Copyright 2006 by Rules |
Cable Gamers remember that last week, PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler felt compelled to go far outside his lane--he is supposed to the internal watchdog for PBS, not the external critic of other media outfits--to trash Fox News for negatively photoshopping two New York Times employees. But now, on "The Daily Show," Jon Stewart has savaged CNN's Lou Dobbs. Now Stewart has a perfect right to do what he does--TCG watches him all the time, in fact, because he does have a quality of acuity that's lacking in so much TV reporting. But if Getler attacked Fox, wouldn't it make sense for him to attack Stewart? But Getler won't, of course. And we all know why. Media bias is that bad--and that shameless.Posted byCable Gamerat10:18 PM0commentsLinks to this post
Labels:CNN,jon stewart,lou dobbs,michael getler
New York Times Cable Gamer Brian Stelter reports that Fox News Channel chieftain Roger Ailes, and his wife, Elizabeth Ailes, have purchased their own little newspaper, The Putnam County News and Recorder.Stelter's report would seem to suggest that Mr. and Mrs. Ailes don't have any big changes in mind for their new media property, which has a circulation of just 3,000:But residents of the area should not expect any sort of makeover, ideological or otherwise. The paper will "probably stay the same," said Elizabeth Ailes, Mr. Ailes’s wife, who will be the publisher. "We bought it not to change it, but perhaps it will evolve over time."OK, fair enough. But still, The Cable Gamer wonders what Mrs. Ailes meant by "perhaps it will evolve over time." Those are words to linger over! In the meantime, a couple of points: First, when The Cable Gamer read this news, she immediately thought of William Allen White, the legendary newspaperman and public intellectual in the late 19th and early-to-mid 20th century. White was the owner-editor of the Emporia (Kansas) Gazette, which would seem to be a pretty small gig. But White made it into a big deal, regularly criticizing--and consulting with--presidents and other top leaders over the course of five decades. Interestingly, White could have gone to a bigger media market if he had wanted to. While still in his mid-20s, he went to work as an editorial writer for the Kansas City Star; from there, with all his talent and energy, he could surely have moved up rapidly, to Chicago, say, or New York. But instead, in 1895, he borrowed $3000 to buy the Emporia Gazette, the paper in his home town.And it was from that seemingly humble perch that White built a legend (the US postage stamp above, issued in 1948, is testament to his impact). Specifically, it was an 1896 editorial in the Gazette that rocketed him to national renown. Entitled "What's the Matter With Kansas?"* it revealed White to be a man with a sharp eye and a sharp tongue: What's the matter with Kansas?We all know; yet here we are at it again. We have an old moss-back Jacksonian who snorts and howls because there is a bathtub in the statehouse; we are running that old jay for governor. We have another shabby, wild-eyed, rattle-brained fanatic who has said openly in a dozen speeches that "the rights of the user are paramount to the rights of the owner"; we are running him for chief justice, so that capital will come tumbling over itself to get into the state. We have raked the old ash heap of failure in the state and found an old human hoop skirt who has failed as a business man, who has failed as an editor, who has failed as a preacher, and we are going to run him for congressman-at-large. He will help the looks of the Kansas delegation at Washington. Then we have discovered a kid without a law practice and have decided to run him for attorney-general. Then for fear some hint that the state had become respectable might percolate through the civilized portions of the nation, we have decided to send three or four harpies out lecturing, telling the people that Kansas is raising hell and letting the corn go to weeds.The issues, of course, have changed over the last 112 years, but TCG reckons that Roger Ailes, today, sees things in the same sharp terms that White saw things in his time. So don't be in the least surprised if Ailes, known to have strong opinions-- mostly, but not exclusively, on the right--starts penning editorials that affect thinking, and sway opinion, far beyond Putnam County. Indeed, friends say that Ailes is increasingly concerned about the direction of the United States in the 21st century. So maybe this small purchase is the beginning of a new effort to affect public opinion. Or, of course, the PCNR could stick to its familiar newspaper fare, which is local news, sports, and weather. Maybe, but TCG doesn't think so. Roger Ailes will find his voice--and the world might discover more about what the low-profile Beth Ailes, too, thinks. So perhaps the Ailes' communications won't just be written editorials, but video editorials, or possibly in some new media format altogether. After all, in the era of the Internet, geography matters little, so why not use Putnam County as a launchpad to the world? If 35 years ago Ted Turner could grow a single Atlanta TV station into a nationwide "superstation," WTBS then surely such exponential growth is even more possible in the Internet era. Second, Putnam County, sleepy as it might sound, is actually much more strategically located than Emporia, KS. With a population of 95,000, Putnam is sandwiched geographically in between the state of Connecticut and Orange County NY, which includes the United States Military Academy, West Point. And further upstate are such prominent exurban havens as Bedford, where billionaires, tired of the overcrowded Hamptons, go to get away from the rigors of Manhattan--but they have to pass through, or near, Putnam to get there. And of course, New York City, capital of the world, is just 30 or so miles to the south. So in other words, there's plenty of potential there, in the little News & Recorder, for Mr. and Mrs. Ailes to have big booming voice. Perhaps, together, they will be like William Allen White. Perhaps they will be like The Times of London, known as "The Thunderer," for its centuries of powerful broadsides against sovereigns and statesmen. All this is speculation, of course, but Roger Ailes has never done anything small in his life. And so even if this new venture starts small, it will likely not stay small. * Just a few years ago, in 2005 the lefty Thomas Frank wrote a book with an homage title, What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America.Posted byCable Gamerat5:02 PM2commentsLinks to this post
It's edgy satire, of course, if The New Yorker runs such "art," on its cover, but it would be rank racism, of course, if Fox News were to do it.Got that?Posted byCable Gamerat8:28 AM0commentsLinks to this post
Surely this is a joke: Michael Getler, the PBS Ombudsman, is now gratuitously stepping outside of his job description, denouncing Fox News. Getler the citizen, of course, has a right to his liberal opinions, but Getler the ombudsman has less latitude, and more duty. But Getler has no right to do his Fox-bashing in his official capacity as PBS's Ombudsman. Not only is he trashing another operation, but he is public employee trashing a private media company. Isn't that an example of the dreaded "chilling effect" on the First Amendment? Or is it OK to chill a non-liberal media outfit? As Getler concedes, his swipe at Fox "has nothing to do with PBS but has a lot to do, in my opinion, with broadcast ethics, the use of doctored photographs in a particularly degrading fashion, and a mainstream press that didn't seem to take much notice." Not taken much notice? That is even more b.s., because as observed here at TCG and everywhere else across the mediaverse, the MSM took abundant notice of Fox's photo-altering. But none of that should matter, either way, because the position of ombudsman, of course, is very specific. An ombudsman (or ombudswoman) is supposed to be a watchdog for a specific institution, sort of like an inspector general. An ombudsman is supposed to criticize, if necessary, his own institution. He or she is NOT supposed to criticize other institutions. And of course, that's doubly true with a public entity, such as PBS. Here's what PBS own website says about the function of the ombudsman job at PBS: As ombudsman, Michael Getler serves as an independent internal critic within PBS. He reviews commentary and criticism from viewers and seeks to ensure that PBS upholds its own standards of editorial integrity.Now I am sure that Getler has a legal opinion--as many as he wants from ideologically sympathetic lawyers--saying that he is free to write about anything he pleases, including blog posts criticizing Fox. No doubt such Fox-bashing will help him with his liberal friends. But that doesn't make it right. Not right for PBS, and not right for the taxpayers, who, one way or another, fund PBS. And in view of the scathing criticismthat PBS has reaped over its moral-equivalence-peddling WW 2 documentary hosted by Niall Ferguson,"War of the World," one would think that Getler would be too busy addressing those criticisms to worry about much else, let alone worry about another TV network altogether, which is totally outside of his portfolio.But you be wrong if you thought that. Admittedly, you have to reach deep into Getler's post to get to this Fox-bashing, but there it is, folks--here's Getler criticizing Fox:Now, back to the item near the top of this column. The situation I am referring to involves the Fox News Channel broadcast "Fox & Friends" on the morning of July 2. On that program, co-hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade labeled New York Times reporter Jacques Steinberg and his editor, Steven Reddicliffe, as "attack dogs" because of a June 28 news story in the Times that Steinberg, who covers television, had written about new cable channel ratings. And he goes on and on, ragging on Fox, citing The New York Times as an authority on Fox:This story reported on soon-to-be released cable news ratings that showed Fox in the top spot with those viewers of great interest to advertisers, but that for the first three months of the year, CNN had vaulted over Fox. And the reporter cited "a more ominous trend for Fox" in these numbers which showed that CNN and MSNBC "have added viewers at far more dramatic rates."Now of course, Getler makes no mention of the fact that Vanity Fair devoted a whole section to insulting caricatures of Fox talent. Now is such nasty photoshopping bad? Or is it only bad when Fox does it? Don't hold your breath waiting for Getler to attack Vanity Fair for doing exactly what he attacked Fox for doing. Once again, it's worth repeating that all of Getler's ranting against Fox has nothing to do with his actual job at PBS. Getler should be figuring out how to clean up PBS before he worries about Fox. One more piece of evidence that PBS is always determined to push the liberal agenda.Posted byCable Gamerat6:38 PM0commentsLinks to this post
"Jesse-gate" provides a window into the way that media bias operates: Liberals get the benefit of the doubt, conservatives get it in the neck. And of course, if it involves Fox News, well, whatever it is, whatever FNC does, it's just horrible. Got that? And that liberal litany holds true, even when Fox tries to be nice. As Clare Booth Luce said of such situations, "No good deed goes unpunished." A case in point is the delicate way that FNC handled the Jesse Jackson "hot mic" story, which has blasted around the world, even to the Times of India!On Tuesday, Fox discovered that it had a big story--Jackson trashing Barack Obama. That is, a former black presidential candidate--OK, more of a protest candidate, back in '84 and '88--was seen and heard trash-talking the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee, the first black man ever to win that honor. And Obama is a fellow Chicagoan, so the two men must know each other pretty well! It was quite a story, given that Jackson was an old-line radical, while Obama presents himself as a newstyle "post-partisan" centrist. So by that reckoning, f anything, Fox should have played it bigger, not just playing the tape over and over again, but analyzing the politics of the general shift, and so on. And as we shall see, Fox might yet still play it bigger. More on that juicy possibility in a moment. But for now, let's take a look at the high-pious tone adopted by NBC/MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro, writing collectively, for MSNBC "First Read," which appears on the website, and is also e-mailed out to subscribers. (TCG gets it. Why not, it's free, and is a pretty good source for the latest in liberal conventional wisdom.)Here's the earnestly-toned Todd/Murray/Montanaro post: Just asking: Why isn't there a debate about the ethics of the Fox decision to release the off-mic conversation?Oh sure, "just asking." As if there's any doubt that an enormous number of "media ethicists" will weigh in heavily on this topic, in the weeks and months and years to come. Media institutes and journalism schools will ponder and maunder, and in the end, they will conclude that yes, Fox News is terrible. You can bet on it. And did I mention that Todd/Murray/Montanaro work at MSNBC, which is attempting to set itself up as Fox's arch-rival cable news network? Now of course, it wasn't always the case that liberal chin-pullers worried about "gotcha" quotes coming over open microphones. For example, nobody seemed to object to using the awkward "hot mic" comments made by George W. Bush to Dick Cheney back during the 2000 presidential campaign. But of course, those who follow the media know that if a conservative says something ugly in an unguarded moment, well, that's valuable news, because the careless talk provides a revealing window into who conservatives are. But if a liberal says something bad by accident, well, it's just that--an accident! And so it's probably wrong to even mention a liberal gaffe, certainly wrong to harp on it. The Cable Gamer didn't have much reaction to Jesse Jackson's "hot mic" comments, in which he whispered to a fellow talking head that he, Jackson, didn't like the way Obama was speaking, about reforming the black family, and so he, Jackson, wanted to "cut his nuts off." (Gee, doesn't really sound like a model of Christian charity, does it, Reverend Jackson?) But of course, it's always fun when people say what they really think. As the pundit Michael Kinsley observed, "In politics, 'a gaffe' is when someone blurts out the truth." And that's one of the fun things about news: You never know what's going to happen next--that's why you hafta watch. As the LA Times' Matea Gold chronicled in a well-reported story, it took two days before an alert Fox techie noticed what JJ had said. Gold highlighted the role played by Bill Shine, senior VP at FNC. Once Shine heard the tape, he handled the situation with above-and-beyond the call diplomacy: Rather than simply running with this scoop, he alerted both the Jackson and Obama camps--whereupon, as Gold also notes, Jackson immediately went on CNN to pre-emptively apologize, before the offending words had even been aired. "Thanks Jesse"--that must be what FNC is thinking--"we do you the favor of a courtesy heads-up call, and you sandbag us in return!" Gold picks up the story again: Whereupon [Bill] O'Reilly told viewers that the network had decided to air only portions of what Jackson had said, saying there was "more damaging" material.Shine declined to comment on what else Jackson said, adding that news executives were in discussions about whether to air more of the tape.In other words, Fox has more stuff on tape, even more harmful to Jackson, that it could use if it wanted to. So be careful, Jesse! If you do all your sucking up to CNN and the MSM, then FNC could yet open up. But in the meantime, the predictable roar of anti-Fox outrage will continue in the MSM, as media types such as The Miami Herald's James Burnett crash down their liberal double-standard outrage on Fox.But it could all be too late. Jackson "nut-cut" story has gone viral not only on TV, but online, way beyond the reach of the MSM. That's The Cable Game for you, which, of course, has become The Convergence Game.UPDATE: Rachel Maddow, subbing for Keith Olbermann on the same MSNBC tonight, is attempting to paint Fox as engaging in some cover-up of the Jackson material. Liberals don't want the material released, of course, but they love pummeling Fox for not releasing. Talk about having your cake and eating it, too!Posted byCable Gamerat3:49 PM0commentsLinks to this post
Newsbusters.org, always a must-read for Cable Gamers, has a new look.Posted byCable Gamerat12:31 PM0commentsLinks to this post
Everyone--and I do mean everyone, including Silicon Alley Insider, not exactly a Cable Game regular--professes to be upset over Fox News' apparent photo-altering of pictures of Jacques Steinberg and Steven Redicliffe. Those two employees of The New York Times, of course, are regarded as big enemies of FNC. OK, fine. I don't recall liberal critics being so upset when Richard Nixon was being ripped and ridiculed, but that's another story.The Cable Gamer is not here to argue the merits and demerits of the argument about whether FNC did the right thing or not in photo-shopping Steinberg and Reddicliffe. There's a long back story here--Redicliffe is a former News Corp. employee--and no doubt those two Timesmen will find a way to retaliate, soon, against FNC. What I will point out, though, is that adjusting appearances is an ancient art of political commentary. Above, for example, see how Thomas Nast, probably the most famous and influential political cartoonist in US history, drew Boss Tweed in the late 19th century. That's probably not the way that Tweed's mother would have depicted him, huh? But Nast didn't care. The First Amendment protected his right to mock Tweed, and the same First Amendment protects Fox's right to stick it to Steinberg and Reddicliffe. You don't have to like it, I don't have to like it. As Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. observed in a Supreme Court opinion nearly a century ago, free speech isn't for the speech we love, it's for the speech we hate.Posted byCable Gamerat9:51 PM3commentsLinks to this post
The Cable Gamer is now determined to unravel the mystery as to why The Huffington Post is so hostile to Keith Olbermann. Did Keith say something unkind to Arianna Huffington? Did KO hit on some HuffPo staffer? Or is HP just appalled by the nightly truckbomb of bombast on "Countdown"? Or is it just that HP is looking for the maximum sensationalism, with every posting, even if such sensationalism is aimed at a fellow lefty! Inquiring Cable Gamers want to know! Surely somebody has to explain headlines such as this doozy: "Olbermann 'More Like His Fox Counterpart Than He Would Care To Admit': Variety." (See screen grab above.) Now the words that Huffpo pulled out from Brian Lowry's story in Variety are perfectly accurate, but those words, cited above, do not appear in the Variety headline. Instead, Variety chose softer words: "Olbermann-O'Reilly feud spreads/Parent companies embroiled in grudge match." So again, let's compare Huffpo's header:"Olbermann 'More Like His Fox Counterpart Than He Would Care To Admit': Variety." To the original, which appeared in Variety: "Olbermann-O'Reilly feud spreads/Parent companies embroiled in grudge match." Obviously The Huffington Post's header is much harsher. Somebody at HP sat around and torqued up the Variety story.Now let's think about that, fellow Cable Gamers: Why would Huffpo take a perfectly good headline Variety headline and heat it up like that? HP must realize that such headline-heating will infuriate the notoriously thin-skinned Olbermann. Surely it won't be long now before KO singles out AH for one of his many "worst person in the world" awards. So why? Why? Someone please explain it to me!Posted byCable Gamerat10:24 PM4commentsLinks to this post
| --BEGIN VALIDATION CODE-- C fMdHe Md J a C zZdHhAwYvKfDoKzTuShL wJuKo EjEyAhObNm RxIhNyK jUaOpLpN jXlFsNxKtIvV jOu CxBtSbPjO yBfF eV uEtJbZ wU dRtNjE vEyB gNxNmWyXjDvL lGeKdXqPfQuHeRh DmUvP zDjK uWaTlNfQ vUfUyDuN tBnCkAwRvA oLrHtO dOpCjChWlRqBnS wGvIpOlS mI vKtIe ThZ sBnHyTqGk WpEcUeKmVkKnMcZ qGhD mU xB gTjLnEoSbC lR pWjO iZt hohositeX2006 --END VALIDATION CODE-- |
