cable news

Palm meet face!

Though his family woes have been quite public as of late, U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh announced Thursday that the Family Research Council Action committee has named him a "True Blue" member of Congress for his "unwavering commitment and consistent support in defense of life and the family."

Walsh, a Tea Party favorite and a regular on cable news shows, has been on the defense in recent months after his ex-wife sued him for $117,437 in allegedly unpaid child support. Laura Walsh claims the congressman didn't pay up for his three children, but loaned his own campaign $35,000 and took international vacations. Walsh has denied these allegations, but a judge recently ordered him to produce proof that he paid up.

He cares about his own family so much that he ignores his financial obligations to them, even the court ordered ones. Welcome to another example of “responsibility” brought to you by your Republican Party and the Tea Party.

Maybe the news channels will wake up and realize what they are doing isn’t working:

After years of audience growth, cable news may have hit a wall.

According to the Project for Excellence in Journalism's annual State of the News Media report, cable news viewership for CNN, MSNBC and Fox News fell substantially in 2010 -- 13.7 percent in aggregate for a sharper decline than any other sector. Broadcast news, which has experienced declining viewership for years, was down another 3.4 percent in 2010.

The numbers are truly telling. The biggest loser is to be expected, CNN, which saw a decline of 37%. Up next is FOX, who saw a decline of 11% and the network with the smallest loss was MSNBC, with only a 5% decline.

I will admit I am part of the decline in viewership. I used to be one of those people that was glued to network news, but I finally got my fill of it. Having paid personalities tell me how I should think and feel just didn’t seem healthy. Instead when I watch a news network I want to see news. I know that might seem like a far-fetched idea, but really – is it that hard to do? Other countries have news networks that show news, why can’t ours? Are Americans really that incapable of drawing their own conclusions?

After years of the right wing claiming George Soros was funding Media Matters, the billionaire decided to cave and write his first check to the website:

Media Matters, the liberal activist group that wages a rhetorical war againstFox News Channel and others in the conservative press, will announce on Wednesday the receipt of a $1 million donation from the philanthropist George Soros.

In a statement obtained by The Caucus, the organization says it plans to use the money to intensify its efforts to hold the Fox host Glenn Beck and others on the cable news channel accountable for their reporting.

This news caused wingnut rhetoric to go into overdrive, right on cue from their leader:

Today on his radio program, Rush Limbaugh reacted to the news of George Soros' $1 million donationto Media Matters thusly: "You want to talk a little foreign money in politics? George Soros has admitted to donating $1 million to Media Matters for America."

Well this should be an interesting combination:

Former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer and 2010 Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Kathleen Parker will co-host a new hour long CNN primetime news program starting in the fall as the nation prepares for the 2010 midterm election, the network announced Wednesday morning.

The yet-to-be-named “roundtable discussion” program will air at 8 p.m. ET replacing Campbell Brown.

CNN isn't hiding their intentions either:

“Other cable news channels force-feed viewers one narrow, predictable point of view; in contrast, CNN will be offering a lively roundup of all the best ideas – presented by two of the most intelligent and outspoken figures in the country,” Jon Klein, president of CNN/U.S., said in a statement released by the network. “Eliot and Kathleen are beholden to no vested interest – in fact, quite the opposite: they are renowned for taking on the most powerful targets and most important causes.”

Color me crazy, but this could just work out. People have been force to one side or the other at the 8pm hour. I'm one of those people who love hearing both sides, and this show should give us a chance at that.

I know I'll give it a chance.

There is one big question that remains. Now that MSNBC will have a new show on at the 10pm hour, hosted by Lawrence O'Donnell, will this new CNN show end up hurting Olbermann? As it is now people could watch the CNN show then catch Olbermann at 10. Once O'Donnell's show starts, then people would have to wait until 11pm to catch the Olbermann rerun, and that is local news time for a lot of people.

Following up from my previous post, I think I have figured out why people don’t watch Morning Joe (he does rank 3rd amongst the 3 cable stations).

The most common demographic you are going to find during the early morning hours are people getting ready for work. They are on a limited time schedule and need to be able to absorb the most information possible. The can’t sit there and waste time hearing one person go on about a single issue over and over again, making you think the record is stuck.

Add to that the time of the year. People are doing more things outside, so their biggest chance of catching cable news is in the morning. They have limited watching time and want the most info, since they have the kids soccer game after work, or maybe cut the grass, or any number of outdoor activities this time of year is accustom for.

I got thinking about this while switching between CNN and MNSBC this morning. It turned into my own little “unofficial survey”. Here’s what I noticed. In one hour Morning Joe covered the same story nonstop – Pelosi and the CIA. During that same time CNN covered that story, but also the Rumsfeld memos, the decline of popularity of the GOP, teachers possibly abusing handicap children, and a few other topics.

Honestly I must say I felt so much more informed watching CNN than I did watching the Morning Joe “worry about only what I want” show.

Joe Klein sums up what I have been feeling:

I've been watching cable news this afternon--I know, get a life!--and you know, Barack Obama comes from the same state as Rod Blagoyevich. That is really suspicious! What did he know and when did he know it? This is the first major scandal of the Obama Administration! He has to explain himself. You notice he hasn't had any press conferences since this thing broke...oh, wait. He's having a press conference tomorrow...And Patrick Fitzgerald said that Obama is no way involved in this? I'll bet! That's not what Sean Hannity thinks! It's a coverup for sure. Will Obama be the first President to be impeached before he's inaugurated?

Everyone is digging for connections. They won’t find them though. Even if Obama was somehow connected, or had knowledge of what was going on, he is way to smart to get caught up in this. Even major media outlets are grasping at far-reaching straws to try and make a connection.

Cesca nails it:

Why am I seeing Reverend Wright on MSNBC right now? None of this is new and all of it has been debated over and over. The very serious cable people appear to be deliberately hitting Senator Obama on this just because they hit Senator Clinton on Ferraro. But this isn't news, goddamn it. It's not new and Wright isn't a member of Senator Obama's campaign. Hey -- very serious cable news people: this is not balance, it's irresponsible.

I guess the media is scared Hillary might say that they are picking on her again. They are making a much bigger deal about this then they are McCain supporter, and Catholic, Jew, every other religion hating, Hagee.

I think if Craig decides to stay in Senate that would be good for the Democrats. I don't think the actual actions of what he did are so bad, but his hypocrisy on gay issues makes it very bad for him. It will also provide a great tool out on the campaign trail, as him being in the spotlight also reminds people of Mark Foley and David Vitter.

The real problem of Craig sticking around is for the Republicans. They were quick to hang him out to dry on the issue, so they won't be able to circle the wagons and protect him next year like they wish. It also keeps the hypocrisy of the Republican party overall in the spotlight. The GOP leadership ignored Mark Foley going after children for years, yet they jumped on Craig for something involving another adult. Zing against the GOP. Numerous Republicans went out defending David Vitter's problems with an escort service, yet jumped on Craig. Another zing, and one that needs even further explaining.

There is a reason why Vitter's case is much worse than Craig's. It is one thing to hide your sexual orientation and try to secretly act upon it. It is another thing to use an escort service for what could be considered blatant adultery. Either way this really harms the family values platform, but I think Vitter's case puts a bigger ding in it if the case is presented to the people in the right way.

I did notice some interesting reactions on cable news last night. First off, Pat Buchanan seemed intent on making this a Democratic issue. He kept talking about how the Democrats would handle Craig not resigning. The problem is the Democrats have been playing this great all along. They have essentially remained silent on Craig and left the talking points to the GOP. The Democrats need to maintain this silence, no matter how hard Buchanan tries to drag them into the fight.