The ratings for the cable news coverage last night reveal something at once interesting and expected:
25-54
5p:
6p:
7p:
8p:
9p:
10p:
11p:
FNC
ElectionHQ:
Hume:
Shep:
Primary:
Primary:
Primary:
Primary:
228
261
316
483
507
679
465
CNN
Blitzer:
Blitzer:
Elec.Cent.:
Elec.Cent.:
Elec.Cent.:
Elec.Cent.:
Elec.Cent.:
294
366
479
720
785
910
712
MSNBC
Hardball:
Spec.Cov.:
Spec.Cov.:
Spec.Cov.:
Spec.Cov.:
Spec.Cov.:
Spec.Cov.:
243
308
431
651
679
594
414
Fox News came in third in five of the seven primetime and prime adjacent hours. They finished the evening in third place.
Fox News is a Republican network. Their viewer base doesn’t care about news that they don’t think affects them. This is consistent with viewing patterns that show CNN and MSNBC spiking whenever a significant news event takes place. Viewers simply do not tune in to Fox for news. They tune in to have their preconceptions about public affairs validated.
This is proof that the Democrats who avoid Fox News are right to do so. The Fox audience is of no use to them. Last night’s ratings merely confirm studies that show the same thing. From Starve The Beast:
“The Mellman Group’s research revealed that Fox viewers supported George Bush over John Kerry by 88% to 7%. Only Republicans were more united in supporting Bush. Conservatives, white evangelical Christians, gun owners, and supporters of the Iraq war all gave Bush fewer votes than did regular Fox News viewers.”
It’s too bad some Dems still don’t get it. Terry McCauliffe, the general chairman of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, went on Fox News last night and slobbered all over Major Garrett. This Public Display of Affliction is downright embarrassing. So embarrassing that Fox turned it into a promo that has already hit the airwaves.
Rupert Murdoch is on the prowl again and the editors, employees and readers of Long Island’s Newsday had better pay attention. The News Corp. chief has announced that his ravenous appetite for world media dominance is far from satisfied.
“Media mogul Rupert Murdoch has been calling key state and local officials to say he is close to a deal to buy Newsday and that he looks forward to working with them.”
Murdoch already owns the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal, and two TV stations in the New York market, along with the Fox News Channel, and the Fox Business Network. The $580 million acquisition of Newsday would allow him to further tighten his grip on the biggest media market in the country. Murdoch hopes that by adding Newsday to his empire he might be able to reduce the debt he takes on from the Post, which has lost money for as long as he’s owned it. This would sharpen his aim at his real target, the New York Times, which he has previously vowed to bury.
As for the Newsday staff and customers, they need to be aware of what lay in store if Murdoch is successful. Despite having promised not to meddle in the editorial affairs of the Wall Street Journal as a condition for his purchasing it, his will cannot be denied.
“Marcus W. Brauchli will step down as the top-ranking editor of The Wall Street Journal after less than a year in the job, four people briefed on the matter said on Monday, just four months after Rupert Murdoch took control of the paper.”
As with most of the rest of Murdoch’s properties, Newsday would likely take on his world view. However, Newsday’s fate is not a foregone conclusion. Mort Zuckerman, who owns the New York Daily News, is reportedly preparing his own bid. This may be less because of his desire to own Newsday than his need to keep Murdoch from owning it. Whatever the reason, it may be time to start rooting for Zuckerman.
“World War Three will be a guerrilla information war with no division between military and civilian participation.”~ Marshall McLuhan, 1968
The New York Times has now documented the sad prescience of McCluhan. In an in-depth examination of supposedly independent, retired military analysts, the Times’ David Barstow has uncovered what may be the most brazen attempt at propaganda ever initiated.
“To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.”
“Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance.”
“The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.”
It should come as no surprise that the Bush administration would manipulate the press to shape public opinion. The press, of course, are their willing accomplices. Rupert Murdoch of Fox News even admitted it publicly. And the Pentagon has been caught doing the same in Iraq. The Associated Press reported that the U.S. military secretly paid Iraqi newspapers to publish stories intended to portray operations there in a positive light.
But the scale of this program, the fact that it was directed at Americans, and the added wrinkle of financial corruption and greed at the expense of thousands of lives, is thoroughly without precedent. The article reveals that there was deliberate intent on the part of the government to define what constituted news and to replace the analysis of independent journalists with that of hand-picked and conflict-laden Pentagon mouthpieces. It was further disclosed that many of these spokespersons provided commentary they knew was false in order to protect either their access to the media or their profits. These former military officers clearly were not protecting their troops.
“It was them saying, ‘We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you,’ ” Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and former Fox News analyst, said.
That’s just one of the more than 150 retired officers participating in this program, most of whom worked for – you guessed it – Fox News. One Fox News crony, Paul E. Vallely, called it a “MindWar” – using network TV and radio to “strengthen our national will to victory.” Another analyst, General Conway, confessed that “The strategic target remains our [the American] population.” He went on to callously trivialize the loss of U.S. troops as incidental to winning in the court of public opinion and, he might as well have added, in the marketplace of war profiteering.
The scope of deceit and greed that this program encompasses is mind boggling. Read the whole story at the New York Times. Then visit FreePress where they are collecting signatures to urge Congress to further investigate this breach of the public trust.
The “liberal” media is at it again. CNN has just announced that it has hired former Bush press secretary, and Fox News anchor, Tony Snow, to be a conservative commentator.
Snow:“I’m delighted to be able to join CNN during the most exciting and unpredictable political year in memory. The big challenge in 2008 is to develop deep, creative and aggressive analysis of both political parties, their candidates and campaigns. I’m eager to get started, since this race is sure to shape American politics for years to come.”
If this is CNN’s answer to the Fox News signing of Karl Rove it is yet another blunder on the part of their programming staff. The last time they went after the Fox model was the acquisition of Glenn Beck, who is now the lowest rated evening pundit on any of the cable news nets.
CNN’s press release on Snow failed to mention that he is presently the permanent guest host for Bill O’Reilly’s Radio Factor. Which raises the question of when, precisely, O’Reilly’s aneurysm will erupt. Remember this…
“O’Reilly:“But you can’t go over to CNN. I mean, that’s the devil over there. You can’t. You know. You’re a religious guy. You can’t go into the pagan throne over there.”
Posted by Mark NC on April 21, 2008 at 2:54 am.
NOComments :
Last month Hillary Clinton met with the editors of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review to discuss her campaign in the Pennsylvania primary. The Tribune-Review is owned by ultra right-wing media baron Richard Mellon Scaife. Now the Tribune-Review has published their choice for the Democratic presidential nominee.
“For Pennsylvania Democrats, the smart choice Tuesday is Mrs. Clinton.”
This development caps a weekend of irony for Clinton.
On Saturday a recording was released wherein we hear Clinton bashing MoveOn.org, and accusing them of intimidating her supporters. With the Tribune-Review endorsement we have the unlikely scenario of Clinton slamming a loyal progressive organization that was founded to defend her husband from impeachment, while being endorsed by Scaife’s organization that fought for his impeachment and accused her of murder.
On Sunday Barack Obama was quoted as saying that he, Clinton and McCain would all be better than George Bush. Clinton seized on that statement to say…
“We need a nominee who will take on John McCain, not cheer on John McCain.”
I wholeheartedly agree. Which is why I found it so distasteful when last month both Hillary and Bill Clinton cheered on McCain. Breathe in the hypocrisy:
Hillary: “[McCain] will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”
Bill: “…it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people [Hillary and McCain] who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country.”
Lest anyone get the wrong idea, the problem with the debate in Philadelphia was not that it was more harsh on one candidate than the other, and it was not whether the questions were too tough. The problem was that the questions were too stupid. The problem was that the moderators behaved like tabloid gomers who just wanted to stir the kettle. The problem was that George Stephanopoulos could ask, without gagging, how much Rev. Wright loves America. Was Obama supposed to hold his hands apart in the air and say, “He loves it this much?”
It has already been reported that Geo-Stef was channeling Sean Hannity for his question selection. Now we also learn that Charlie Gibson mangled journalistic ethics by utilizing a plant:
“I want to do one more question, which goes to the basic issue of electability. And it is a question raised by a voter in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, a woman by the name of Nash McCabe.”
First of all, it was not a question raised by a voter. It was a question raised by Gibson’s choice to air this voter’s video. What’s worse is that it was not even a random Pennsylvania voter at all. Ms. McCabe was sought after for inclusion in the debate.
Secondly, why is a question about “electability” included in a candidates debate anyway? Does Gibson think that when Americans lie awake at night they are pondering a candidate’s electability rather than whether their company will have another round of lay-offs, or how they are going to pay their mortgage?
It’s the stupidity, the irrelevancy, and the deceit. That’s the problem with the debate – and with the Corporate Media as a whole.
Posted by Mark NC on April 19, 2008 at 1:22 pm.
NOComments :
Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films has come into possession of the super-secret, leaked interview of John McCain by George Stephanopoulos. From The Real McCain:
BNF is also asking for contributions of satirical questions that Stephanopoulos might ask McCain. Of course, considering the debate a few days ago, where does reality stop and satire begin? Here are my suggestions:
Considering what “some say” is the undeniable success of the surge, do you think that Clinton and Obama love America as much as you and Gen. Petraeus?
You’ve said that the economy is not your forte and you’ve demonstrated some confusion about Al Qaeda and Iran. Do you think your opponents campaigns will suffer because they don’t bake or can’t bowl?
Your relationship with telecom lobbyist Vicki Iseman was reported by the liberal New York Times. I won’t ask you about that because I know you don’t want to talk about it. But could you tell us why you support retroactive immunity for our patriotic telecom companies and oppose the big government regulations of the Media Ownership Act of 2007?
Sen. Obama has been called an elitist because he was educated at Harvard. After eight years of President Bush, do you think the American people still want to vote for a regular guy like yourself instead of an arrogant know-it-all?
Jon Perr at Perrspectives gives us an inspired list of questions that, in all likelihood, will never be asked of John McCain in a debate or in his interview with George Stephanopoulos this Sunday:
Do you agree with Pastor John Hagee that war with Iran is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy?
Doesn’t your legendary temper make you too dangerous to be trusted with the presidency of the United States?
Doesn’t your confusion regarding basic facts about the war in Iraq, including repeatedly citing a nonexistent Al Qaeda-Iran alliance, make you unfit for command?
Given your past adultery, should Americans consider you a moral exemplar of family values?
Doesn’t your flip-flop on Jerry Falwell being an “agent of intolerance” show your opportunistic pandering to the religious right?
Given your wealth and privileged upbringing, aren’t you – and not Barack Obama – the elitist?
What is your religion, really? And has the answer in the past changed as the South Carolina primary approached?
Didn’t President Bush betray you with his signing statement on the Detainee Treatment Act? You claim to be against torture, but aren’t you a hypocrite for voting “no” on the Senate waterboaring ban?
Why did you flip-flop on the Bush tax cuts you twice opposed? Why do you now support making them permanent for the wealthiest Americans who need them least?
With the economy tanking, shouldn’t Americans be concerned over your past statements that “the issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should?”
My only problem with Jon’s list is that some of the questions actually address substantive issues like the war and the economy. In goes without saying that Stephanopoulos will steer clear of such inquiry. Maybe some other less superficial “journalist” will approach these items. Also I would add a few questions of my own:
Since the purpose of the surge was to produce political reconciliation in Iraqi and they are no close now than when the surge began, hasn’t the surge failed?
As a pro-war candidate who frequently cites his experience as a veteran, why have you declined to support the bipartisan GI Bill now in Congress?
You are an advocate of retroactive immunity for telecom companies and an opponent of the Media Ownership Act of 2007. Does your relationship with telecom lobbyist Vicki Iseman have anything to do with this?
Jon has details and links to source material at his site. Check it out.
Posted by Mark NC on April 18, 2008 at 12:28 am.
NOComments :
A parody of the Wall Street Journal has the Wall Street Journal up in arms. When copies of the parody appeared at newsstands, so did a Journal operative who insisted on buying every last one.
“He grabbed them all, said, ‘I need to buy all of these,'” Mr. Laurence said. “He had been going around to different stands, buying them.”
Is this just another demonstration of Rupert Murdoch’s commitment to honest journalism and free expression? Or is Murdoch merely exercising his business reporting philosophy as told to his former editor Harold Evans (Good Times, Bad Times):
“What do you want this crap for, anyway? Two pages is plenty for business news.”
This is the man who just joined the board of the Associated Press.
The Democratic debate in Philadelphia last night was dominated by a wall of stupid painstakingly constructed by ABC’s moderators, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos.
Their obsession with trivia and avoidance of substance submerged this affair from its opening introduction. It’s hard to say it much better than Washington Post critic Tom Shales who leads off by saying that “Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances,” and then proceeds to say what he really thinks.
And he’s not alone…
Tom Shales (Washington Post) – “For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.”
Will Bunch (Philadelphia Daily News) – “By so badly botching arguably the most critical debate of such an important election, in a time of both war and economic misery, you disgraced the American voters, and in fact even disgraced democracy itself.”
Greg Mitchell (Editor and Publisher) – “In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia.”
Andrew Sullivan (The Atlantic) – “The loser was ABC News: one of the worst media performances I can remember – petty, shallow, process-obsessed, trivial where substantive, and utterly divorced from the actual issues that Americans want to talk about.”
Joanne Ostrow (Denver Post) – “Wednesday’s televised candidates’ debate from Philadelphia, tape delayed in Denver, got around to issues eventually. But the first round- devoted to pettiness and word obsession and gaffes- was more revealing.”
Joe Klein (Time) – “The ABC moderators clearly didn’t spend much time thinking about creative substantive gambits. They asked banal, lapidary questions, rather than trying to break new ground.”
Michael Grunwald (Time) – “At a time of foreign wars, economic collapse and environmental peril, the cringe-worthy first half of the debate focused on such crucial matters as Senator Obama’s comments about rural bitterness, his former pastor, an obscure sixties radical with whom he was allegedly “friendly,” and the burning constitutional question of why he doesn’t wear an American flag pin on his lapel.”
Richard Adams (The Guardian) – “A stinker, an absolute car crash – thanks to the host network ABC. It was worse than even those debates last year with 18 candidates on stage, including crazy old Mike Gravel.”
Noam Scheiber (New Republic) – “The first half of the debate felt like a 45-minute negative ad, reprising the most chewed over anti-Obama allegations (bittergate, Jeremiah Wright, patriotism) and even some relatively obscure ones (his vague association with former Weatherman radical Bill Ayers).”
Daniel Rubin (Philadelphia Inquirer) – “We’ve revisted bitter. We’ve gone back to Bosnia. We’ve dragged Rev. Wright back up onto the podium. We’ve mis-spent this debate by allowing Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos to ask questions that skirt what in my mind is what we need to know now. What would they do about the mess they’d inherit? The war. Health care. The economy. Stupid.”
Cathleen Decker and Noam N. Levey (Los Angeles Times) – “With the moderators and Clinton raising assorted questions about Obama’s past for the first half of the debate, issues received relatively short shrift. Not until 50 minutes in was a policy issue — Iraq — asked about by the moderators. More than an hour went by before a question was asked about what Stephanopoulos called “the No. 1 issue on Americans’ minds” — the economy.”
“…experience, character [and] credibility. You can’t find a presidential election where those issues didn’t come into play.”
The problem is that you can’t find a but a trace of questions in this debate where those issues did come into play. The moderators had obviously decided that they were going to chase petty controversy and ratings by focusing on tabloid trivialities. Their cynical smugness and conceit are a sad commentary on the state of journalism and politics.
MoveOn has started a petition to ask the media to “stop hurting the national dialogue in this important election year.”
The New York Times has now documented the sad prescience of McCluhan. In 
The “liberal” media is at it again. CNN has 