Month: February 2007

The O’Reilly Fracture: Ratings Bad To The Bone

Posted by on February 28, 2007 at 4:54 am. NO Comments :



Bill O’Reilly just got some more bad news (pdf). His hairline isn’t the only thing that’s receding. The February ratings show that he has the slowest growing program (11%) of all the cable news primetime programs in the 25-54 demographic. And he is clearly bringing down the Fox network because the same is true for their whole primetime block. This despite the fact that Greta Van Susteren had the 2nd highest growth (49%) after Keith Olbermann’s Countdown (61%).

It’s revealing to look at the trend over the past year. The chart below shows the Factor’s percent growth/loss year over year for each of the last five ratings periods. And just for fun, let’s throw in a comparison to Countdown for the same stretch.

Feb 07 Nov 06 Jul 06 May 06 Feb 06
  2+ 25-54 2+ 25-54 2+ 25-54 2+ 25-54 2+ 25-54
Factor 11 17 -18 0 -9 -6 1 -10 -7 -21
Countdown 78 61 54 76 20 39 31 34 38 55

It can’t be making O’Reilly very comfortable knowing that four of the past five sweeps he has been losing viewers while Keith has been packing them in.

Fox itself must be feeling a little queasy. In the past few weeks they have been making some pretty desperate programming moves. Starting with the dorm room bull sessions of “Red Eye”, Fox takes a stab at attracting an audience that has yet to discover the joys of Depends. Then this past weekend they broadcast “Reel Politics,” a supposedly humorous look at Hollywood, cementing their reputation as purveyors of comedy (If they think Hollywood would run Washington into the ground, just wait till you see what politicians would do to Tinseltown). Also in that vein was their chronicle of Internet life, “It’s Out There,” a program aiming for the modernity of the 21st century with art direction from “My Favorite Martian.” At least they staffed it with a couple of babes from their sinking O’Reilly franchise, psuedo-Democrat Kirsten Powers and the noxious Michelle Malkin. Too bad neither of them could muster up the charisma of a banana slug. But the real programming genius was the embarrassingly cheesy, laugh track challenged “1/2 Hour News Hour.” If they had not told me in the title that the program is a half hour long I might have been confused. But in fact, it only seems like an hour.

This new direction for Fox must be roiling the Comedy Central nervous system. If they don’t act precipitously, they may find their territory invaded and occupied by the network that helped Bush to do the same thing to Iraq. I would advise CC to respond by hitting Fox hard where they are most vulnerable – right in the journalism. The obvious move would be to immediately launch an evening newscast. That would be a frontal assualt that Fox would neither expect nor be able to counter. Because even Comedy Central has more experience in news than Fox.

Exposure to Media Corrupts

Posted by on February 26, 2007 at 2:11 pm. NO Comments :

A juror in the Scooter Libby perjury case has been dismissed, and a mistrial was narrowly avoided, when it was discovered that the juror had watched media coverage of the trial or some aspect of it. By declaring that the juror’s capacity to pass judgement was irrepairably harmed as a consequence of her viewing the coverage, the court has recognized one of society’s most virulent risks: exposure to media is a corrupting influence.

What I’d like to know is, if simple exposure to the media results in cognitive loss sufficient to forfeit jury service, what’s it doing to the rest of us who are receiving massive doses of it every waking hour of the day? How is that exposure influencing our ability to make the many judgments to which we are routinely confronted?

Ow, my brain hurts.

If Washington Ran Hollywood

Posted by on February 25, 2007 at 4:30 pm. NO Comments :

Having addressed the silliness of a Fox News imagined America as run by celebrities, it seemed appropriate to throw some speculation back the other way. If you think celebrities would run Washington into the ground, just wait till you see what politicians would do to Tinseltown.


It’s long been said that Washington is Hollywood for ugly people, so the first change would be to get rid the Brad Pitts and Gwyneth Paltrows. The “stars” would now be hotties like Ted Stevens and Katherine Harris. Their agent, Jack Abramoff, would negotiate deals that would guarantee them income whether or not they actually did any work (and keep 75% for himself). But there would be plenty of perks, like golf junkets to Scotland, and free travel on private jets.

The studio chiefs would be elected with voting machines manufactured by Sony: Poll-ay Stations. There would be no audit trail and the secret, proprietary code would be subject to hacking and fraud. Election day would come at the end of a multi-million dollar, months long marketing campaign complete with television commercials, jingles, and personal appearances (some things never change). Once elected, the real fun begins.

When a societal need (i.e. a market opportunity) is identified, writers will draft scripts and introduce them as proposals to executives. They will immediately be assigned to committees where they will languish for months before being debated and amended. Once the marked-up script has been neutered and approved, it returns to the executive suites for another round of amendments. It is at this time that riders (aka earmarks) are added for everything from casting the producers daughter in the title role, to selling product placement advertising. While this process appears to have some similarities with the current process, if run by Washington, the journey described above would take 12 years and everyone from CEOs to interns would have received baskets of cash (and gourmet pastries) from lobbyists.

To be green-lighted, a film would have to communicate a message certified by censors at the FBI and CIA. Anyone deviating from sanctioned dogma would be subject to termination, prosecution, and detention at Guantanamo Bay with no access to legal representation. Their names would be removed from party invitation lists and added to no-fly lists. Political correctness would be codified into a new law where “correctness” would be defined by the government. All industry personnel would either conform or be ostracized and risk losing their electability bankability.

Production budgets would skyrocket from tens of millions currently, to tens of billions. This would be due primarily to the insertion of expenses for projects completely unrelated to filmmaking. For instance, megastar Ted Stevens would finally get that bridge he’s been pining for. There would also be billions of dollars unaccounted for that would be attributed to contractors or sloppy bookkeeping. No one would ever be punished for such losses in the new DC-ified Hollywood.

A fence would be built around the country to keep out foreign language films that the new regime would accuse of taking jobs from Americans. At the same time, the film industry would export millions of jobs overseas to exploit cheap labor and talent. The biggest stars in America would soon be Ganaraj Waleed and Kim Choi Park. Of course, they will have had plastic surgery and changed their names to Jerry Wallace and Kim Parker to ease marketing to an increasingly jingoistic domestic market. If a foreign producer managed to build an enterprise that threatened American economic interests, he would be dealt with harshly – by invading his country, killing him and his colleagues (and tens of thousands of innocent civilians), and handing over his production facilities to Hallie (Barry) Burton, Inc.

That’s just the beginning. Wholesale changes would be implemented in the area of employee benefits. Healthcare would be cutback and retirement would be privatized. Under the guise of religious freedom, prayer would be mandatory at all business lunches, screenings and awards shows. Tax reform would eliminate taxes on profits from movie and television programs, but there would be new “user fees” assessed on consumers to make up the shortfall.

And as if all of this weren’t bad enough, we would have to endure the creative judgment of artists like Lynne Cheney, author of “Sisters,”, and “Scooter” Libby, author of “The Apprentice.” In the musical performance category we have such talents as The Singing Senators and Orrin Hatch. And who could forget Colin Powell’s homage to the Village People?

If we’re going to examine the feasibility of an America run by celebrities, we have to put it into context. Could they do any worse than the politicians have? John McCain went on Saturday Night Live and said:

“Do I know how to sing? About as well as she [Barbra Streisand] knows how to govern America!”.

If the last 25 years is an example of how well he governs, frankly, I’d rather listen to him sing. And that goes for the rest of them too. Any group with the record of failure, corruption, and incompetence that has been demonstrated by our professional class of politicians should think twice before denigrating the character of others. At least some of the Hollywood folks are actually good at what they do. And the fact that many of them are also honest, hard-working, compassionate, and patriotic, makes them at least as well-suited for public service as the greedy, power-hungry, egomaniacs that reside on Capital Hill.

If Hollywood Ran America

Posted by on February 23, 2007 at 3:42 pm. NO Comments :

This weekend the Fox News… er … Comedy Channel will air its latest stab at humor. Fox entertainment reporter, Bill McCuddy, will host “Reel Politics: If Hollywood Ran America.” The program purports to take a humorous look at the denizens of Tinseltown who inject themselves into the political arena and extends the premise into what a celebrity-led administration might look like.

The only thing Fox is interested in here, is the opportunity to take another swipe at creative people.

The program actually undertakes a daring assignment. They’re stuck having to defend the position that it’s possible to do worse than the current administration. In order to do so, the celebrity team would have to exceed BushCo’s record setting marks for dishonesty, corruption, and incompetence.

If the promos for the show are any indication, Fox will be cementing their liberal-bashing reputation with an emphasis on notorious lefty thespians (no, that doesn’t mean Mary Cheney). This animation (wmv), which begins with a warning to, “Watch out America. Stars already think they run the world,” features Alec Baldwin, Rosie O’Donnell, Michael Moore, Madonna, Oprah Winfrey, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Sean Penn, Spike Lee, George Clooney, Diddy, and of course, Barbara Streisand. What, no Dixie Chicks? Sylvester Stallone, Mel Gibson, and Tom Cruise were likely added in search of some demented sense of balance.

What seems to be missing is any mention of the fact that none of these folks has ever expressed an interest in elective office. They are merely Americans with opinions and a sense of civic duty. They are not trying to run the country, but are proud to exercise their rights as citizens. While the program has not aired yet, the hype leading up to it neglects any reference to the many right-wing celebs that actually have entertained the notion of “running America.” For instance, Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Fred Thompson, Sonny Bono, Fred Grandy, George Murphy, and more. And we rarely hear anything but praise from the anti-Hollywood chorus for conservatives in the Biz like Tom Selleck, Dennis Miller, Patricia Heaton, Ted Nugent, Bruce Willis, Toby Keith, etc.

Reel Politics will air in conjunction with a Fox/Opinion Dynamics poll that surveyed the nation’s preferences for a celebrity president (a post that, I remind you, none of them seek). Amongst the field offered, Clint Eastwood and Oprah Winfrey led with 32% and 30% respectively. No other “candidate” made it into double digits (although, amongst Republicans only, Mel Gibson did pull a frightening 18%). It is also notable that 71% of Republicans think most Hollywood movies reflect a liberal viewpoint. That compares with 26% of Democrats and 36% of Independents. If you needed additional proof that Republicans are either out of touch with mainstream America or brainwashed, there you have it.

In the end, the only thing Fox is interested in here, is the opportunity to take another swipe at creative people who have the audacity to pursue what is, in fact, their mission in life: to express themselves. Disguising this assault on free expression with comedy only makes it all the more insidious. (And we’ve seen how they massacre comedy: The 1/2 Hour News Hour). And for repressive critics, like those at Fox, it is only artists who should be censured for having opinions and daring to utter them aloud. As I’ve written before in “Join The Art Insurgency:”

The obvious extension of [shut up and sing] is that anyone who does any job other than serving in Congress is unqualified to have an opinion about what our government does in our name. Just try changing the word “sing” with the word “farm” or “teach” or “weld.” This is unadulterated elitist bullshit. If we’re qualified to vote them into office, then we’re qualified to comment on the job they are doing.

“Shut up and sing” is just a longhand way of saying “Shut up.” And they mean all of us. If your son was killed in Iraq, Ms. Sheehan, shut up and grieve. If civil liberties are eroded by Congress, shut up and obey. If terrorists fly jets into skyscrapers, shut up and shop.

But I’ve got bad news for them. We won’t submit to their tyranny. We won’t whither under their lash. We won’t tolerate censorship. And we most definitely will not shut up.

For Reference:

  • This CBS poll also also surveys the public attitude toward celebrities in politics.
  • Fox says that you will “laugh-out-loud” at these hypothetical campaign commericals. Fox must think the Paint Drying Channel is funny.

Did U. S. Troops Raid Iraqi Journalists?

Posted by on February 22, 2007 at 8:15 pm. 2 Comments :

There is a disturbing report from the International Federation of Journalists that alleges an assault by American soldiers against the Iraq Syndicate of Journalists. The IFJ’s account of these events says that…

“United States soldiers caused destruction and havoc last night when they broke into the offices of the Syndicate, which is a member of the IFJ’s global union network. They destroyed furniture, ransacked the offices, arrested state-employed security guards, and confiscated 10 computers and 15 small electricity generators destined for the families of killed journalists.”

This action, if true, constitutes a severe violation of the principles of democracy. Remember democracy? It is what we invaded Iraq to bring to them. It would not be the first time that Americans sought to suppress or distort the free expression of local media. A little over a year ago, the U.S. military was caught secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories intended to portray operations there in a positive light. As bad as that is, this new story has much more frightening implications. The IFJ also reports that…

“the confiscation of computers and records of membership also suggests that US forces could now target all members of the Syndicate. ‘Anyone working for media that does not endorse US policy and actions could now be at risk,’ said [IFJ General Secretary, Aidan] White.”

There is certainly cause for concern here. Which makes me wonder, where is that concern? I have been unable to find a single story from any conventional news outlet. Not from newspapers, nor television, nor wire services, not even the Internet arms of those organizations. If the IFJ were a shadowy, obscure association, this could be dismissed as unreliable. But they are a recognized international trade group representing half a million journalists in 100 countries. At the very least I would expect a CBS or a New York Times to be inquiring of the Pentagon as to the allegations in this report.

The job of reporters in Iraq is difficult and dangerous, but this story is too important to ignore. If the military is attempting to enforce a media blackout, we need to shine a light onto it. Censorship cannot be tolerated, particularly when it is imposed by American soldiers in the name of freedom.

Lou Dobbs, American Workers, Politicians And The Press

Posted by on February 22, 2007 at 2:08 pm. NO Comments :

There are plenty of reasons to complain about Lou Dobbs. He can be a sanctimonious, egomaniacal loudmouth that forces his infallibility down America’s throats. His one-man Department of Anti-immigration trespasses the boundaries of racism. But in the realm of rights for America’s working class, and the economic model for preserving them, he has emerged as a powerful and profound voice. In a column for CNN.com, Dobbs delivers the goods like the best of the holy rollers.

The money that has taken the place of citizens in our democracy has produced a tenacious corruption of the system.

“The ascension of the so-called Lou Dobbs Democrats in the November election gave hope to many that our representatives and senators were awakening to the need to represent the largest single group of voters in the country, 150 million working men and women and their families. The reality is, however, corporate America and special interests still dominate our legislative and electoral process.”

The use of his eponymous label for Democrats, and the assertion that it was their participation that swung Congress last year, is evidence of Dobbs’ sense of self-importance. But his conclusions on reality are incontrovertible. The article went on to cite some facts that ought to be considered shameful for a wealthy, democratic country. Dobbs is right to spend time trying to illuminate these statistics. There isn’t anyone else with that kind of broadcasting reach that is doing so. Even in less well distributed media, there are few such committed voices. Paul Krugman and Thom Hartmann come to mind. Why aren’t there more people asking this question:

“Why are the partisans of both political parties so committed to denying the economic and social reality we face? In the case of the Democratic Party, there seems to be a rising fear that more Lou Dobbs Democrats [them again] are on the way and are going to demand truth over slogans and an improving reality for working men and women rather than ideological posturing that will salve the corporate masters of both parties.”

In his closing, Dobbs makes a poignant observation that is simultaneously a condemnation of Republicans and an opening for Democrats, saying that, “At least the Democrats still have a chance to save their souls.”

In that assessment Dobbs may be optimistic. While I’d have to agree that Republicans have an iron-clad contract with Hades, Inc., I have seen little evidence that Democrats in Congress are paying much attention to their souls, otherwise known as their constituents. Their utter failure to take decisive action to end the war in Iraq, despite the deafening shouts from the public, is mystifying and disgusting. Raising the minimum wage is progress, but it is merely an incremental step in the larger movement to steer this nation away from the international corporatist tyranny that seeks only to expand its wealth and power and recognizes no public welfare, human rights, or democratic ideals.

The money that has taken the place of citizens in our democracy has produced a tenacious corruption of the system. Since we cannot depend on our representatives to act on our behalf, we have to use the only means available to force them to acknowledge our existence. That is the threat that the people will rise up and strip our so-called leaders of their power and access to the life of privilege to which they have become accustomed. That sort of threat cannot be carried out without an independent press that responsibly informs and alerts the people to the risks that we face. Dobbs’ column is doing that, but much more is needed.

Politics, by itself, will never be the answer because its inherent divisiveness projects a division on the population that does not exist in reality. It’s a purposeful severing of popular will designed to protect the status quo. And the media is presently a part of it.

If we can wrest the media from the clutches of corporatist control, we can, ultimately, have a far greater impact on society than that of any political campaign. For one thing, we’ll have campaigns that are open, honest, and result in truly representative government. If that’s your goal as Democrats, as partisans, as activists, then you better realize that it is unattainable without media reform. All of the rallies, precinct walking, voter registration, phone-banking, etc., will be a huge waste of time, because you’ll just end up with the same majority of politicians who are unresponsive to anyone who can’t inflate their bank account.

The real power of the people is in a diverse and independent press, and if that’s not what you are fighting for, you are just going to produce more of what Dobbs calls the, “ideological posturing that will salve the corporate masters of both parties.”

Nevada Dems Fox Up Debate

Posted by on February 21, 2007 at 12:19 pm. NO Comments :

From the “What Were They Thinking Department:” The Nevada Democratic Party has announced that they will conduct an August primary debate that will air on Fox News. This is the same Fox News:

  • whose chief anchor, Brit Hume, dismissively described Rep. John Murtha as senile.
  • whose VP, John Moody, claims that terrorists are “thrilled” with the Democratic Congress.
  • whose top on-air personality, Bill O’Reilly, accuses Democrats of wanting to lose the war in Iraq.
  • whose #2 program’s host, Sean Hannity, called for assassinating Nancy Pelosi to keep her from becoming speaker.
  • whose recently named head of the upcoming Fox Business Channel, Neil Cavuto, asks if “Democratic leaders who criticize the war in Iraq actually aiding the terrorists?” (and where Nevada’s Republican Senator, John Ensign answers, “You bet they are.”).
  • whose chairman, Rupert Murdoch, admitted that he manipulates the news to shape public opinion.

For the Nevada Democratic party to get in bed with the liars and propagandists at Fox is, at best, naive and, at worst, suicide. They make the claim that it will be helpful to appeal to Fox’ audience, whom they don’t have an opportunity to engage very often. If that argument ever held water (which it doesn’t), it certainly does not for a debate amongst Democratic “primary” candidates. In the general election you might want to reach the broader electorate, but how many Fox viewers are registered Democrats who will be voting in the primary?

Last month, Fox ran some irresponsibly false stories claiming that Barack Obama had attended a radical Muslim Madrassa as a child in Indonesia. They later falsely accused Hillary Clinton’s campaign of leaking the news item. In response, Obama reportedly “froze out” Fox News and declined appearances and comments. That was exactly the right way to deal with a network that can only be expected to sabotage the interests of Democrats. They’ve said as much over and over again.

Obama should be the first candidate to declare that he will not appear in the August debate if Fox remains its host. Nothing has changed at the network. They have neither apologized nor issued a correction, so Obama’s shoulder ought still to be cold. Then Hillary and the rest of the field should follow suit. Not a single one of the Democrats has anything to lose by snubbing the debate, and not a thing to gain by submitting to it. CNN is hosting a Nevada debate in November, so the candidates and the citizens will have ample opportunity to engage one another.

Until Fox has demonstrated that it is not hostile to the party, Democrats should not lend the network any air of legitimacy. More importantly, they should not let themselves be suckered into an event that their hosts will most assuredly use against them if given the chance.

BlogPac is mobilizing an email campaign to Tell Democrats to Freeze Out Fox News.

The Sock Puppetry Of The Los Angeles Times

Posted by on February 19, 2007 at 4:27 pm. NO Comments :

Cross-ownership in the media business is a growing threat to the independence and diversity of the press. Numerous studies have demonstrated that when newspapers and television stations in the same market are owned by the same parent corporation, balanced coverage and local reporting suffer. One such study that was originally commissioned by the FCC was suppressed and ordered destroyed because it didn’t support the conservative chairman’s prejudice. Yet media conglomerates obsessed with expanding their power continue to lobby for weakening regulations.

The Los Angeles Times, an asset of the Tribune Company of Chicago, has been engaged in a full-court press to aid its parent in the fight to deregulate. The February 19, edition of their Business section contains an article that is nothing more than testimony on behalf of Tribune’s financial interests – at the expense of the public interest.

This is at least the third article that the Times has published on this subject in five months. There is nothing new to the arguments presented in this column. It mostly repeats the same old arguments made previously, and on which I reported here and here. They even trot out a fantasized tale of Richard Nixon’s involvement in stemming cross-ownership. Despite the fact that there is no objective truth to that claim, the Times has now inserted it into its articles twice. Both times they confessed that there was no basis for the claim, but both times they still managed to muddy the waters with it.

The new wrinkle is that they are now whining about how hard it is to find a buyer for the company which has been on the block for several months. After draconian cuts in the budget and staff (reducing the newsroom by 50%) didn’t motivate buyers, they now blame their woes on the fact that a waiver they received from the FCC to operate both the Times and KTLA-TV would not transfer to a new owner. Prospective buyers, therefore, would have to divest one of those properties, making the acquisition less attractive. Well, how about revoking the waiver now, forcing Tribune to make the divestment, then sell the slimmed-down company?

One revealing observation about this latest piece of self puffery is that the author, Jim Puzzanghera, quoted nine sources for the article. Seven of them supported the Big Media position on media policy. Is this an example of their commitment to be fair and balanced?

It’s not particularly surprising that the Times would allow itself to be used in this way by Tribune. The Times recently fired its editor and publisher and replaced them both with loyal corporate cronies from the Chicago nest. Now they are carrying out a self-serving agenda that is in itself the best argument against deregulation. While not surprising, it is still distressing to see a local paper being manipulated like a puppet by a distant master. If what’s left of the staff at the Times had any self-respect, they would yank Tribune’s arm from its ass and start to speak for itself and its community. Just who do they think they are here to serve?

Blogs And The Future Of Journalism

Posted by on February 17, 2007 at 2:37 am. NO Comments :

A new WE Media/Zogby Interactive poll surveyed members of the public and the media for their views on contemporary journalism. The results offer an interesting perspective on both the regard for which the press is held and the variance of that regard by each group:

Statement Public Media
Traditional journalism is out of touch with what Americans want from their news. 65% 61%
Dissatisfied with the quality of American journalism today. 72% 55%
Bloggers are important to the future of American journalism. 55% 86%

It’s encouraging to see that majorities of both groups consider the press out of touch. Although it does raise an obvious question: If the media professionals feel that way, why aren’t they doing something about it?

A divergence occurs over the level of satisfaction, with the public overwhelming unsatisfied and the media straddling the fence. This is also a curious finding because it suggests that the media folks are fairly satisfied despite their belief that the press overall is out of touch.

The surprising response is the media’s acknowledgement of the role bloggers will play going forward. With virtual unanimity they are conceding the impact of what happens to be their biggest threat. And while just a little over half of the public agrees, a much larger percentage (76%) view the Internet as having had a positive impact on the overall quality of journalism. This seems to be a recognition of the watchdog effect that the Internet has. Both the people and the press know that stories that are inaccurate or incomplete are going to be challenged. And issues that don’t get carried in mainstream outlets are going to be hammered on in new media channels until they get the attention they deserve.

That is the power of citizen journalism and as long as we protect it from the encroachment of Big Media, it will be there to keep them honest.