Neilsen's next generation ratings system finds that while the Fox "News" Channel has more old, grumpy, computer illiterate viewers, CNN (especially) and MSNBC beat them handily when it comes to people who get their news online, rather than just "through the teevee..." Fox's response? Snark:
Fox, of course, views CNN's emphasis on a newfangled measurement as a mark of its failure to secure the old-fashioned ratings advertisers care about. "Apparently the sheer embarrassment of getting beat by both Headline News and MSNBC along with the continued implosion of Campbell Brown and Anderson Cooper has led CNN to its latest act of desperation," says a Fox News spokesman. "We wish Jack well in continuing to defend their battle for fourth place."
Keep entertaining the masses, guys, even as the masses you're reaching head off into America's nursing homes.
Washington Bitchy: Nico Pitney smacks down Milbank
Mr. Washington Sketchy himself, WaPo king of snark Dana Milbank, takes one to the thorax from HuffPo blog reporter Nico Pitney, who went one-on-three on CNN's Reliable Sources. Milbank got called out for his whingeing over Pitney's Iran question at Barack Obama's recent presser, including getting called out on his past, gushing coverage of George W. Bush. Watch, and learn:
Afterwards Pitney says Milbank called him names under his breath. Pouty journalism at its best -- hating on new media because they can't BE new media.
Well, the Sunday shows were a wash. David Gregory had a rather dull interview with Jordan's King Abdullah, whose new book sounds like a keeper. The only interesting moment: Abdullah's obvious affection for his late father as he watched a clip of the late King Hussein. Meanwhile, in the panel afterwords, we learned from two Pulitzer Prize-winning historians that well, great presidents violate American values in wartime. It's just the way it is.
On "This Week," Stephanopoulos interviewed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmenidejad, and managed to asked him the same question about a dozen different times: would he accept Israel if the Palestinians go for a two-state solution? Will he accept them in a box? With a fox? On a train? In the rain? Will he, will he? Make it plain...! The extent to which the American media (not to mention American politics) is obsessed with Israel's point of view is striking. And the extent to which the Muslim and Arab world are resistant to the pressure to bow to Israel is equally striking; witness Abdullah's repetition over and over again to a resistant David Gregory that a Palestinian state is crucial to peace, and Ahmadinejad's repetition over and over again to a resistant Stephanopoulos that the Palestinian people have rights that should be respected by the international communty. Natch.
CNN managed to get through an entire Sunday without really questioning the absurd notion that somehow, torture is a necessary evil (but only when WE do it,) and without once bringing up the now-exposed Iraq-torture connection. In fact, none of the networks brought it up. Instead, each of the Sunday shows focused on the entirely irrelevant question of whether torture got us any good intel. For the hosts of America's Most Important News Programs, torture is just another policy choice in the grand war on terror, and the debate is over politics, not legality. It's a non-debate debate that is, in a word, shameful, as is the complete rub-out of the most important news to emerge last week: that the Bush administration began torture Abu Zubaydah AFTER he gave up whatever relevant information he had, and did so at the same time the Bush administration was looking for some link -- any link -- between al-qaida and Saddam Hussein. It's a point that has been entirely erased from television since it broke last week, and as of Sunday, has been repeated by only three media personalities: Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and on Sunday, Frank Rich, who points out the following revelations from the Levin report:
The report found that Maj. Paul Burney, a United States Army psychiatrist assigned to interrogations in Guantánamo Bay that summer of 2002, told Army investigators of another White House imperative: “A large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq and we were not being successful.” As higher-ups got more “frustrated” at the inability to prove this connection, the major said, “there was more and more pressure to resort to measures” that might produce that intelligence.
In other words, the ticking time bomb was not another potential Qaeda attack on America but the Bush administration’s ticking timetable for selling a war in Iraq; it wanted to pressure Congress to pass a war resolution before the 2002 midterm elections. Bybee’s memo was written the week after the then-secret (and subsequently leaked) “Downing Street memo,” in which the head of British intelligence informed Tony Blair that the Bush White House was so determined to go to war in Iraq that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” A month after Bybee’s memo, on Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney would make his infamous appearance on “Meet the Press,” hyping both Saddam’s W.M.D.s and the “number of contacts over the years” between Al Qaeda and Iraq. If only 9/11 could somehow be pinned on Iraq, the case for war would be a slamdunk.
But there were no links between 9/11 and Iraq, and the White House knew it. Torture may have been the last hope for coercing such bogus “intelligence” from detainees who would be tempted to say anything to stop the waterboarding.
With this kind of bombshell laid at their feet, what explains the media's refusal to cover this story? Perhaps the newsies are simply ignorant of the relevant law (presented for them here in black and white...) on torture, and so they can't make the connection in their minds to Iraq ... or perhaps they, the Washington press corps in particular, were and continue to be wholly complicit in -- even cheerleaders for -- the whole "war on terror," Iraq war adventure thing, and thus can't bring themselves to question their own beliefs. Or worse, perhaps an editorial policy has been set at the top, at each of these networks, not to talk about the big, fat elephant in the room: the probability that the Bush administration tortured "high value detainees" Pol Pot style, in order to create false "evidence" that would allow them to sell the American people on going to war in Iraq.
In related news, Andrew Sullivan declares FBI interrogator Ali Soufan a national hero. Hear hear.
And the Washington Post publishes a lengthy he-a-culpa, essentially an excused absence letter to the school of public opinion from Judge Bybee's friends, saying he's a wonderful, thoughtful man after all, who rather regrets a certain memo legalizing torture. How sweet. Now, if the Post could just get up an article abouthow John Yoo loves to pet puppies... beautiful, fluffy puppies...
Has CNN adopted an editorial policy of ignoring altogether, the finding reported last week by McClatchy, that the serial torture of "high value detainees" Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and Abu Zubaydah was done not to prevent another terrorist attack, but rather to try and extract false confessions that would tie Saddam Hussain to 9/11?
John King this morning (Sunday) had on Diane Feinstein, Lindsey Graham and the treacherous Mr. Lieberman to discuss, among other things, the release of the torture memos. Lieberman and Graham were allowed, unimpeded by King, to repeat the meme that "enhanced interrogation techniques" (torture) was used, in Graham's words, "not to commit a crime against individual people, but to save us all from another attack."
He interjected no such thing. In fact, I don't recall hearing the McClatchy story repeated on CNN in any daypart since the news broke last week. Has anyone else noticed what seems like an editorial decision to stick to the official (Bush-Cheney) narrative about torture being necessary to prevent another attack? Perhaps CNN simply doesn't believe McClatchy's sources, or maybe they don't want to open up this line of inquiry against the prior administration for reasons unknown.
(Not that NBC has been exactly aggressive, other than Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow's shows about making this point, either, but CNN seems to be particularly determined to hew to the Cheney line.)
Michael Steele's super secret 'gaffetacular' strategery
Michael says: you see all those stupid things I've done since becoming chairman of the RNC? Pissing off El Rushbo and than crawling back to him on my hands and knees? Calling my party "drunks who need a 12-step program," pissing off the lifers and planning that "off da hook" GOP makeover that would bring the midgets? It was all on purpose. Watch him work:
See, when Steele is making himself look like an ass? That's when he has you right where he wants you... Can the Pubs run this guy for president in 2012? ... Please???
DL Hughley's new CNN show isn't funny ... and that's just half the problem
See, this is what happens when the suits try to figure out what "the young folks" are into -- you know, like when your parents try to dress like you...?
DL Hughley got a show on CNN and Roland Martin didn't. Go figure. And not surprisingly, white critics love it, black critics don't. Why? One word: buffoonery. It's the last thing black people want to see at a time when we are about to elect our first black president. It's "Amos and Andy" at a time when we want "Hardball":
The fight to be taken seriously -- not just cast in slapstick crap comedies or as crack addicts, is as real as rain for black actors; just as the fight to make and release music that isn't about guns, money and hoes is real for black musicians (not to mention those of us trying to convince program directors that black people can do talk radio for non-black audiences...) The corporate execs still don't get it -- maybe because ... wait for it ... there's not enough diversity up there.
CNN, over the weekend debuted "DL Hughley: Breaks The News", the only African American hosted cable news program. Hughley, reverted back to his early BET "Comic View"days, lacking the intellectual clarity he often displays on Bill Maher or even recent CNN appearances. DL's material was immensely stereo typical, but calculated programming that continues to stifle mainstream media perceptions. CNN's attempt of a Flava Flav style of African American entertainment is an alarming step backward for a respected news organization.
It's easy to point the not funny finger at DL Hughley but the real story is who's behind the camera. While this election cycle has shown a diverse collection of analyst and pundits, media ownership and equity of power in television and radio are far from equitable.
While people of color make up 33% of the American population, less than 7% are owners and even fewer are in decision making positions.Yes, there are plenty of Black anchors and reporters on cable and network news but the content they report continually falls short. Perception has replaced reality, millions of Americans are yearning for more, while receiving less.
Forget the correction watch ... it ain't comin' ... but via a brief Jon Stewart clip tonight your intrepid blogger learned that our boy Dana Milbank, the quote-clippingest, context-changingest snarkporter in Washington, has resurfaced as a CNN commentator. Sez Dana about the whole "misquoted Obama and kicked off of Countdown" kerfuffle:
"The CNN contract was negotiated long before the Obama column," Milbank tells FishbowlDC. He says that there are "no hard feelings" although he takes exception to Olbermann's characterization of things on last night's program (more on that later here on FishbowlDC).
"It's just that CNN's a better fit for me and my philosophy of holding all parties to account," says Milbank. He will be a political analyist for CNN, mostly with Campbell Brown but "wherever they want me."
Ooh, oh no she didn't! Olbermann, please to respond...
Olbermann tells TVNewser:
Dana appeared with us the night before his column appeared with the truncated Obama quote — and did so under the terms of his contract which both he and MSNBC obviously considered still in force. After the column, he contacted us, joking he was glad I hadn't put him on the "Worst Persons" list, and then discussing with the producers coming on to clarify or explain what he wrote. Out of appreciation for his work for us, I had delayed a permanent decision on whether he should again appear on Countdown. Dana used this time to make another deal, which he told us about the day before he appeared on another network.
Wow, it gets ugly. But the fact remains, and is now CNN's to deal with, that Dana Milbank completely mischaracterized a statement that amounted to heresay, by one of the two major presidential candidates. Had he misquoted John McCain in that way, to quote the Creepy Grandpa, there would have been a seizmic event. But since it was Obama, no probs, including at CNN, which apparently will appreciate Dana "holding both sides (ahem) ... to account." BTW Dana's new gig is with Campbell Brown, who is currently getting her wig handed to her by pretty much everybody, at 8:00. Perhaps someone should bring it to Dana's attention.
BTW, just for a laugh, check out this Powerline Blog rant from 2003... The first sentence is interesting. Or this one. Apparently, NO ONE likes Dana Milbank!
Related: Washington Sketchy returns! With quotes! (Sure hope somebody checked them...) |
The right has a pattern that they automatically fall into when they're down: first, they find a way to deflect their own negative press by blaming it, not on their own actions, not on the vicissitudes of fate, but on ... well ... the press. Then they attempt to hang the reporters for reporting facts that they never actually getting around to disputing. Then, finally, when whatever charges they're making turn out to be bogus, they scare up some secondary supposed wrong and hang their pitiful little hats on that.
Such is the case with Michael Ware, about whom the Drudge Report blared the headline: REPORTER HECKLES MCCAIN! "Heckles"? A reporter? Ware's supposed infraction was that he hurled insults at McCain during the Senator's Green Zone press conference, which followed his little stroll through a Baghdad market about 3 minutes away (surrounded by a phalanx of 100 heavily armed troops, a couple Blackhawk helicopters and three airborne gunships...) McCain was attempting to make the point that Baghdad is far safer since the surge began. Once the Drudge headline broke, the right went ballistic, accusing Ware of violating his oath of independence as a journalist, and of being a tool of the Defeatocrats. (The Young Turks call it what it is: character assassination.)
Well ... a funny thing happened on the way to the hanging ... Michael Ware fought back, going on CNN and asserting that not only did he not heckle McCain, he didn't even get a chance to ask a question. And then he said three little words that made all the difference: play ... the ... tape.
So some enterprising bloggers did. And guess what? No heckling. Not a sound from Ware or anybody else while McCain was blathering on about his market stroll.
So what does the right do?
Bitch and moan about what Ware said on CNN, long after the presser... So what did Ware say about McCain and his delegation?
"Essentially they're here to view the impact of the surge on the Baghdad security plan and essentially to sell its merits to say that, yes, it is having an impact and to take that message home to an American people desperate to hear signs of progress..."
By the way, the link above is to Powerline's Paul Miringoff's rant that Ware was lying about how great the surge is going -- which by the way is really, really great! -- because he "holds a grudge" because McCain disagreed with his Iraq assessment on CNN. Problem is, it was Ware who disagreed with McCain's assessment, not the other way around, McCain having given Wolf Blitzer his assessment of the desirability of a pleasant Baghdad stroll before Ware was called upon by Blitzer to respond. ... I refer you to comment #15 on Miringoff's post:
15. I am sure, John McCain with his few days visit can analyze the situation much better than a reporter who has been observing the situation there for years, even stared death in the face. Mirengoff, did you pass the bar?
Ha! Other righties are echoing the same "bias line," including the usual suspects at Wizbang. I'm still waiting for Drudge's retraction of the original non-story...
And as for Ware's statement on the McCain's trip, what I have to say about that is ... duh... McCain's political fortunes are now bound up tightly with the Bush policy in Iraq. The surge has to succeed in order for his presidential candidacy to succeed. So yes, he's there to support the policy and make the surge look good, so that Americans will support it. So what was wrong with what Ware said?
Who the hell knows.
And as if things weren't dire enough for the winger nation, their blogger faithful will have to take on a new target: the Iraqi merchants from that lil' ole bazaar. They're taking their turns paddling Baghdad John, too...
"What are they talking about?" Ali Jassim Faiyad, the owner of an electrical appliances shop in the market, said Monday. "The security procedures were abnormal!"
The delegation arrived at the market, which is called Shorja, on Sunday with more than 100 soldiers in armored Humvees - the equivalent of an entire company - and attack helicopters circled overhead, a senior American military official in Baghdad said. The soldiers redirected traffic from the area and restricted access to the Americans, witnesses said, and sharpshooters were posted on the roofs. The congressmen wore bulletproof vests throughout their hourlong visit.
"They paralyzed the market when they came," Mr. Faiyad said during an interview in his shop on Monday. "This was only for the media."
On CNN's Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer yesterday, John McCain got the bitch slap of his life, from my favorite war correspondent EVER, Aussie sensation Michael Ware. You simply MUST watch it:
Did you hear that...? That's the sound of John McCain's credibility crumbling.
