The Obama Watch On Fox News Sunday

Posted by on March 17, 2008 at 3:02 am. NO Comments :

Two weeks ago, I wrote that Chris Wallace was obsessed with absent Democrats when he featured a viewer email inquiring as to why Barack Obama has not appeared on his fourth-rate Sunday talk show. Now Wallace is escalating the obsession with a stunningly juvenile device he calls “The Obama Watch.”

This blatantly prejudicial, unprofessional, and self-serving inanity demonstrates precisely why Obama, and all Democrats, should avoid Fox News at all costs. The idea that an update on a candidate for president consists solely of the candidate’s disinclination to accept an invitation to appear is uniquely Foxian. And by incorporating the audio device from Fox’s own “24” they even reduce this childish prank to little more than a promotion for their entertainment fare.

As I’ve said before, the Fox News embargo is working or they wouldn’t be constantly addressing it. Every mention is a validation of its effectiveness. Add this to Wallace’s previous attempts to bully Democrats onto his program, like the time he called them “damn fools [for] not coming on Fox News;” or the time he blamed “the left wing of the party – and I’m talking about the ‘net roots'” for “put[ting] Democratic candidates through a kind of loyalty test.” Wallace really knows how to charm the objects of his fetish.

If Wallace is looking for an explanation for why he is being snubbed, perhaps he should consider the fact the he and his network persistently insult the guests he is now pursuing. Fox News is hardly a fair and balanced forum for Democrats. He might also be reminded that his program, Fox News Sunday, finishes consistently last amongst the Sunday news interview programs – behind Meet the Press, This Week, and Face the Nation. Tactics like this are not likely to improve those standings.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

John McCain Worries That Al Qaeda Are Democrats

Posted by on March 14, 2008 at 4:52 pm. NO Comments :

According to the latest Republican spin, an Al Qaeda attack will help Republicans – except when it helps Democrats. Throughout the past five or six years, there were numerous occasions when Republicans either promoted or invented threats in order to bolster their campaign prospects or blunt good news for Democrats. The theory being that the elevated fear factor would induce voters to cling to the perceived security of hard-line right-wingers like Bush, and now, McCain. Keith Olbermann has documented this tactic in his ongoing series, “The Nexus of Politics and Terror.” [Video below]

However, when asked at a campaign event in Pennsylvania whether Al-Qaeda might step up its attacks to hurt his campaign, John McCain said:

“Yes, I worry about it. And I know they pay attention, because of the intercepts we have of their communications.”

Al Qaeda may be paying attention, but the press certainly is not. No one bothered to ask McCain why he thought such attacks would hurt his campaign. Why is he presuming that a more dangerous Iraq would be detrimental to Republicans; particularly in light of the historical exploitation of fear for which his party is well known. After years of selling Republicans as the party that will protect us from terrorists, all of a sudden Republicans are afraid that more terrorism will accrue to the benefit of Democrats.

Actually, McCain may be delivery a generous compliment. Perhaps he is finally admitting that escalating violence in Iraq would spur the American people to support Democrats because Democrats are trusted more with national security matters. He may have just realized that the public rates Democrats higher than Republicans with regard to managing the war in Iraq. Isn’t it wonderful that McCain now concedes the superiority of Democrats?

It’s too bad, however, that the media lets McCain get away with such blatant fear-mongering. The suggestion that Al Qaeda would increase violence in order to hurt McCain implies that Al Qaeda is rooting for Democrats. But that unconscionable falsehood is only trotted out when Republican strategists think they can use it to tarnish their opponents. Then, after having done so, the same strategists fabricate threats of increased violence to tarnish their opponents from the opposite direction. The logic just doesn’t gel. If Republicans really believe that increased violence by Al Qaeda will help Democrats, how can they also believe that the increased violence will help Republicans? Obviously, they don’t believe any of it. It is political gamesmanship of the most most cynical order. It would be nice if they got called on it by some enterprising and honest reporter.

The Nexus of Politics and Terror:


Bill O’Reilly Factors In Hypocrisy

Posted by on March 13, 2008 at 3:07 pm. 1 Comments :

The Eliot Spitzer affair has thoroughly dominated cable news coverage. There isn’t a single island of respite from the story. So, of course, Bill O’Reilly is included in the list of programs discussing Spitzer’s infidelity and immorality. It is interesting to note, however, that O’Reilly has yet to disclose his own episode of infidelity and immorality. Undeterred, he continues to report on the matter without advising his audience of this significant detail.

In 2004 O’Reilly was sued by Andrea Mackris, a producer on his show, for sexual harassment. The suit was eventually settled out of court for a sum reported variously to be between $10 and $20 million.

In his coverage of Sptizer, O’Reilly arrogantly psychoanalyzes him as self-destructive, but never draws a connection to his own behavior, or even acknowledges what occurred. It should also be noted that, although both Spitzer and O’Reilly are alleged to have engaged in acts that are unlawful, Spitzer’s encounters were between consenting adults, while O’Reilly’s actions were coerced and unwelcome.

Another Factor ethical failing concerns one of his frequent guests, Dick Morris. Some folks may be wondering where Morris has gone. He has not appeared on the program since the Spitzer story broke. Could it have something to do with the fact that Morris himself was caught up in a prostitution scandal of his own? Not only has Morris been absent from The Factor, he has not written a single item about Spitzer on his web site.

On another note, the newest Fox News contributor, Karl Rove, is also a demonstrating ethical lapses with his recent appearances on The Factor. Despite having contributed to John McCain’s presidential campaign, and assuming a role as an adviser, Rove still appears as an election commentator and neither he, nor O’Reilly, bother to disclose this conflict of interest.

I suppose that the best we can say is that O’Reilly, Morris, and Rove are living up to our expectations of them.


John McCain’s Opposition To Fair And Balanced Media

Posted by on March 12, 2008 at 12:21 pm. NO Comments :

The past several months have seen the rise of a variety of public discussions centered on the media. The Media Ownership Act of 2007 was introduced in the Senate. The FCC held their dog and pony hearings on consolidation, complete with the mischief of Comcast paying seat-fillers to prevent critics from attending the event. Byron Dorgan authored a resolution to nullify the FCC’s gift to Big Media. And the battle over network neutrality continued as Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T endeavored to violate it.

Despite this activity, media reform has not assumed a particularly visible role in the current election season. None of the remaining candidates have gone out of their way to highlight their positions on media issues. So we should be grateful that Ars Technica has done it for them. Here a few excerpts from the article:

“Democratic presidential rivals Barack Obama (D-IL) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) have both co-sponsored the [Dorgan] declaration along with seven other Democrats and four Republicans. None of those Republicans include the GOP’s choice for the White House, Senator John McCain.”

~~~

“…on the big-ticket broadcasting/telecom issues, McCain plays to big media and the telcos. Along with 33 Senate Republicans and no Democrats, he’s a co-sponsor of the Broadcaster Freedom Act, which would permanently bar the FCC from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. As for net neutrality, he calls for minimal government regulation of broadband.” [News Corpse translation: Let Big Media do whatever the hell they want]

~~~

“McCain declined late last year to co-sponsor a Senate bill that would have put the brakes on FCC Chair Martin’s rush to change the Commission’s newspaper/TV cross-ownership rule. Martin got the change enacted after barely two weeks of public comment by a narrow 3 to 2 partisan majority.”

It should also be noted that the lobbyist identified in a recent New York Times article as having had a “relationship” with John McCain, was a telecom lobbyist.

To be sure, the Democrats haven’t had a reliable advocate of media reform since John Edwards was driven out of the race by the media. Barack Obama co-authored an article with Sen. John Kerry that struck the right tone, but he has not given the issue much priority. Hillary Clinton, who counts Rupert Murdoch as a supporter, drifted even further from the pack when she agreed to break ranks and appear on a Fox News-sponsored debate.

There’s still time to get the candidates to refine and promote their positions on media reform, but it will be up to the people to press the matter. That means YOU! You have your assignment.

Update: SaveThe Internet just released a video of members of OK Go testifying (and playing) at a House committee hearing on net neutrality.



Spitzer Is To Clinton As Vitter Is To McCain

Posted by on March 10, 2008 at 2:03 pm. NO Comments :

New York governor Eliot Spitzer has blown it in a big way. Anti-corruption crusaders ought not to be dallying with call girls. Ordinarily I don’t like to assign much importance to personal and/or family matters. But when a personal act is both illegal and hypocritical, it becomes a hurdle that is very difficult to get over.

That said, the media is demonstrating its customary tunnel-blindness in reporting this story. The news is less than two hours old and I have already heard reporters on CNN, Fox and MSNBC asking about the impact on Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Why would this have any impact on Hillary Clinton’s campaign? It is unrelated to policy matters. It is not something she could have known. There is no connection to her whatsoever other than the fact that Spitzer had endorsed her.

Well, I haven’t heard anyone ask John McCain about whether he has the support of Sen. Larry “Wide Stance” Craig (R-ID). And Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), an admitted patron of Washington’s DC Madam, endorsed McCain just yesterday. Neither Craig nor Vitter have resigned their seats in the Senate.

I also have to wonder if Dick Morris, a frequent guest on Bill O’Reilly’s program, and the subject of his own prostitution scandal, will appear on the Factor tonight to discuss the Spitzer affair. While he obviously would have no moral authority to criticize Spitzer, he could at least speak from experience. Knowing Morris and O’Reilly, they would probably not even bother to disclose it.

Here’s your homework for today: Anyone who reads or hears a reporter ask Clinton about Spitzer should demand that they also ask McCain about Vitter.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Tucker Carlson: A True Washington Story

Posted by on March 10, 2008 at 9:22 am. 7 Comments :

Tucker Carlson True Washington StoryMSNBC is FINALLY taking a needed step, and not a moment too soon. David Gregory will replace Tucker Carlson. Now, instead of suffering through election season with an obnoxious dimwit, we will actually have some informed dialog and insight. I would have preferred Rachel Maddow, but MSNBC is trying to put forth more clout from NBC News, and she will almost certainly be a regular guest on the new program. Also, keep in mind the name of Gregory’s show: “Race for the White House.” What happens to this timeslot after November?

Gregory, as Senior White House Correspondent, knows there will be little happening on that beat for the remainder of the year. So he’s settling in to cover the campaign and he can return to the White House with the new president. Then maybe Maddow or David Shuster will get another shot at a show.

With news of the cancellation of trustfund pundit Tucker Carlson, it seems like a good time to look back on the events that led to this profound conclusion. (See Tucker Carlson Canceled for links to his dismal program performance).

It all started in a little mansion in San Francisco where the spawn of Republican ambassador and public broadcasting chief Richard Warner Carlson, and TV dinner princess Patricia Caroline Swanson, was ingloriously hatched. Thirty-eight years later it all comes screeching to a halt. Well, it actually just sort of peeters out, but that doesn’t sound quite as dramatic.

The writing has long been on the wall.

In October of 2006, Tucker responded angrily when asked about his future at MSNBC and whether he had already been cut:

“It’s bullshit. It’s total bullshit. I talked to Abrams last night. I’ve got another year on my contract. That’s my comment: Bullshit.”

I’m not entirely sure, but I think that Tucker considers this report to be some sort of bullshit. I could be wrong. This would have have placed his contract expiration some time in October of 2007. So in November of 2007 he signed off his show saying:

“That does it for us. Thank you for watching as always, we mean that sincerely to all eight of you.”

Sounds like he knew something. Maybe that’s why he chose to embarrass himself on “Dancing With The Stars” and taped a pilot for a game show called (I kid you not) “Who Do You Trust?” If he didn’t know something was up, he ought to have. After all, his boss, Phil Griffin, bragged to NPR about the network’s personalities saying:

“Keith Olbermann is our brand; Chris Matthews is our brand. These are smart, well-informed people who have a real sense of history and can put things in context.”

But when he was specifically asked whether Tucker Carlson is also their brand, he pauses and says:

“He is right now.”

There’s a real vote of confidence. And, predictably, the effort to Save Tucker fell flat on its face, even after he reportedly took a 50% paycut.

As far back as December, the rumors of Tucker being replaced were circulating. Prominent among them were reports that Rachel Maddow and Bill Wolff had taped a pilot that would fit nicely in the slot that Tucker was wasting.

Now that Tucker has bombed on on PBS, CNN, and MSNBC, some may think that it’s off to Fox News for him. But he has some history there that would need to be smoothed out first. In 2003, Tucker was asked on air for his home phone number. He thought it would be funny (in an infantile sort of way) to give out the number for Fox News instead. Not surprisingly, Fox was besieged by anxious Tucker “fans.” So Fox did what only Fox would do. They posted Tucker’s home number on their website asserting that they were merely correcting Tucker’s poor journalism. In a snit that ignored every trace of irony, Tucker called Fox News:

“…a mean, sick group of people.”

For those who think Tucker provided balance on the network, note that MSNBC already airs, in addition to Tucker, 3 hours of conservative Republican Joe Scarborough, and another two hours of Chris Matthews’ orchestrated hostility for Democrats. That’s five hours of right-wing propaganda against the one hour that Olbermann occupies. Where’s the balance in that?

Congratulations to David Gregory.


Tucker Carlson Canceled!

Posted by on March 9, 2008 at 7:37 pm. 12 Comments :

I finally made it happen! In the post just prior to this one, I asked “Seriously, when is this low-life, ratings loser going to be canceled?” I got my answer.

You can all start thanking me now. I have been making the case for canceling Tucker Carlson’s show for two years. He has consistently had the worst performing program on MSNBC’s schedule. He was a drain on resources as well as the performance of his network colleagues. But it’s all over now.

News Corpse readers know that I have been working tirelessly to get this twit axed. I produced slick presentations, with eye popping graphics describing why this show was bringing down the whole network:

Tucker Carlson: The Biggest Loser
There was also my signature pitch for Tucker’s banishment from TV. This analysis proved unequivocally that there was no business case for carrying this load of broadcast waste.

Tucker Carlson: A Ratings Black Hole

It was a long slog, but now I can say with confidence that it was all worth it.

Look out Glenn Beck – You’re next!


 
 Glenn Beck’s Ratings: Headline Snooze

Glenn Beck poses the same problem at CNN’s Headline news as Tucker did at MSNBC. He is a reliable under-performer and an albatross around the necks of the shows adjacent to him.

The only reason to give Beck a stay of execution would be fealty to the brand of caveman conservatism that he espouses. If CNN doesn’t cancel this stinker they will have settled, once and for all, the speculation as to whether they are a compromised media lapdog with an agenda aimed at placating the powerful and debasing journalism.

Tucker Carlson’s Ethics Education

Posted by on March 9, 2008 at 1:09 pm. NO Comments :

In the thoroughly overblown controversy surrounding Barack Obama’s foreign policy adviser, Samantha Power, there is no shortage of hysterical lunacy.

Power, in a momentary lapse of judgment referred to Hillary Clinton as a “monster.” Clinton’s campaign then proceeded to act like one, calling for Power to be fired. It seems like an oddly inapt sanction for the first truly viable female presidential candidate to banish from the political theater another women who is a Pulitzer prize winning author, historian, lawyer and foreign policy expert. Clinton continues off the deep end by saying…

“I think that it is important to look at what she and his other advisers say behind closed doors…”

Presumably this means that Clinton will shortly release the transcripts of her private meetings and those of her advisers. Obama, for his part, should never have accepted Power’s resignation. It would be shameful to lose the talents of this brilliant woman over a trivial campaign dust-up.

But the supreme idiocy is, as usual, reserved for the media. On Friday, Tucker Carlson interviewed Gerri Peev, the reporter who published the fateful Power story. In the course of the discussion, Carlson inexplicably asserts that reporters have some obligation to grant all requests to take a subjects comments off the record. He then disparages the whole of British media by stating that their standards are “dramatically lower” than those in the U.S. Here’s the clip (and the full interview):

Tucker February 2008Hearing Tucker Carlson elucidate on journalistic ethics is like having Dick Cheney tutor you on honesty and open government. It was, however, nice to hear Peev put Tucker in his place. To cap it off, after Carlson insults Peev for doing her job, he has the gall to chastise her, saying…

“People don’t talk to you when you go out of your way to hurt them…”

You mean like when you declare that they, and all of their nation’s journalists, have low standards? I can’t think of many examples of American journalism’s standards that sink as low as Tucker. Seriously, when is this low-life, ratings loser going to be canceled?


Free For All: The Media’s Gift To Political Advertisers

Posted by on March 7, 2008 at 3:29 pm. NO Comments :

In the days leading up to the March 4 primaries in Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island, millions of residents of those states (and of America) saw a now infamous advertisement from Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

However, the “Red Phone/3 am” ad was mostly seen by viewers of news programs that broadcast the commercial for free. In effect, the media is providing millions of dollars worth of in-kind contributions to candidates in the name of reporting on the content of their ads.

It didn’t begin with Clinton.
The most famous example of a “free media” bonanza is the Daisy Girl ad for Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 presidential campaign. Today it is one of the most notorious political advertisements in history despite the fact that it actually aired only once in paid media.
During the 2004 Democratic primary, a group called Americans for Jobs, Healthcare and Progressive Values produced an ad showing Osama bin Laden and accusing Howard Dean of not having the experience needed to fight terrorism. They spent only $14,000 to run the ad just 16 times in two small markets. However, it generated four days of attention from national news outlets.
Also in 2004, the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, a front group with funding from Republican partisans, spent less than a half-million dollars to run an ad for one week, in only three states, slandering Democrat John Kerry’s war record. The uproar resulted in more than three weeks of nationally televised rebroadcast and debate.
More recently, Gov. Mike Huckabee orchestrated a press conference where he showed an ad attacking Mitt Romney. He then announced that he had no intention of paying to air the ad. The event was merely a brazen attempt to garner some publicity for a spot without having to actually spend anything on airtime.

These tactics are now a routine part of campaign strategy. Politicians and interest groups know that they can manipulate news providers to do their work for them. Television, in particular, is susceptible due to its ravenous appetite for pre-produced video programming.

So what should be done about it? It would be unwise to implement some sort of legal mandate to regulate how news media cover campaign advertising. It is entirely legitimate to report on the content of political ads, their veracity, and their strategic goals. However, it wouldn’t hurt to apply some journalistic ethics to the editorial judgment. That means assessing the newsworthiness of any piece that includes such ads. Also, there is no need to broadcast them repeatedly to make a point. They know that the campaigns are manipulating them. Why do they let them get away with it?

Here are a couple of other measures editors ought to consider when confronted with this.

  • Don’t bother to report on any ad that has not exceeded a defined threshold of paid impressions. In other words, if the campaign doesn’t make a significant purchase of air time for their own ad, it isn’t news.
  • If the ad is shown it should be confined to a small percentage of the screen with a video watermark over the whole piece labeling it is a campaign ad. This would serve to blunt the promotional value of the airing and focus on the news value.

Implemented voluntarily, this would not infringe on journalistic freedom or civil liberties. Journalists should not allow themselves to be exploited by campaigns or interest groups. They have no obligation to assist in promotional activities. They need only to report what is actually newsworthy. By maintaining a professional detachment they will produce a better product and provide a better service to the public.