valuable it is to me. And it’s funny."


Hard to believe that Olby will keep his equanimity. But you might as well watch, to see John McCain, as well.