Brit Hume Just Doesn’t Get It

Posted by on March 6, 2008 at 2:25 pm. NO Comments :

Brit Hume was interviewed by the magazine of his alma mater, the University of Virginia. He had some revealing things to say about his view of journalism and the world. The first question dealt with what changes he has seen in the country:

There used to be a general view that America was not what was wrong with the world. In many corners now today and in academia and in the media, I think we see an interest in the idea that maybe America is what’s wrong with the world. There’s a worry that when the U.S. undertakes something, that the U.S. is likely to be the problem, not the solution. I think that’s an attitude that didn’t exist when I first started in this business and I think it’s not for the better.

Another way of putting that is that there used to be a general view that America was infallible and that our leaders could not be questioned. Apparently Hume would like to return to those days.

When asked about the perception of Fox News as conservatively biased, he rattled off a litany of issues (without any support) that he believes his press associates lean leftward on. He then concedes that Fox takes a different stance on those issues. The admission that Fox has a stance on issues should be enough to dismiss them as a credible news organization. But Hume isn’t nearly done:

“As long as our competitors are convinced that we’re a right-wing news organization out to promote right-wing causes, they never will get it. That’s good news for us. They can’t fix their problem because they don’t understand it. As long as they continue to think in that way, they’re probably not going to gain much ground on us.”

It is hysterical on its face that Hume still insists that Fox is not a “right-wing news organization.” But even funnier is his delusional analysis of his competition not gaining ground. Here are the facts for just this year:

  • January 07-08 gains: CNN 42% – MSNBC – 37% – Fox 9%.
  • February 07-08 gains: CNN 133% – MSNBC – 62% – Fox 16%

I’d call that gaining ground. And those numbers reflect network performance going back at least two years. The fortunes of Fox have been trending down in virtual syncopation with the still sinking approval ratings for President Bush. While they still have a large reserve of Stepford viewers, Fox is at a decided disadvantage. Their audience is aging and is generally less appealing to advertisers. In fact, CNN is able to charge 50% more ($5.96) per thousand viewers than Fox ($4.06).

Recently Fox has lost outright to competitors. They came in last on March 4th’s primary coverage (after both CNN and MSNBC) and were bested by CNN for the whole month of February in the key 25-54 demographic. And Keith Olbermann’s Countdown beat O’Reilly again last week. Granted, it’s not an everyday occurrence, but it used to be unheard of. Mark your calendars for March 30, when Countdown will have it’s second broadcast on the NBC mothership. The last time they did that, Countdown’s subsequent MSNBC airings jumped by 17%, beating O’Reilly then as well.

The fallacy of Fox’s market domination will have to eventually tune in to Hume’s brain wave. Until then, we will likely be subject to more of these hallucinatory bouts of braggadocio. And in all likelihood they will stray even further from reality, because, in the end, it’s Brit Hume and his Fox comrades who “never will get it.”

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

The Internet vs. Traditional Journalism

Posted by on March 4, 2008 at 2:20 pm. NO Comments :

There is a new Zogby poll on the nation’s attitudes toward Internet vs. traditional journalism. Some highlights:

  • 67% believe traditional journalism is out of touch with what Americans want from their news.
  • 32% said Internet sites are their most trusted source for news and information, followed by newspapers (22%), television (21%) and radio (15%).
  • 75% believe the Internet has had a positive impact on the overall quality of journalism.
  • 69% believe media companies are becoming too large and powerful to allow for competition.
  • Republicans (79%) and political independents (75%) are most likely to feel disenchanted with conventional journalism, but the online survey found 50% of Democrats also expressed similar concerns.

I still don’t understand that last item. A Gallup poll last October found similarly that 66% Democrats trust the media. I wrote at the time that it made no sense to do so and itemized the reasons why. If Democrats were paying attention, they would be far more disenchanted with the media status quo than this survey suggests. However, it is heartening to see that 69% recognize the threat that Big Media represents. If there were a more concerted effort on the part of our elected officials to address the issue, they would find a grateful constituency.



George W. Bush’s Legacy Of Secrecy

Posted by on March 4, 2008 at 10:51 am. 3 Comments :

Joseph Wheelan, with George Mason University’s History News Network, reminds us of a dangerous assault on open and honest government. It came in the form of George W. Bush’s Executive Order 13233: The Presidential Records Act Executive Order.

“…this is not just another blow against openness; Bush’s Executive Order 13233 could change history – literally – by restricting historians’ access to materials that help them document and ultimately judge a president’s actions, lapses, and principles.

Executive Order 13233 gives ex-presidents nearly unlimited discretionary authority to prohibit the release of their papers…”

The article goes on to describe the practical impact of this Order.

“Executive Order 13233 portends a day when spin, the currency of politics, may become the province, too, of presidential history. One can envision a future when a presidential library’s watchdogs would allow only “safe” historians to sift through the library’s holdings for material to cook up a bracingly whitewashed version of his subject’s actions. Objective historians, denied access to the panegyrist’s primary sources and all the juicy details, would be placed at a severe disadvantage. Which version do you think would get the seven-figure publishing advance and the lavish promotional campaign?”

This is not a new development. The Order was issued in November of 2001, shortly after the terrorist attacks on 9/11. It’s almost as if the still new Bush administration knew in advance that they would be engaging in nefarious activities that had to be covered up. In the intervening years, Bush has proven to be the most secrecy-obsessed president in U.S. history.

This being an election year, it is a good time to recall this stain on academic freedom and the public’s right to know the truth about it’s leaders and their actions. It would be nice to get the present crop of presidential aspirants to go on record as to whether they would revoke Executive Order 13233 if elected.


Chris Wallace Still Obsessed With Absent Democrats

Posted by on March 3, 2008 at 3:01 pm. 1 Comments :

Chris Wallace, the host of Fox News Sunday is still perturbed that he can’t get presidential candidates with a “D” after their name to come play in his sandbox.

Wallace has been particularly obsessed with poking at Democrats who have declined to submit to Fox News abuse. Reading this viewer letter is just another attempt to “shame” Democrats into appearing on his show. To equate the process of international diplomacy with that of face-time on a biased, third-rate cable news channel is beyond idiocy. But it is not beyond Wallace.

Democrats are right to shun Fox and should continue to do so. The strategy is working as evidenced by Wallace’s all-consuming attention to it. If it wasn’t hurting them, they would never mention it. And it is paying off in a couple of significant ways. First, it denies Fox the opportunity to cast more of its slime onto Democrats. Second, Fox misses out on the higher ratings and revenues they would receive from associating with the more popular Democratic candidates. (Fox News Sunday is consistently last amongst the Sunday news interview programs – behind Meet the Press, This Week, and Face the Nation)

Most importantly it maintains the premise that Fox is not a credible news entity and should not be treated as one. Let’s hope the Democrats have the stamina to keep it up throughout the general election.


Tucker Carlson: The Biggest Loser

Posted by on March 3, 2008 at 3:06 am. 1 Comments :

Somebody tell me why Tucker Carlson still has a television show. Seriously! Is there anyone at MSNBC who reads News Corpse? I want an answer. I just can’t figure out what’s going through their heads.

Tucker has been the worst performing program on the MSNBC primetime lineup for as long as he’s been on. And he rarely notches anything above last place versus his competition. That record of defeat has predictably repeated itself for February 2008.

Tucker February 2008

What does it take to get canceled by this network. Does Tucker have to insult a women’s basketball team to get the ax? There are many examples of him insulting women, like when he said about Hillary Clinton that, “there’s just something about her that feels castrating, overbearing, and scary.” Then there is the time he said Obama “seems like kind of a wuss,” and “sounds like a pothead.” Now he has taken to inviting the most repugnant guests he can dig up. Last month he hosted Jonah “Liberal Fascism” Goldberg and Roger “C.U.N.T.” Stone.

But the network doesn’t need a scandal to ditch Tucker. They just need a desire to get better ratings and make more money. Isn’t that what they’re in business for? Tucker’s show is an expensive flop and it is bringing down the shows adjacent to it. As I’ve said on many previous occasions, there is simply no business case for keeping this show on the air. And yet it’s still there.

It’s not like MSNBC doesn’t have some recent experience with success on which to draw. Keith Olbermann’s Countdown continues to surge and is the fastest growing program on cable news. Last Thursday it even scored a #1 ranking, beating its nemesis, Bill O’Reilly. But even when it doesn’t come out on top, it’s a more valuable asset. O’Reilly’s audience is not particularly appealing to advertisers. Only 17% of its total viewers are in the coveted 25-54 demographic. Countdown’s audience in the demo is 40%.

So what’s wrong with MSNBC? Why don’t they want to emulate their successes and eject their failures? Since there are no arguments from a business perspective for keeping him, then what are their arguments? There is good cause to suspect that their motivations are not wholly reputable. Either someone is doing someone else a favor, or some political bias is being exerted, or Tucker has photographs of an executive in a compromising situation. It’s worth remembering also, that Tucker is the son of Richard Warner Carlson, a former U.S. ambassador, director of the U.S. Information Agency, and president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. There is plenty of room for salacious speculation, but what there is little supply of is reason.

Any half-way sane television professional would have canceled this loser long ago. I think it’s time the viewers get involved and demand that MSNBC account for themselves. If, as I suspect, they are protecting Tucker due to some unsavory and secret compact, then they are violating a public trust and they need to come clean. Write to MSNBC and ask them to explain why Tucker is still on the air despite his dismal performance. Ask them why they are protecting a program that has never delivered for them. Feel free to cite the data in this article and ask for specific answers. In the pursuit of journalistic ethics and transparency, we have a right to know.

MSNBC Viewer Services

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:


Bill O’Reilly: Beyond Absurd And Wildly Inaccurate Says Fox PR

Posted by on February 29, 2008 at 11:19 am. 4 Comments :

This gave me a scare:

Fox News eyes O’Reilly for election night.

“Sources within Fox News say the channel is planning to spice up its coverage of the Texas and Ohio primaries next Tuesday night by putting its popular conservative talker Bill O’Reilly in the anchor seat.”

That’s from the Crain’s New York web site. As it turns out, it isn’t true. Fox spokesperson Irena Briganti told TVNewser that:

“The notion that O’Reilly would anchor election coverage of any kind is beyond absurd and wildly inaccurate.”

Please note that that’s the official position of Fox News. Personally, I think that O’Reilly is beyond absurd and wildly inaccurate in any context, but this is still a fairly enlightened view coming from the Fox VP of Media Relations.

Update: Despite Briganti’s proclamation that it would be “beyond absurd” for O’Reilly to anchor election coverage, Billo did join anchor Brit Hume and used the time to bash NBC.


Fox News – Still First In Being Last

Posted by on February 27, 2008 at 9:16 pm. 19 Comments :

Cable News Ratings Feb 2008Once again, Fox News brings up the rear in the cable news-stakes. With an increase in total viewers of just 16% from February 2007 to February 2008, Fox trailed MSNBC (up 62%) and CNN (up 133%) by wide margins. CNN’s numbers may have been inflated by an unusually large audience for its debate telecast. But that would not account for the bulk of the disparity. Note that MSNBC’s increase occurred without any such special event programming.

This is becoming so redundant that I think I’ll just quote myself from the last ratings report I wrote:

“For those seeking an explanation for the disparity between Fox and the rest of the news purveyors, you need look no further than the content and style for which Fox has become famous. The influence of rightists in the government and the media is dissipating. As it does so, the noise level on Fox News is swelling to an earsplitting shriek. They are descending (and condescending) into a desperation fueled by their own crumbling credibility. They are finding it increasingly difficult to lure fair-minded commentators and public figures to appear on their tainted air. The refusal of Democrats to participate in Fox-sponsored debates is having a real impact on both the network’s performance and their perception as the Republican house organ. That effort must continue and broaden to include ANY appearance by Democrats or progressives (see Starve The Beast) The result of this cold shoulder is an over-reliance by Fox on plainly biased personalities like their newest contributors, Tony Snow, Rick Santorum, and Karl Rove. I expect we will also be seeing a lot more of Dick Morris, Ann Coulter, and Bill Kristol, as the Foxians resort to just interviewing one another.”

Still true. But wait…There’s more!

I did an analysis of the televised debates this election cycle that reveals some interesting trends. Since April 26, 2007, there have been 30 debates split evenly between Democrats and Republicans. Four of the top 5 rated broadcasts were Democratic debates. Fox News had only one debate in the top 10. All of the Fox debates were Republican affairs as the Democrats have sworn off debating on the network. That strategy appears to have paid off in a couple of significant ways. First, it denied Fox the opportunity to cast more of its slime onto Democrats. Second, Fox missed out on the higher revenues they would have received from the more popular Democratic debates.

It’s a win/win.

Stop The Presses: Bill O’Reilly is patting himself and his network on the back for their ratings performance:

“…just about everybody else on FNC had a good month, because we are patriots.”

If they are patriots because of their paltry 16% gain, then CNN and MSNBC must be candidates for sainthood with national holidays pending. I sure hope I’m not in the vicinity when his ego bursts.


The Torture Playlist

Posted by on February 27, 2008 at 4:13 pm. NO Comments :

From Mother Jones:
“Music has been used in American military prisons and on bases to induce sleep deprivation, “prolong capture shock,” disorient detainees during interrogations-and also drown out screams. Based on a leaked interrogation log, news reports, and the accounts of soldiers and detainees, here are some of the songs that guards and interrogators chose.”

I looked long and hard for a snark tag but couldn’t find one. If this is a joke, it’s brilliant. If it’s for real…I just don’t know what to say.