Dan Rather to MSNBC at 10 pm? Can You Say, "Inmates Taking Over The Asylum"?

Is Keith Olbermann running MSNBC now? Can he really bring in Dan Rather, the discredited liberal septuagenerian ex-CBS anchorman turned loony left conspiracy litigant?

It seems quite possible, based on Olbermann's track record. He seems determined to demonstrate, every chance he gets, that he runs the network, and not his ostensible MSNBC honcho, Phil Griffin. And Olbermann is out to show who's boss, in the mostly publicly humiliating way possible.

TV Newser notes that Olbermann floated, publicly, on MSNBC air, the prospect of Rather taking over the 10 p.m. slot on MSNBC. Here's the TVN report:

A tipster noted the toss last night between Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, in which Olbermann asked: "Dan Rather tonight? Want to ask him if he's doing anything weeknights at 10?" Maddow replied, "I will, thank you for suggesting that, Keith."

In fact, Keith has a way of broadcasting his clout at MSNBC. As every cable gamer knows, Olbermann wrote in his Daily Kos blog last August, taking credit for picking Maddow.

And as further reported in November by Jessica Presslerin New York magazine, Olbermann took a shine to Maddow after she clobbered hapless (but still full of himself) faux conservative Tucker Carlson on MSNBC, back when MSNBC was making a pretense of airing conservative views. "We were friends from the start,” said Olbermann to Pressler. “Our worldviews overlap.”

Boy, did they ever. As Pressler details, Olbermann's goal was to get rid of Dan Abrams in the hour following him and put in Maddow as his replacement. Note, below, this summation of Griffin: "He didn’t want to hire Rachel. Keith hired Rachel.” As you read this below, you might ask, "Who wears the pants at MSNBC?

Olbermann had no such kinship with Dan Abrams, the lawyer and former MSNBC executive who hosted Verdict, the program that followed Countdown. In fact, Olbermann’s dislike of Abrams was so intense that he refused to provide Abrams with a “throw,” that brief chat as the audience is passed, it is hoped, from one block of programming to another. Sometimes there would be up to five seconds of dead air between their shows.

With Olbermann’s urging, Maddow, who had never even used a TelePrompTer before February, began guest-hosting Countdown last year, and soon Olbermann was pressuring Phil Griffin, his friend and producer, to give her Abrams’s slot. In July, Griffin told the Times he planned to give Maddow a show when the opportunity arose. “And a month later, when [Griffin] was promoted to president,” Olbermann says, “he did.”

He may not have had much of a choice. According to MSNBC insiders, as Olbermann’s ratings have risen, so has his level of power at MSNBC. “Phil Griffin didn’t hire Rachel,” says one person who works at the network. “He didn’t want to hire Rachel. Keith hired Rachel.” Olbermann plays down his involvement: “It was nothing more sophisticated than being the person who nominated her for membership in the club.” But he was the one who broke the news of Maddow’s show on August 19, on the liberal Website Daily Kos, writing coyly, “Yes, I had something to do with it.”

And so it was with that background--Olbermann dictating to Griffin--that The Cable Gamer was intrigued to read Brian Stelter's 1/22 story in the NYT, headlined, "NBC Wants to Add a 3rd Prime-Time Show," Olbermann signaled that he was once again driving programming at MSNBC, searching out an alternative to the current MSNBC practice, which is to run a re-run of Olbermann's 8 pm show in the 10 pm hour. As Stelter reported:

In an e-mail message, Mr. Olbermann said he was working with Mr. Griffin to develop options for the 10 p.m. hour. He echoed Mr. Griffin’s comments about the need for a complete prime-time schedule. “Losing the 10 p.m. replay is a very small price to pay for a last piece to the puzzle,” Mr. Olbermann said.

Well, we know from the Maddow episode how Olbermann works with Griffin: Keith on top, and Phil on the bottom, if you know what I mean.

OK, OK, the reader might be saying, "What's so bad about Olbermann calling the shots at MSNBC? After all, the Maddow show is a hit." Well, in fact, the Maddow show is mostly successful because it follows Olbermann; we'll see how long she holds even his audience. But at minimum, Maddow is young and fresh--the opposite of Dan Rather.

And yet now comes the news--straight from the horse's mouth--that Olbermann wants Rather on MSNBC, following Maddow. This is the same Rather, who, when last heard from, was in the midst of suing CBS News over his termination over the discredited "Memo-gate" story, which slimed George W. Bush and led to a slew of much-deserved firings at CBS. Rather's Oliver Stone-ish lawsuit has been dragging on for years, costing everyone a fortune, and making nobody look good.

So now Olbermann wants this man, Rather, on his network? How can that end well for MSNBC and all the suits at NBC-Universal and on up the corporate chain of command?

Amazing. Yes, it's a ridiculous idea, flying in the face of fairness, good journalism, and even MSNBC's much-touted "youth demo" strategy.

But as TCG has argued, MSNBC needs Olbermann, and all his whims, because General Electric, the troubled conglomerate desperately needs its pipeline to Uncle Sam's bailout money, funneled from the US Treasury to GE Capital and then to the the parent company. With politics calling the tune for GE, it's no surprise that Olbermann can call the tune in his own TV playpen.

So Olbermann seems to have absolute power at MSNBC. And we know what happens to those with absolute power.

What Would Google Do In The Cable Game?

The Cable Gamer has come to like The Daily Beast, which is a lively alternative to The Huffington Post. The politics of DB tend to be similar to that of Huffpo, which is to say, liberal and snarky--except, of course, when both are being reverential to Barack Obama. But that's OK; neither site pretends to be unbiased, the way that the broadcast TV networks pretended to be, or the big daily newspapers. There's nothing wrong with opinion, so long as it's clearly labeled as opinion.

Like Huffpo, DB has a good attitude toward technology. And so TCG read, with interest, this interview with Jeff Jarvis, the well-known blogger/proprietor of Buzz Machine, and now author of a new book, What Would Google Do?

As the title suggests, Jarvis is a fan of Google, and so the book is advice to companies to be more like Google. OK, I am not entirely persuaded, but what argument, ever, is entirely persuasive? DB's Dave Kansas conducted this interview with Jarvis, in which he laid out five ways that other companies could learn from Google. Here was one way, which struck TCG as persuasive, in helping media companies figure out their own plans for community:

Get out of the way. This is actually Craig Newmark's law. As Google built the most powerful tool imaginable—the entire world of digital knowledge revealed behind a simple search box—so did Craig build a simple tool that changed society (and newspapers and real estate and more) without prescribing how we should use it. They create platforms to enable us to do what we want to do and then, instead of giving us rules about their use, then they stand back and put us in charge.

The Atlantic Joins The Cable Game

Fishbowl NY has the news:

TheAtlantic.com appears to be continuing its march to online dominance with the announcement that it has launched a business channel. Business.TheAtlantic.com, which went live today (Bank of America is the launch sponsor) will be edited by Megan McArdle and focus on business and economics featuring "original posts, dispatches, interviews and more from a range of experts", including The Atlantic's Tyler Cowen, Conor Clarke, Arnold Kling, Jim Manzi, Grant McCracken, and Bart Wilson. The page will be edited Currently running on the site is an interview with uber-business journalist Michael Lewis.

According to The Atlantic this is just the first of several new online channels to be introduced.

A few thoughts on this from The Cable Gamer:

First, as a practical matter, it's never been easier to start a "channel." I mean, what is a channel now? Does it have to be on TV, or is the Internet good enough? And what is TV, in a world of Hulu, YouTube, TiVo, Slingbox, and Flo TV and the like? In this new digital era, people get their video from somewhere and they don't really care where.

Second, never underestimate the big boss of The Atlantic, David G. Bradley. He has a proven track record in business, and a proven willingness to spend money on media talent for his various properties. Note, though, that those are two different points: Bradley makes money in business and spends money in media. He is hardly the first to wish to be a media mogul, no matter what it costs.

Third, The Atlantic is headquartered in Washington DC, having moved from Boston a few years ago. DC is not exactly the business capital of the country--but wait, that could be changing. If the Treasury and the Federal Reserve are the new big players in finance--doling out bailouts, expanding regulation, overseeing the "stimulus"--then Washington DC may finally eclipse NYC as the financial capital of the country. (That was the gist, btw. of an op-ed by Joel Kotkin in the Washington Post on Sunday.)

Fourth, the talent for the Atlantic might be well positioned, intellectually and ideologically. As far as TCG can tell from their writings, they are mostly libertarians; some, such as Andrew Sullivan, lean a little to the left, while others, including Megan McArdle, and Tyler Cowen, lean right. Such a libertarian tone is a good tonic for a time when we are supposed to place extraordinary trust in the government--trust the government to be smart enough to make us prosperous, do away with CO2, and provide health care for everyone. Maybe the government should do all these things, but TCG has yet to be convinced that the government knows how to do it. And that skepticism will surely be seen in The Atlantic's coverage.

Fifth, money and brains is not the same as TV savvy. Will these people be good on the tube? Or the screen? Will the presentation be fresh and compelling? That's a million-dollar question for Bradley & Co. to answer.

Here's the release:

Washington, DC and New York, NY (January 22, 2009) -- As many publishers struggle to develop a digital strategy, TheAtlantic.com is building on the online success of its brand with the introduction of several new channels. The first, Business.TheAtlantic.com, is dedicated to business and economics and launches today. Bank of America is a launch sponsor for the channel.

The channel will feature original posts, dispatches, interviews and more from a range of experts, including The Atlantic's Megan McArdle, Tyler Cowen, Conor Clarke, Arnold Kling, Jim Manzi, Grant McCracken and Bart Wilson.

The current volatile economic landscape has created an unprecedented demand for insight into the complex issues we all face,” said Justin B. Smith, President, The Atlantic. "With this launch, we're helping our audience understand the big picture through the lens of The Atlantic's acclaimed opinion and analysis."

Fueled by the commentary of The Atlantic's wide-ranging team of bloggers, including McArdle, Andrew Sullivan, Marc Ambinder, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Ross Douthat, Jeffrey Goldberg, James Fallows and Clive Crook, TheAtlantic.com has dramatically increased its traffic and cultural relevance during the past year. In 2008, it averaged 18 million page views and 2.6 million unique visitors per month, compared to 5.2 million page views and 1 million unique visitors per month in 2007. TheAtlantic.com recently tapped WIRED's Bob Cohn as Editorial Director.

Hey Keith! You Gotta Work Harder to Support Obama -- Because The Big Boss Jeff Will Need More Of Uncle Sam's Money Soon!

Can MSNBC rescue parent company GE? That is, can the blatant fluffery of Keith Olbermann be converted into bailout cash from Uncle Sam? As GE tumbles toward breakup on its own, the last hope for saving the ungainly conglomerate appears to be politics. Fortunately for GE, this is a season for "bailouts" and "stimulus."

"GE shares fall as profit drops 46%"--that's the headline in The Chicago Tribune today as Wall Street absorbs the continuing cascade of bad news from the over-extended conglom. For a couple of years now, The Cable Gamer has been predicting the breakup of GE. The basis of my prediction was the obvious mismatch between GE, a manufacturing and finance company, and its media subsid, NBC-Universal. After all, everyone has figured out by now that "synergies" are mostly bogus, and so the whole theory that GE could be maximally effective in both, say, plastics and, say, celluloid was a falsehood. It was a falsehood sold to then-CEO Jack Welch by then-underling Robert Wright; Wright had ambitions of Louis B. Mayer-type moguldom and so convinced Welch. But Wright, of course, was a no-talent, who vastly overpaid for things and people, including Chris Matthews.

Welch retired in 2001, his corporate legend slightly besmirched by Wright's excesses, and now further besmirched by the obvious error of picking Jeff Immelt as his successor. And Immelt's eight years at the top have further demonstrated the wisdom of non-conglomeration. Immelt might be good at something--most likely, in his original specialty of manufacturing. But he let himself be hypnotized by the serpentine charm of Jeff Zucker, who has carried NBC from first to fourth, and kept MSNBC right where it's always been--third place.

And so TCG always figured that if NBC-U were spun off, as part of a de-clustering of GE, then NBC and its other media properties would get better management, because the shareholders of an indy company would see clearly the misfeasance of the current bunch of "managers."

But then came the subprime mortgage meltdown, a field in which TCG claims no competence. But of course, as the record shows, GE's Immelt has no competence either. He was obviously not paying attention--or did not understand what he was seeing--as a hughe subsidiary, GE Capital, engorged itself with under- and now non-performing loans. Once again. the clear lesson is that conglomerates don't work. Immelt was focused on medical equipment purchases while NBC turned south, and while GE Capital plummeted to the south pole.

So the pressure should really be on GE now, because we have yet to find the bottom on the mortgage meltdown/recession.

But the paradoxical effect of the meltdown has been to make some of GE's subsidiaries worth more to the company, not because of their financial performance, but because of their political performance.

That's right: there is one ray of hope for GE: Uncle Sam. As TCG has noted, the feds have already come to the rescue of GE Capital--and by extension, the rest of the company--to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. The feds were happy to see Lehman Brothers go bankrupt, and Bear Stearns disappear, but more politically favored companies, such as AIG and GE Capital, were pulled back from the brink by the taxpayers, like it or not.

And now, the new President is Barack Obama, whom MSNBC so strongly supported last year and supports this year. And given the evident willingness of the Obama Administration and Congress--yes, including you Barney Frank, for steering $12 million to your homies--to play bailout favorites, don't be surprised if Obamans are happy to steer money toward MSNBC's sister company, GE Capital, knowing that their "investment" will be rewarded. (And since that "investment" is someone else's money, well, that makes it all the more painless to the "investors.")

Of course, it's still possible that all this bailing out won't work--because GE Capital is in such a deep hole, sucking the rest of the company down with it. That's the argument made late last month by financial observer Bill Paxton in a post at Online-Stock-Picks.com under the blunt headline, "GE: don't buy, here's why":

A lot of people I've been talking to are real financialbulls on GE (General Electric), I say stay away from this stock and here's why.

GE is not really a "diversified industrial corporation;" it's more of a highly leveraged financial conglomerate that will be in deep doodoo as $100's of billions of debt starts coming due in 2009. Last week's much ballyhooed announcement of how they plan to re-invent themselves in '09 sounds good in sound bites for the press, but the probability that they can actually turn those plans into reality is slim. (They've already tried to sell some of their industrial divisions without success.) Outside of their financial group, a lot of their manufacturing divisions fall into categories now in decline--aircraft parts, home appliances, lighting fixtures, broadcasting, etc. (And GE's struggling financial operations have traditionally financed big-ticket sales for their industrial divisions--think GM/GMAC.) No doubt they'll eventually be classified as "too big to fail" and get a government bail-out but not before their common stock has been totally trashed.

GE is actualy in a mess with declining sales volume across all lines of business. GM is looking to return two corporate jets leased from GE CApital. No takers for the sale of their credit card busines and also no takers for the appliance business with the Korean announcing publicly that they were not interested. Medical equipment sales will be down significantly as hospitals cut back on capital budgets due to marketly lower donations during the tough times (some of the very wealthiest donors have been hit the hardest in the market meltdown ).

Their large industrial loan portfolio is underwater as customer default rise and late payments payments increase dramaticaly. Aircraft leasing is softening fast as consumers stay home instead of flying. IN short I cannot think of one reason to own this stock. I do not for a minute believe that they can maintain the dividend for the entire year. The div of $1.24 does not compare favourably to the much reduced earnings now cut by some analysts to $1.65 (not much wiggle room here at all). And didn't Citicorp swear on a stack of bibles a year ago that they would not be cutting the div when Merideth Whitney said they would absolutly have no other choice (and they cut in not once but twice). Also heard the same kind of assurances from Lehman Brothers when David Einhorn had the temerity to point out their improper marks on Level II and level III assets. GE has a ton of debt some 600 Billion, with lots of level II & III and they are not disclosing the marks on it, This is an accident waiting to happen. Go to seeking alpha and read their insightful analysis for good hard look inside GE.

GE's exposure to the financial crisis is too great and the giant is destined to fall further. But that could mean that GE has to try all the harder.

Interestingly, Paxton put up that comment on December 21, when GE's stock was $16.50. On Friday, it closed at $12.03, which is a drop of nearly 30%. How much more can GE fall? It's been a long slide from the peak of the Welch era, when the stock was nearly 60.

But as Paxton shrewdly observes, "No doubt they'll eventually be classified as 'too big to fail' and get a government bail-out but not before their common stock has been totally trashed." Which is to say, the company will be rescued from bankruptcy by the feds, but not before there's a lot more pain for shareholders. And no doubt a lot more Obama-sucking-up by Olbermann, Matthews, and all the rest, who don't need to be reminded that dismal Nielsens aside, the audience that really matters for MSNBC is inside the White House. So get ready for a lot more Obama praise from MSNBC, and, for good measure, CNBC and NBC.

You can count on it. Keith, you've been a star performer in Obama's troupe for a couple of years now, but soon, you are REALLY going to have sing for Jeff Immelt's supper.

CNN Might Want to Hold Off On That Wire Service Plan Till They Get Better Editorial Discipline On Their Headlines

The Cable Gamer likes to think that she has a good sense of humor, and I sometimes push the edge of the envelope, I think, on headlines. But I am not trying to appeal to a large audience. And I am not starting up a wire service, out to compete with the staid AP.

If I were, I would never use this Kathy Griffin-ish headline: "Obamas Juggle Inaugural Balls." Oh wait! CNN uses Kathy Griffin, and will reportedly have her back next New Year's Eve. So maybe this is all part of CNN's plan to seek out the youth demo.

H/T: Fresno Bee blogger Mike Oz.

Jeff Immelt, With Jeff Zucker Right There With Him, Hails "Fellow Democrats"

Under the headline, "What Are the Media Celebrating?", The Washington Post's media writer Howard Kurtz provides the answer: The media are celebrating, of course, Barack Obama, and liberalism, of course, but also the ascendancy of people like them.

You know, the best and brightest, those with enlightened opinions. The people who should lead us--and collect bailouts.

And so of course, NBC was there in Washington; after all, its subsidiary MSNBC, was the point of the media spear for Obama in the '08 campaign, and it seems clear (see previous post) that MSNBC aims to continue that role in the Obama administration.

And as for the other NBC properties, well, they tend to have the conventional MSM take on things: reflexively pro-liberal, pro-Democrat.

Yet even so, it was a little surprising to hear the big boss of all those NBC properties, General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt, "out" himself as a partisan Democrat so completely, with his NBC underling, Jeff Zucker, right there with him at the Inaugural festivities in DC.

Let Kurtz set the scene:

...and NBC chief executive Jeff Zucker hosting a brunch for 800 yesterday at the National Museum for Women in the Arts.

Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of parent company General Electric, addressed the sushi-nibbling crowd from a grand staircase at the museum: "I thought I'd begin by saying, welcome, fellow Democrats." It was, apparently, a joke.

"It was, apparently a joke," says Kurtz of Immelt's "fellow Democrats" salute. Sure. Sure it was. The Cable Gamer guesses that some GE flack saw Kurtz writing it down and came running up to him to insist that Immelt had said it as a joke. That's what p.r. types do, and Kurtz was dutybound to take note of the objections in his piece, but in inserting the word "apparently," the writer signals his skepticism about the rebuttal.

But the performance of the MSNBC/CNBC/NBC combine was no joke, and can't be spun. Not only was their Obamatry evident, but also their special pleading, viz. the shameless shilling for the TARP bailout last fall on CNBC in particular, which has benefited GE Capital (part of the same corporate family) to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

So Immelt knows exactly what he is doing. And what he is saying.

Chris Matthews Opens His Heart To... Propaganda

TV Newser caught Chris Matthews as he crossed the line from commentary to propaganda, as he told Keith Olbermann, "Let's talk straight here: This is the network that has opened its heart to change. To change and its possibilities."

But wait! Matthews wasn't just talking about thrills running up his own leg, he was talking about a thrill running up the proverbial leg of the whole MSNBC network.

The Cable Gamer wonders if Phil Griffin will disavow Matthews--or, more likely, give him a raise.

One commenter on TVN was inspired to recall a late-night TV joke:

Reminds me of the Triumph the Insult Comic Dog-joke, where he said "There was this one beautiful moment on MSNBC during the coverage...when Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann climaxed at the same time".

But for her part, TCG thinks back to Madonna, and her song from the 80s, "Open Your Heart." Feel free to change these lyrics to fit Matthews and his infatuation:

Open your heart to me, baby
I'll hold the lock and you hold the key
Open your heart to me, darlin'
I'll give you love if you, you turn the key

Most likely, the love affair between MSNBC and Barack Obama will end in tears, just as it did for Madonna and Sean Penn and Guy Ritchie. But I give these new lovebirds at least a couple of years.

Fox Makes Its Double-Down Bet

So now it's Fox by itself in the Cable Game, and it's pretty much by itself in the non-blogger, non-radio-talk-show media world. That was the gist of a New York Times story this morning, headlined "Fox News Primes Itself for a Shift," written by ace Cable Gamer Brian Stelter.

The piece includes an interesting quote from Bill Shine, SVP for programming (pictured above), answering the question, what is the fate of Fox in the new era? “That’s kind of the million-dollar question,” Shine answered, “I get asked it a lot. All I know is that over the course of the next four years, we’re going to do what we do really well — cover the news in a fair and balanced way and put on a very good product.”

That's brave talk, and nobody ever accused Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes, the visionaries who created Fox News, of lacking bravery.

But right now, things look great for Barack Obama and his many supporters, in and out of the media. Obama is being sworn in as the new president, at a time when most Americans think that George W. Bush has made such a hash of things that there's nowhere for the country to go but up. According to new polls, Obama's approval ratings are up in the 80s, while Bush's ratings are mostly in the 20s. Thus plenty of slack for 44, plenty of time for him to keep saying, "Well, at least I am not Bush."

As we see right now, Democrats and MSMers are celebrating. They are the ones holding the fancy parties in Georgetown, and it's mostly the "friendlies," of course, who are getting invited. So there are some pretty carrots out there for those who are willing to play ball--"hard" or soft--with the Obamans over the next few years.

And of course, the Obamans have sticks, as well as carrots. And they have obvious ambitions to consolidate power, as part of their plan for "change" and "hope." The President-elect went on YouTube the other day to announce Organize for America, his effort to institutionalize his election-politics machine into a presidential-policy support machine. ("You're a Congressman and you oppose the O Plan? Fine. We'll put you down for 10,000 phone calls and 100,000 e-mails, and then see how you feel.")

And in the media world, too, Obama has taken steps to seize the commanding heights of power. He has named a longtime friend, Julius Genachowski, a pal from Harvard Law School and a top adviser ever since, to head the Federal Communications Commission. Which is to say, Obama will be able to pick up the phone anytime and talk to a trusted colleague about anything that's bothering him in the media world, with an eye toward regulations, licenses, and so on.

In addition, Washington now controls the pursestrings for Wall Street, thanks to the various bailout programs. And so it might be possible for Democrat bigs in New York City to use their financial muscle--bolstered, of course, by Uncle Sam--to seek to influence Fox, or The News Corporation, or its shareholders, advertisers, and cable carriers. There are a lot of pressure points in a big company, and the Obamans and their allies know all of them.

And whatever the Obama forces might do to crush opposition, they will likely have the presumed tacit support of their boss, who has never been shy about revealing his true feelings toward Fox: During the campaign, Obama said that Fox's coverage was costing him "two or three points" in the polls. And Obama might well have been right. Who else was willing to say that Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate, according to the blue-chip National Journal? Or to delve into the details of Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, and Bill Ayers? Of course, Fox's coverage was vastly outnumbered by the other Cable Gamers, to say nothing of the rest of the media. And furthermore, the American people factored in all the information available to them, and voted Obama in by a landslide--we must respect that choice.

But that means, all the more, that we need a Loyal Opposition. If Obama is a great man destined to be a great president, then all the criticism that comes from Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and now, Glenn Beck won't amount to much. (And viewers know that while Hannity is pretty orthodox conservative in his politics, O'Reilly, Beck, and also Mike Huckabee are mavericks. And the politics of other big FNC stars, including Shepard Smith, Greta Van Susteren, and Chris Wallace, are completely opaque.)

But all of them will likely ask perfectly legitimate questions about, say, Hillary & Bill Clinton or Eric Holder. And it's fair to say that the nation missed a bullet when brewing wariness about sleazeball Bill Richardson removed him from the next Cabinet. And do the Democrats really want the corner-cutting Tim Geithner as their Treasury Secretary?

Of course, if Obama has the right plan for the economy, or for foreign policy, he can go on TV any time, taking his case directly to the American people. And Fox will cover it, live and unedited.

But then, in the after-analysis, we will see the difference. It's a safe prediction that MSNBC will be totally in the tank for Obama--whatever he says and does, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, et al. will be slavishly for it. And as for CNN, well, they will likely wring their hands a bit, and then support the Obamagenda. People have a right to such opinions, of course, but it's not particularly healthy for democracy--checks and balances and all that--and it's certainly not good television. After all, who doubts that the White House/Democratic National Committee/Organize for America will have endless live streams of Obama speeches, plus praise from various aides and pseudo-pundits. So if you want the straight party line, you will be able to watch it direct from the source--without commercials.

My guess is that many Americans--even those who voted for "change"--are eventually going to want to hear an opposing point of view or two. And that'll be good for Fox.

If, of course, Fox survives the coming Obama Onslaught.

Obama Live, And In Perspective

Nothing beats cable news for covering an event such as a presidential inaugural. To see it live, in long form, is the only way to make sure sure that you don't miss anything.

But there's still something cool about interpretation, and this is particularly cool: Darrin Bell, cartoonist of "Candorville,"puts the whole thing in perspective. Note the presence of not only Martin Luther King Jr. and Frederick Douglass, but also such civil rights martyrs as Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman.

CNBC: Why Can't We Just Get Along?

"Sandbox or CNBC? 'I'm Doing What Maybe You Should Do, Be a Reporter'"

That's the headline that TV Newser slapped on its account of the latest foodfighting at CNBC.

According to TVN (TCG couldn't make out the words amidst the angry cross-talk), Dennis Kneale told CNBC colleague Charlie Gasparino and"It's bad for the CNBC brand to impugn the reporting skills of your colleagues...it's in poor taste, my friend."

But actually, as TCG noted yesterday, it's not clear to a viewer that Kneale knows the first thing about being a good reporter, which is check your facts.

Now This Is Cool, CNN

I can't add much to this press release from CNN, detailing its partnership with Photosynth, which is part of "The Moment."

Now is there some liberal bias in turning the inauguration of Barack Obama into such a media swoon? I mean, isn't "The Moment" a bit pretentious? Sure there is. But everyone likes a ceremony, and moreover, the country is kinda liberal now, isn't it? And the world even more so. CNN, which has to compete with MSNBC here at home, and with the BBC, Al Jazeera, etc. overseas, can't be blamed for joining in on the fun, playing to liberals. That's competitive Cable Gaming in action.

But concerns about fairness aside, to its unvarnished credit, CNN is embracing new net-based technology, which oftentimes transcends ideology. Indeed, when The Cable Gamer thinks about the impact of technology on the news, she sometimes wonders whether technology isn't the new punditry, as well as the new artistry. That is, think about about the artistry of a company such as Pixar, the film company that Steve Jobs sold to Disney awhile back. (Although, of course, it's not really a film company, is it? Better to call it a digital company, where the technical virtuosity of the CGI product has nearly overtaken the scripts and voice talent.)

And the same with the promise of technology, and how it might supersede punditry. If everyone is creating their own media, well, then, the impact of any individual pundit is lessened. It's the difference between hawkers in the bazaar and priests in the cathedral, to borrow Eric S. Raymond's famous technoduality. Raymond was writing about open-source software vs. proprietary software (in which MSFT, interestingly, was on the proprietary/cathedral side), but the dichotomy applies here, too. If all of CNN's "iReporters" are liberal, well, then, CNN will put on a liberal show on Tuesday. And while CNN still has a duty to safeguard journalistic standards, the fact is that people have a voice, too. And so they will.

Which in turn gives me a chance to climb my blogsoap box and declare, yet again: For the news media to survive and thrive--be they Cable Gamers, or Net Gamers, or Convergence Gamers--they always have to be offering people better and better tools, so that they, the people, can be part of the show.

And that's what CNN is doing with Photosynth, from Microsoft. Here's the full text of the release:

CNN Enlists iReporters to Capture ‘The Moment’ of Obama’s Oath

Network to Use Microsoft Photosynth and User-Generated Photos to Create 3-D Image of Inauguration

CNN Worldwide plans to create the most unique view of the exact moment U.S. President-elect Barack Obama takes the oath of office on Tuesday, Jan. 20, at noon (ET). Using Microsoft Photosynth technology, CNN and Microsoft Corp. will produce the first “synth” of a major historical moment.

Photosynth, part of the Microsoft Virtual Earth product family, enables users to create synths, detailed 3-D environments of photos that are identified by minute similarities and then fused together. In this case, the initial images comprise those captured on cell phones, cameras and mobile devices by inauguration attendees of the moment Obama is sworn in as president. From the vast sweep of the crowd to a close-up on the new president’s raised hand, every angle of this historic moment will be frozen in time. To see examples of synths, visit http://photosynth.com.

CNN is inviting people witnessing “The Moment” to take part in a special iReport assignment by e-mailing their pictures to themoment@CNN.com. The photos will post immediately to iReport.com, CNN’s user-generated news community, and shortly after the oath of office, viewers and users can see the resulting synths on-air and online. In staying with CNN’s long tradition of using technology to reinvent political coverage, the network will feature the synths on the Magic Wall. The use of Photosynth within the multi-touch environment will be made possible by the strong relationship among CNN, Perceptive Pixel and Microsoft.

Visitors to CNN.com will also be able to explore the images captured in this transformative moment on either their PC or Mac. Photosynth will allow CNN.com visitors to glide around the Capitol, thus virtually experiencing the occasion from every angle. For more details on sending in photos and to view the synths on Inauguration Day, visit www.CNN.com/themoment.

“We’re pleased to partner with CNN to bring this historic event to life through the eyes of those attending the inauguration,” said Yusuf Mehdi, senior vice president, Microsoft. “Microsoft Photosynth technology enables an immersive experience for CNN to share with all of its viewers.”

“As the nation watches this momentous moment on Tuesday, CNN, through this partnership with Microsoft, will again make television history,” said David Bohrman, CNN’s senior vice president and D.C. bureau chief. “From the YouTube debates to the Magic Wall, CNN has proven itself as the network which embraces technological tools to engage viewers and allow them to witness news events in ways never before imagined.”

"Fake Steve Jobs Banned From CNBC For Life"--For Telling The Truth About CNBC

All hail Henry Blodget's must-read Silicon Alley Insider for posting this incredible video from CNBC last night. And boy does CNBC look bad: Not only was CNBC reporter Jim Goldman lied to by sources at Apple and yet he doesn't seem to mind, but his colleague at CNBC, Dennis Kneale, dismissed one of the fundamental tenets of journalism, which is that you check every fact.

Here's the set-up: Dan Lyons, the cheeky Newsweek reporter who once published the "Fake Steve Jobs" blog, was on CNBC to talk about the declining health of the real Steve Jobs. Lyons was on with several others, including CNBC-er Goldman, who had stoogishly been reporting that Jobs was fine; indeed, Goldman in the past had gone so far as to attack a report in Gizmodo that Jobs' health was in "declining rapidly."

In other words, Goldman got the story totally wrong. And yet in the segment last night, Goldman didn't seem to mind, refusing to criticize the Apple source that had so obviously misled him. Goldman reminded me of famously Ziegleresque televised chumps of the past, such as Lanny Davis, who was happy to be lied to by Bill Clinton, and Scott McClellan, who was happy to repeat pro-George W. Bush talking points, and then equally happy to repeat anti-Bush talking points.

Now why would Goldman be so nice about being lied to? Two possibilities come to mind: First, he is a true Apple Kool-aid drinker, along the lines of those Scientologists who await the return of L. Ron Hubbard. Or second, Goldman actually knows better than what he is spouting, but figures that preserving his friendly relationship with his "source" inside Apple--most likely, an Apple p.r. person--is more important than delivering the straight scoop to his viewers on the CNBC channel.*

Well, that was too much for Lyons. And here I will met CNET's Caroline McCarthy pick up the tale:

"You can try to backpedal and say that what you reported was true," Lyons said to Goldman on CNBC, adding that the broadcast journalist had been "played" and "punked" by his sources at Apple, "but look, you should apologize to Gizmodo for having criticized them and apologize to your viewers for having gotten it so wrong."

He also took a direct dig at the credibility of CNBC, asking, "Why have a bureau out in Silicon Valley?"

SAI, CNET and others are reporting that Lyons has been "banned for life" from CNBC. And I am sure that's true, given the insular and cozy world of CNBC, where reporters fall in love with their beats, and the people that they meet--right, Maria Bartiromo?

And so it would be forlorn for me to suggest that CNBC really needs to bring in Lyons, and to teach their reporters how to be something other than flacks for their industries.

The first CNBC-er who needs to be in line for such instruction is Kneale, who attempted to defend Goldman during yesterday's segment, saying to Lyons, "You have to believe most of what you are told. You can't check everything." Of course, Kneale's claim is the opposite of what any first-year J student is told, which is, "If your own mother tells you something, double check it." And if it's a slippery corporate p.r. type telling it to you, then absolutely, check every last thing.

Before you make a fool of yourself on TV and bring discredit to your network.

It will be interesting to see if there is any further fallout from this story, other than the exiling of Lyons, the one truth-teller.

*In case anyone is wondering, I am typing this blog posting on a Mac--I am a huge fan of the company, and am personally devastated by the thought of a Jobs-less Apple, to say nothing of a Jobs-less world. Steven has made the world an infinitely better place, and he has done so over the opposition of many others. And yet if Jobs has great work to do, others have their work, too. Apple might like fawning coverage over every last thing about it, but journalists are supposed to be a check-and-balance, not a stenographer to power.

GE Breakup Watch--Motley Fool Weighs In! Will Jeff Immelt Call In Some More Bailout Chits With the Obama Administration?

The Cable Gamer has believed for years that GE would break up, spinning off its various assets, including its media properties, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, etc. My original prediction was that GE would break up after the 2008 election, and I am convinced that such a breakup was in the cards, until the Wall Street meltdown. Ironically, the worse the news, the better for a conglomerate dinosaur such as GE, which benefited from a Federal Reserve subsidy in October and then from a $139 billion loan guarantee from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in early November (and all this time I thought that the FDIC existed to help out small savers; who knew that they were in the business of bailing out billion-dollar companies?).

And in fact the stock, which had been at 60 early in this decade, bumped up for a while, to a high of 20.77 on November 4, but now it's down, below where it was at the time the feds started bailing it out. It closed at 14.11 today.

You might say that it takes some serious mismanagement to get hundreds of billions in federal aid, and yet still be in the toilet, but that's a sign of how badly mismanaged the company has been.

Enter the Motley Fool's incisive Alex Dumortier, with a sharp analysis of GE's situation:

However, in the context of the post-bubble environment of conservatism and transparency, there is an elephant in the room: GE Capital, the firm's financial arm.

GE Capital: The elephant in a credit-constrained room
The creature comparison is appropriate. With $680 billion in assets, GE Capital Services was bigger than Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC) at the end of last year. Wells Fargo is one of the nation's largest lenders. Among those assets are $51 billion in real-estate debt securities. Investors are now much less forgiving when it comes to this level of risk and leverage than they were two years ago.

That is, GE is burdened by its GE Capital subsidiary, which is still in trouble despite all its bailouts.

Then the Fool asks, "Is GE Cheap Enough?" and offers this answer:

When a market leader like GE underperforms its industrial peers, it's strongly suggestive that GE Capital is the basis for a conglomerate discount. That would be entirely consistent with the investor risk aversion that is dogging virtually all financial companies right now. This represents a return to order; after all, GE Capital's earnings are higher risk than those of GE's other business lines.

One could argue that this discount won't persist indefinitely and it shouldn't be the basis for a major corporate restructuring. Perhaps the former is true, but I believe that a GE Capital-related discount is warranted, regardless of the environment.

In some sense, an investment decision always comes down to price in that there is always a price at which any asset is a compelling investment. I'm not a huge fan of GE because of its size and complexity, but I have to recognize that we may now be approaching levels at which the risks of GE Capital are more than accounted for. GE shares now look likely to provide adequate long-term returns for investors; if the share price were to remain at this level for a sustained period, the breakup logic would certainly gain weight.

In other words, so long as GE stays at 14 or so, well, it might not need to be broken up. But if anyone wants a higher stock price, well, then better bust it up.

If Jeff Immelt can wrangle some more bailouts--and Barack Obama certainly owes him for the shameless pro-Obamatry we have seen on MSNBC and to a lesser extent the other NBC-Universal media properties--then the breakup can be postponed indefinitely. But if not, if there's an upward limit to Congress' appetite for subsidizing big companies, then GE will be deconglomerated. That seems to be what's happening to Citi.

So Jeff Immelt, meet Vikram Pandit and all the other knowitalls who got greedy and got burned, beyond even the ability of Uncle Sugar to bail them out.

CNN Playing The Convergence Game

As the screen grab above shows, CNN seems to have some pretty slick multimedia in mind for the Presidential Inauguration next Tuesday. (All those little icons seem to be some sort of "iReport"-type indicators, or locations.

The point, of course, is that The Cable Game is now the Convergence Game. Those who watch the Inaugural live, alongside the Capitol and Pennsylvania Avenue, will be able to participate through their cell phones/PDAs, uploading content to iReport.

And those who are not in DC and also not near a TV will be able to participate through their computers--on their desks, on their laps, or in their hands.

Here's the CNN press release, straight from Turner.com:

CNN.com’s Inauguration Coverage

The 44th President Inauguration

CNN.com Coverage

Day of Coverage

* Obama inaguration: The main bar. Rolling story with latest updates in DC. Focusing on Obama’s speech, the ceremony, with color and quotes from the scene at the historic inauguration. Folds in any significant news developments due to size of crowds, security.

* Obama people: Focus on the people who went to see history in the making. Who they are, where they’re from, why they came. With lots of quotes, photos from our people on the scene.

* Obama reaction: Reaction from across the country and the world to Obama as the first African American president of the United States.

* Inauguration balls: Preview on the 10 official inauguration balls, focusing on the big ones that the Obamas are expected to attend. To be updated for PM. With Photo gallery. FRANCE writes Advance version.

* Wireless service: What happened with wireless service in DC? Did the predictions come true?

* Ticker: Special Inauguration Edition: All the color, analysis and more from DC from the Best Political Team.

* Transcript: The full inaugural address.

CNN.com Live with Facebook

Facebook users can join the conversation, with their friends or with the general audience, while watching CNN.com Live. Promo box to sign up page box goes up on CNN.com main page Wednesday, January 14 and CNNPolitics.com and stays up through Tuesday AM.

What can CNN.com offer you?

* “Your View of History”: Map of the parade route and surrounding area in DC. Will feature stills, video and quotes from iReporters and CNN staffers on the scene in Washington DC. Rolling updates as material comes in throughout the day on Tuesday. Will post by Friday January 16, with main page solicitation. (SEE SLIDE)
* Tour of DC map: An interactive map of the main landmarks and other notable tourist sites from the nation’s capital. Includes information on inaugural route, road closings and Metro stops. (SEE SLIDE)
* CNN.com LIVE Player - Similar to our election coverage this past November, the Live player widget will stream live video coverage of the day's events in real-time.
* Inauguration RSS Feed - The feed will be a customizable mix of video/text headlines for use on any site

All links and direction for application will be available for distribution on Friday, January 16th, 2008.

What can CNN.com offer you?

* “Your View of History”: Map of the parade route and surrounding area in DC. Will feature stills, video and quotes from iReporters and CNN staffers on the scene in Washington DC. Rolling updates as material comes in throughout the day on Tuesday. Will post by Friday January 16, with main page solicitation.

What can CNN.com offer you?

* Tour of DC map: An interactive map of the main landmarks and other notable tourist sites from the nation’s capital. Includes information on inaugural route, road closings and Metro stops.

Huckabee: "the most likable politician I've ever met"

So says A.J. Jacobs, writing a profile of Mike Huckabee in the latest issue of Esquire magazine. Jacobs went backstage at FNC for a "Huckabee" taping, milling around with a motley crue of guests that day, including Dan Rather, Stephen Baldwin, and the remainders of the band Yes.

It's a great profile, even if Joy Behar called Huckabee her "favorite Republican." As Jacobs writes:

In the week before the interview, I'd been told the same thing by a dozen people: He'll charm you. And half an hour in, I've already been sucked in. He's the most likable politician I've ever met. Here he is, one of the most conservative voices in a couple of decades. He's a four-star general in the battle against gay marriage. He's fervently pro-life and is dubious about Darwinism. He disciplined his kids with corporal punishment and he loves his guns. And yet, when you're with him, he's so damn folksy and kind and self-deprecating that the liberal media (i.e., me) just want to hug him.

Although in fairness, I first caught wind of this piece from TV Newser, the indispensable guide to the Cable Game, which highlighted Huckabee's defense of Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson for their interviews with Sarah Palin last fall. I don't agree with Huckabee on Gibson--I thought that Gibson was snooty toward Palin. As The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz observed on September 15, Gibson "seemed like an unsmiling professor peering over his glasses at an earnest graduate student," and Alessandra Stanley, writing in The New York Times, added that Gibson "was at times supercilious."

But I do agree with Huckabee on Couric. Katie asked Palin simple questions, which Palin flubbed. And that's why you hafta watch the news, because you never know what will happen.

"The CNN Strategy"

Harvard Law School's Alan Dershowitz describes what he calls the "CNN Strategy" of the Palestinians and other Cable Gaming victimologists.

As Dershowitz explains in this National Post of Canada op-ed, his use of CNN is a generic observation on the media. But I am not so sure.

"HAS CNN BEEN BUSTED? Filmmaker Challenges News Channel To Release Raw Footage To Prove News Story Legitimate"

Read all about it! TCG has no real opinion the merits, here, of these sensational allegations against CNN. TCG only knows, for sure, that passions run strong on all sides of anything touching the Middle East. But TCG does recall that last month Michael Oren, the well-known Israeli expert, accused CNN of anti-Israel bias. As Oren wrote in The New Republic,"This was CNN at its unprincipled worst, grossly skewing its coverage of a complex event and deceiving its viewers."

And now these new charges, from Boston University professor Richard Landes, who seems credible enough, although obviously he is opinionated. So I will be interested in CNN's reaction; if the only issue if full disclosure, CNN ought to be for that, right?

So I will wait to see what the next move in this story might be.

In the meantime, here's the rest of the e-mail, being circulated by SpecialGuests.com, a cyber p.r. office:

On January 8th, CNN broadcast a story about a cameraman who allegedly filmed doctors trying in vain to resuscitate his twelve-year old brother. However, what’s portrayed as CPR is actually borderline laughable according to independent medial experts.

Dr. Richard Landes, filmmaker and man behind the 2006 YouTube phenomenon, “Pallywood: According to Palestinian Sources”, has issued a challenge to CNN that would quell any further debate. “Release the rushers (raw footage), says Landes. This will undoubtedly either validate CNN’s decision or expose the story as a fraud.”

At issue in the CNN piece is the apparent weak and feeble attempt by the doctor on the right to use CPR, as his motions resemble nothing even remotely close to Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation. “What the viewer sees,” says Landes, “is akin to someone having an ointment rubbed into their abdomen by someone seeking a large tip. If I was ever in need of CPR, let me go on record right now saying I don’t want that doctor within two continents of me – two very big continents.”

View the CNN story here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku5eGa9ydTM&eurl=http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/09/cnn-republishes-fake-atrocity-video/

View Pallywood film here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_B1H-1opys

ABOUT YOUR SPEAKER: Dr. Richard Landes

Richard Landes is a professor of History at Boston University and is also Director and co-founder of the Center for Millennial Studies. In addition, Landes is a filmmaker whose work, “Pallywood” was used as evidence at the recent trial.

A specialist in medieval history and millennialism, Landes now works on 21st century manifestations of medieval phenomena (holy war, anti-semitism, scapegoating, theocracy, martyr cults, human sacrifice). He specializes in the ways the media gets fooled by Jihadis using our MSM as a theater of war in their asymmetrical warfare against the west. He invented the term Pallywood, which illustrates the extent to which Palestinians will go to make news.

Landes earned his B.A. in social studies from Harvard and a Ph.D in History from Princeton. He has also written several books and articles while maintaining two websites.

www.seconddraft.org

Oh that Page Six!

"Just Asking."

AP Joins the Convergence Game Late, But Moves to Top Fast

The headline on Beet.TV reads: "The AP Finds Traction on YouTube with 77 Million Views....New York Times has 11 Million." To which The Cable Gamer comments, Wow! Who knew that the staid old AP would be so hip in moving into the world of Net 2.0. Although of course, as noted here, CNN's decision to move into the wire-service space has surely lit a fire under AP.

Of course, TCG hasbeen saying, a lot, that in the Digital Era, every content-provider will be in the face, business-model wise, of every other content provider.

And speaking of which, Beet.TV has lots of interesting stuff, including this piece on the proliferation of new networks,many of them using Mogulus as a platform.

CNN + Obama, Sittin' In a Tree. What Did MSNBC Do Wrong? Did MS Forget to Play Hard to Get?

Drudge (see screen grab above left) blares these two headlines:

KURTZ: Obama Wants CNN Doc for Surgeon General...

TIMEWARNER BOSS Dick Parsons to Commerce?

No doubt some long faces at the Desperately Seeking Obama network. But I guess MSNBC will have to settle for the $139 billion loan guarantee for GE. That's a pretty good consolation prize.

Rudy Giuliani In The Converging Cable Game

I suppose that former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani has had every possible perspective on The Cable Game. Way back when, in his '89 mayoral race, challenger Giuliani's media consultant was Roger Ailes, then still a Republican media consultant. A decade later, Mayor Giuliani performed the marriage service for Ailes, who, by then, of course, was the chief of Fox News. Since then, Giuliani has been a candidate and a talking head and maybe even a contributor for a time. (And in TCG's opinion, Rudy has done well at all his roles, except for presidential candidate.)

In any case, now he is writing for CNN. Interesting. TCG figures that it's only a matter of time before every op-ed online offers a choice to the viewer: he or she will be free to read it, the old-fashioned way, but he or she will also be free to listen to it, or even view it somehow, perhaps animated with an avatar. How to do that, exactly? Well TCG doesn't know tech stuff very well, but she knows that voice technology is taking off--TCG just got Vlingo on her iPhone, and that was free, and it works great. Which is to say, Silicon Valley whizkids can do just about anything now. The key point is that if it's digital, then it's digitizable, and can be made agnostic across platforms, as they say. And the same will be true of op-eds. All will be one, in a Converged Cable Game--really, the Digital Game.

Now this particular op-ed, mulling who would be a good Senator for NY, is not a great piece of journalism or punditry. But that's not really the point: It's from Giuliani, and he's a player. Kudos to CNN for grabbing him. As noted, it's only a matter of time before an op-ed from Giuliani becomes a Net TV show from Giuliani. Or from anybody else who can attract eyeballs.

By this reckoning, the real question is the "get." That is, who can get the best talent to be on his/her site, as opposed to the rival's site. And this get-struggle will take interesting forms in the years ahead, as media players circle more intensely over available dollars. For example, this fascinating piece in The New York Times/IHT reports that Conde Nast, publisher of Vogue, GQ, Vanity Fair, and other glamour rags, has set up its own in-house advertising unit. Why not? Conde-Nast has a great rolodex (e-version thereof) of possible endorsers and pitch-people; so if a company needs pulling together a wow-name, why not go right to the experts at Conde-Nast, as opposed to some ad agency? This is tricky territory, of course; CAA tried to do the same thing years ago, and it didn't really work. But maybe Conde Nast has fewer crazed cokeheads and all-around louts than CAA had back then.

In any case, the real point here is that CNN has successfully wrangled Giuliani for its website. And that's one reason why CNN continues to lead online.

UPDATE: Cybersage John Battelle adds to the ad-agency convergence point here, as one of his predictions for digital 2009:

Agencies will increasingly see their role as that of publishers. Publishers will increasingly see their role as that of agencies. Both can win at this, but only by understanding how to truly add value to real communities - not flash crowds driven by one time events. I don't see a conflict here, long term. As opposed to simply being creators of media, media companies have realized (or will soon) that their job is to create platforms for communities to make media. Publishers are agents for communities, agencies are agents for brands. They need each other. It takes both agents to get good media made.

Lady In Red

Cheryl Casone of FBN profiled.

Liz Claman Breaks Out

One fun thing about the Cable Game is that you never know who is going to "click." In the realm of business coverage, for example, CNBC's Maria Bartiromo clicked. CNN's Lou Dobbs clicked. It's a hard process to identify, let alone predict. All we know is that sometimes it happens--news folks get buzz, bigger ratings, and maybe even a nickname.

The latest in the business world seems to be FBN's Liz Claman, who gets a friendly writeup from Howard Kurtz in The Washington Post this morning. TCG will admit to a certain satisfaction: La Liz is not a 20-something, She is a veteran, who applies street smarts to The Street. And it's working for her.

Welcome to the Big Ten, Jim Cramer! (Not That You'll Like Being Lumped In With Your Fellow Dubious Achievers!)

Foreign Policy magazine, revamped and now owned by The Washington Post, issued its "Ten Worst Predictions for 2008."

Here's #2 on this booby prize list: A good clobbering administered to CNBC host Jim Cramer. First the offending prediction, and then FP's comment.

“Peter writes: ‘Should I be worried about Bear Stearns in terms of liquidity and get my money out of there?’ No! No! No! Bear Stearns is fine! Do not take your money out. … Bear Stearns is not in trouble. I mean, if anything they’re more likely to be taken over. Don’t move your money from Bear! That’s just being silly! Don’t be silly!” —Jim Cramer, responding to a viewer’s e-mail on CNBC’s Mad Money, March 11, 2008

Hopefully, Peter got a second opinion. Six days after the volatile CNBC host made his emphatic pronouncement, Bear Stearns faced the modern equivalent of an old-fashioned bank run. Amid widespread speculation on Wall Street about the bank’s massive exposure to subprime mortgages, Bear’s shares lost 90 percent of their value and the investment bank was sold for a pittance to JPMorgan Chase, with a last-minute assist from the U.S. Federal Reserve.

Now in fairness, Fox News contributor Bill Kristol gets worked over, too, for predicting that Hillary Clinton would blow away Barack Obama in the Democratic primaries, and another contributor, Charles Krauthammer, is worked over for a bum prediction about Russia.

But the key words here are "host" and "contributor." Cramer is a host--he is supposed to be reliable. Kristol and Krauthammer are contributors--they are supposed to have opinions, maybe even be provocative. They have much more leeway to be wrong.

And of course, Cramer was similarly wrong about Wachovia, to name just another stock that he was touting.

The Cable Game in 2009: How The Three Newsers Are Playing It

Clicking around today, The Cable Gamer was able to watch enough news, including the commercials and promos, to get a better sense of who the cable newsers want to be in 2009. What's the "meta message" of their news? What do they want us thinking about , and wondering about, as we decide whether or not to tune in? What frame of mind should we be in?

The short version is, MSNBC, "zzzz"; Fox, "be very afraid"; and CNN, "do what we tell you."

OK, actually, I didn't watch much of MSNBC today, because the "news" all day today was reruns of "Dateline," or some other drek left over from NBC. So the message of MSNBC is, forget the breaking news from the Middle East, or politics, or the economy, and just focus on cheesy prison documentaries from five years ago.

Which is to say, MSNBC does not seem to be living up to its own mission, which is to offer viewers the opportunity to "experience the power of change." That was MSNBC's tagline even before the 2008 election. In other words, MSNBC was mirroring the "change" mantra of the Obama campaign, even before the votes were all counted. Blogger Mark Finkelstein was, I think, the first to observe that MSNBC in its blue enthusiasm, was making itself a de facto part of Barack Obama for President campaign, federal election law notwithstanding. The Cable Gamer has always wondered whether news fans will really want to watch a network that styles itself as part of the Obama operation, but if today's TV is any indicator, MSNBC has already concluded that there's more money to be made running stale repeats. Sorry Barack!

Next, Fox, which offered live news all morning, before shifting over to Bill O'Reilly repeats, which were, at least year-end-ish and topical--Dick Morris's Top Ten greatest political mistakes of 2008, Dennis Miller's Top Ten Pinheads, etc. Meanwhile, Fox's new new post-election promo is its own little drama, an almost "24"-ish take on all that is going wrong, and could go wrong, in the world, mostly explosions and pumping fists from around the world. The key words flashing by are, "As the world changes ... stay with Fox... no one does it better." (The link above is two-fer, it not only shows the Fox promo, it also shows another MSNBC promo, albeit one not approved by MSNBC.) The Fox ad shows a world of storm and stress, and while some clearly see the world in such terms, other folk will likely say, "Hey, let's give Obama a try--he has to be better than George W. Bush!" And those latter folks, the optimists, will, of course, have a good point. Which is not to say Fox won't have fun with its Armageddon-ish message. It is after all, better to be cautious than too carefree.

And so, last and not least, we come to CNN, which is running a new promo of its own, in which an intoner--not James Earl Jones, but someone equally serious--intones, over Inauguration-ish B Roll , "On January 20th, the world will watch the networks of CNN." Note the word "networks." Of course, CNNFN folded, and CNN Headline News is just a shadow of what it once was, and also, I guess CNN Airport News counts as a separate network.

But the main argument for CNN, and it's a legit argument, is that it's truly an international network, with an international sensibility. It really is true that if you go overseas, the most likely news outlet that you are going to see on TV is CNN. So CNN is probably smart to make the most of its greatest strength: It is #1 around the world, via CNN International. And so to the extent that people like to watch the news as part of a herd--watching what's safe, what's known, what's peer-approved--then CNN has an effective promo there.

Indeed, the sort of ambient inevitability that the promo puts forth--"the world will watch"--is sort of in keeping with the times, where Obama's vote and money machine seem Borg-like in their ineluctability. Which is to say, CNN is in tune with creepy corporatist times, where people behind closed doors make all the big decisions, and then tell not only us, but also Congress.

As an aside, have you seen the trailers for the new movie "The International,"starring Clive Owen and Naomi Watts, includes this tagline: "They control your money. They control your government. They control your life. And everybody pays."

Sounds about right!

Now I realize that CNN is not that powerful--indeed, CNN is much less powerful than it was in the 90s, or even the 80s--but it still has a pervasiveness. CNN International, indeed.