March 21st, 2017
By Joe Concha.
Comments Off on Cronkite Award for Ramos signals a more partisan age in journalism
December 6th, 2015
By Joe Concha.
The mass shootings last week at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood clinic and yesterday afternoon in San Bernardino, California are horrible, unspeakable acts that are now all-too common in today’s America. And the reaction in the media and on Twitter to these events has been profoundly sickening. Disturbing. Almost psychotic…
We keep hearing about how hopelessly polarized this country has become. We see the vitriol amped up by each side of the political spectrum… particularly members of the media who find any and all ways to politicize and exploit every mass shooting in an attempt to blame what they perceive as the other side. There was once a time tragedies like this would bring the country together. Now it’s become a game of one-upsmanship for political debate. This was painfully evident all afternoon and evening on social media, where one could witness second-by-second liberals and conservatives both not so-subtlety hoping, rooting for the identities of the shooters in San Bernardino to either be white supremacists or Islamic terrorists, all in the pathetic effort to advance the preferred narrative.
But the tipping point in this war of words comes with a Thursday New York Daily News cover that is nothing short of revolting, basically blaming Ted Cruz (R), Rand Paul (R), Lindsay Graham (R) and Paul Ryan (R) for not preventing the deaths of 14 people and 17 wounded because of their support of the 2nd Amendment. The other crime? Sending out condolences to the victims and families of Wednesday’s mass murder.
Of course, this is the same publication that featured this cover in 2014:
And then there’s this:
And then there was this judgment-free headline in 2012:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/obama-responds-newtown-teachers-note-article-1.1222061
Prayers by some after tragedies are fine. Others? Not so much. Obviously depends on the letter in parenthesis after the name. So here’s a question: If the two suspects responsible for San Bernardino are products of radical Islamic terror (San Bernardino police confirm the names of the suspects as Syed Rizwon Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27, with the Federal Joint Terrorism Task Force now involved and a motive not yet officially determined), please explain again how those four Republican politicians on the cover are being linked to these 14 deaths again?
That question likely won’t be answered and no apology will ever come, of course, because the Daily News is already patting itself on the back for having its most re-tweeted cover of 2015 in record time. Know this: Going viral is really the goal here, you see. Selling more papers the overwhelming objective. In case you haven’t heard, the paper is already in very big trouble, losing $20 million per year and sinking fast. Owner Mort Zuckerman put it up for sale earlier this year, but there were no takers. Staffers are being let go left and right. Like other papers before it, it cannot and will not survive too much longer at this rate.
So if the Daily News puts up a cover as shameful as it is hypocritical and it goes out of business tomorrow, who cares about the ramifications of one little headline, right?
Because if you think this problem simply is solely about guns–and nobody is saying there’s isn’t work to do on that front regarding gun show loopholes, for example, because there absolutely is–you’re not paying attention. More FBI agents are needed. Hundreds, thousands more (the suspects’ home is being called an IED factory). Vigilance via reporting to authorities by, for example, the neighbors of the suspects who were suspicious but said nothing perhaps also could have prevented this. Mental illness also is a huge factor if the perpetrators of other mass killings we’ve seen this year alone is any indication. This is a multi-layered, extremely complex issue. Pointing the finger in such simplistic fashion and screaming “Do something!” at the Speaker of the House and some presidential candidates isn’t going to accomplish anything except divide us further…
Some of you will cheer the Daily News for its choice. Others will call it for it is: Exploitative. Reckless. Offensive. This is the same paper who put the moment of death for two young journalists in Virginia shot and killed on live tv on its cover back in August and was properly slammed for it.
Does the publication go down this route because they care?
Of course not.
This is how it works what passes for journalism in 2015. Usually the addition by division adage applies here, yet the number of readers keeps subtracting.
Nothing — not even a heavily-retweeted headline can save the New York Daily News now.
Good riddance.
>>Follow Joe Concha on Twitter @JoeConchaTV
Comments Off on Daily News Cover Revolting as Worthless Paper Throws Hail Mary Just to Survive
September 28th, 2015
A column making the rounds on social media this weekend via the New York Times is titled “Carly Fiorina Really Was That Bad.” You can guess the content from there: Fiorina was the worst CEO since Jeffrey Skilling while the writer cherry-picks through different numbers and gauges to formulate the pre-decided, foregone conclusion.
Debate the details or Fiorina’s record to your heart’s content. Given this is Mediaite, this column is about trust and disclosure at/by the New York Times. So when the byline showed Steve Rattnerto be the author, I scrolled to the bottom first before reading the body. And sure enough, here’s how the Times decided to characterize Mr. Rattner:
Steven Rattner is a Wall Street executive and contributing opinion writer.
And that’s it. So to the average reader, one who doesn’t live in the political bubble, Rattner is just a benign, apolitical Wall Street executive and contributing op-ed writer who simply wanted to get the truth out about the hottest candidate in the GOP race right now (up 11 and 12 points in the latest CNN and NBC post-debate polls, respectively). Not mentioned by the Times is the fact Rattner was oncePresident Obama‘s “Car Czar” back during the Cash-for-Clunkers days. He’s also a major fundraiserfor (drumroll…) Hillary Clinton.
So should the paper of record have mentioned those little tidbits in addition to “Wall Street executive”? Yup. Did it? Of course not.
But here’s where the Times shows precisely why a solid majority of Americans don’t trust the media: in 2010, Rattner–the guy who apparently knows more about business and ethics than anyone… just ask him–paid $10 million in fines in 2010 to the SEC for his alleged involvement in a widespread New York State pension fund scheme. Per the SEC’s Associate Director, David Rosenfeld:
“Rattner delivered special favors and conducted sham transactions that corrupted the Retirement Fund’s investment process. The assets of New York State workers were invested for the hidden purpose of enriching Henry Morris’ and David Loglisci’s brother.”
In other words, the Times still thinks it’s a fine idea to offer Rattner a byline to lecture us on what makes a CEO successful and what doesn’t. The same Rattner who has a clear conflict of interest in raising millions for Mrs. Clinton. What’s next, Grey Lady? Can we get an analysis on Fiorina’s performance from Bernie Madoff next weekend?
Will Fiorina’s tenure at Hewlett Packard be a campaign issue as her popularity continues to grow? Absolutely. It’s on her resumé and therefore fair game.
But if you’re The New York Times, I would think you could find someone other than Steve Rattner to make that argument, or at the least to allow the audience to decide for itself if his background makes him a qualified and objective observer.
— —
Follow Joe Concha on Twitter @JoeConchaTV
Comments Off on Hillary fundraiser Steve Rattner is now NYT’s Carly Fiorina expert
July 4th, 2015
By Joe Concha.
CNN really needs to rethink its relationship with political analyst Paul Begala…
Seems like a fun and funny guy — Happy Hour and all the dirt he could share would be a hoot to hear about. But the conflict of interest — and let’s face it, the line between media and politicos is so blurred these days it’s hard to find on-air talent without at least a little — may still be too much for the network to justify paying him. Because after reading the following from thelatest Hillary Clinton email dump (the ones her staff wants us to see, anyway), this is what the New York Times uncovered:
While an ostensibly nonpartisan figure as secretary, Mrs. Clinton clearly still worried about retiring her $23 million campaign debt from 2008. “Thank you so very much!!!” her chief of protocol, Capricia Marshall, wrote to Paul Begala, a longtime Clinton friend and Democratic strategist, in April 2009. “We raised 500K from the email contest!! You are all amazing — the world adores you!” She added, “You put a serious hole in HRC debt!”
Mr. Begala [asked] for talking points before he went on CNN to rate Mrs. Clinton’s early performance. Ms. Marshall referred him to several State Department aides. After his appearance, Mr. Begala emailed back: “I gave Sec. Clinton an A+ in our dopey CNN report card last night.” Ms. Mills forwarded that to Mrs. Clinton with an “FYI.”
No need to review and connect the dots here too deeply here. Begala asked the friggin’ State Department how he should think on national television regarding Hillary Clinton’s performance as Secretary of State. Just check off all the boxes:
Serious conflict of Interest? Check.
Makes the audience seriously question his credibility? Check.
Characterized a CNN segment that was supposed to be somewhat serious “dopey” – which producers there must have loved to hear? Check.
Ran an email contest while employed by CNN to retire $500,000 in campaign debt from Mrs. Clinton’s failed 2008 presidential campaign? Check.
Need more proof? Here’s an email directly from Begala to the State Department that’s making the rounds all over Twitter:
View image on Twitter
It’s hard to imagine a scenario where this is a one-and-done kind of act. Partisans exist everywhere in cable news. That’s understood. But this is written collusion between government officials and a veteran media member and therefore a whole new bowl of wrong. CNN needs to have a long conversation with Begala and ask him if he’s done this kind of thing again and if so…how often. And regardless of answer — because denial is likely the route almost anyone would take with so much to lose — needs to really consider what to do with him next.
Comments Off on Hillary Email Dump Shows CNN Really Needs to Rethink Relationship with Paul Begala
May 14th, 2015
George Stephanopoulos needs to remove himself from ABC’s This Week on Sunday mornings immediately. And if he won’t do it himself, ABC News management — starting with ABC president James Goldston — needs to do it for him.
Why? Because Stephanopoulos, a former senior advisor to President Bill Clinton, apologized todayfor not disclosing $75,000 in contributions to the Clinton Foundation.
We talk about optics in this space regularly, and when ABC News’ chief anchor and host of its Sunday morning political talk show donates to the likely Democratic nominee’s charitable foundation and doesn’t reveal that fact before every interview he does with anyone seen as an enemy or competitor of the Clintons, it’s hiding in clear sight an obvious conflict of interest.
More than a few people in the business wondered aloud why Stephanopulos conducted such a partisan interview with Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash. It was as if we were witnessing the 1993 version of George, the one who served as de facto press secretary for the Clinton administration, trying to destroy a narrative as if he was getting paid to do it. In case you missed it, Schweizer’s credibility was attacked for the entire interview while exactly zero of his claims about the Clintons were even remotely entertained by the host — the same who contributed to the very foundation in question.
Regardless of whether a donation to a charitable foundation has any effect on the way the anchor and moderator went/goes about his business in covering the 2016 is completely besides the point. Keith Olbermann — you may recall — got fired for donating to two Democratic congressional campaigns a few years ago (at least that was the excuse given by MSNBC brass to end the rocky relationship).
To that end, nobody is saying Stephanopoulos should be fired for this. But a suspension certainly makes sense given his failure to disclose the three donations he made ($25K each) over a three-year span, and the poor light this sheds on ABC, currently #1 in the primetime news race. And when he returns, Martha Raddatz should take his seat out of the This Week bullpen, which she’s already used to doing on occasion. As for his hosting GMA, that can go on after the suspension because serious politics are discussed less and less on the program.
Is all of this too harsh? Not even close.
Because the next time Stephanopoulos goes at a Sens. Paul or Cruz or Rubio or Govs. Bush or Huckabee or Dr. Carson or (insert 10 other candidates here) hard, half the audience will simply screambias, even if the donation and his former occupation in the Clinton White House has no bearing on how the anchor performs his duties. And on cue, here’s what Rand Paul had to say to the New York Timestoday:
It’s impossible to divorce yourself from that, even if you try. I just think it’s really, really hard because he’s been there, so close to them, that there would be a conflict of interest if he tried to be a moderator of any sort.
To his credit, Stephanopoulos has declared he won’t be moderating any debates. But it isn’t quite enough. He could have disclosed the donations last year, the year before. He could have said it was for a good cause. He could have also donated to a Bush charity to even the score and eliminate any image of impropriety.
Instead, the face of ABC News got caught and apologized after the fact. For that, he should be put on mandatory vacation for a week or two.
And when he comes back, enjoy his newfound Sundays off.
Comments Off on ABC Must Bench Stephanopoulos on Sunday Mornings for Failure to Disclose Clinton Donation
February 7th, 2015
By Joe Concha.
Baseball has an old and fast rule regarding umpiring: If an ump is making questionable calls around balls and strikes but is consistent in terms of the parameters of his strike zone, pitchers and batters on both sides can’t have a problem with it.
In media, editorial decisions are much like umpiring: Just keep it consistent. So when the news broke that Fox News.com (and later,TheBlaze) had decided to air the full 22-minute-plus video recorded and produced by ISIS, the first question that popped into my mind was this:
Did either outlet also place the killings (via beheading) of Americans James Foley and Steven Sotloffat the hands of ISIS on its website as well?
The answer is no.
So while a very strong case can be made for posting the absolutely horrific video of Jordanian pilotMuath al-Kasaesbeh online in an effort to present the reality of Islamic terrorism, the questions are: Why now and why this particular execution? Fox News Executive Vice President and Editor John Moody wrote the following in a statement earlier:
After careful consideration, we decided that giving readers of FoxNews.com the option to see for themselves the barbarity of ISIS outweighed legitimate concerns about the graphic nature of the video. Online users can choose to view or not view this disturbing content.
And here’s how Glenn Beck explained his outlet’s decision: “Jews, gentiles, straight, gay, black, white, western, eastern, atheist, Christian or Muslim — it is time you recognize what you are up against, look it square in the eye and call it by its name: evil and a plague on mankind.”
Moody’s and Beck’s reasoning is sound and half the country likely agrees with them. But it’s impossible to ignore their inconsistency when it comes to these kind of decisions, once Foley and Sotloff are brought into the equation.
Note: YouTube has already taken down the video. No other cable outlets outside of TheBlaze are showing it in this capacity. This isn’t Charlie Hebdo, where the line was almost evenly split between those who would the first cover post-attack featuring a benign image of the Prophet Muhammed (with the caption, “All is Forgiven”).
In that case, CNN, NBC, NPR and ABC, among others, wouldn’t show the cover for various reasons, along with The New York Times, Daily Mail and Associated Press on the print side. Fox, CBS News, the BBC, Germany’s ARD and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, however, did show that cover, as did France’s Liberation, The Guardian in Britain, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Mediaite and USA Today. Obviously, there was some debate with Charlie Hebdo. But with this ISIS video showing Mr. al-Kasaesbesh being burned alive in a cage, Fox and TheBlaze stand alone.
Bold move? Completely irresponsible? If the online debate now exploding is any indication, this is as evenly polarizing as it gets. Sometimes there’s no right or wrong answer to tough editorial decision like the one Fox made this morning: Some are arguing that it only helps ISIS achieve its goal to spread fear and enhance recruitment. Others say it will serve as a serious wakeup call to Americans and those around the world in graphically illustrating the very real barbarism and savagery of ISIS in an effort to mobilize a true international effort against it.
To air or not to air? If Fox and TheBlaze called a consistent game behind the plate, the decision wouldn’t be as scrutinized as we’re witnessing. But to avoid Foley and Sotloff — along with all other journalists and aid workers who have been beheaded since August — their decision feels more arbitrary than anything else.
– –
Comments Off on Fox Decision to Publish Jordanian Pilot’s Death Video Lacks Consistency
December 24th, 2014
By Joe Concha.
Outside of the president, Al Sharpton might possibly be the most powerful man in America right now. And no, that isn’t an overstatement.
Think about what the 60-year-old activist and MSNBC host has going for him right now:
Power Indicator #1: Sharpton has been to the White House to advise President Barack Obama, his senior advisor Valerie Jarrett, or both. No big deal, right?Plenty of MSNBC hosts have visited over the past six years.
Care to guess, according to the White House Visitor Log, just how many times Sharpton has visited since Mr. Obama took office? Five times? Nope. 15 times? Try again. 25 times? Getting warmer. He’s visited at least 35 times. Quite the feat considering Sharpton is an unelected official living about 250 miles away from DC.
Do you think any other civilians have that kind of frequent access?
Power Indicator #2: Nobody controls him. Need proof? Just look at all the protests happening Tuesday night around New York after his former BFF, Mayor Bill de Blasio, asked him to cease and desist until after the two slain Brooklyn officers were laid to rest later in the week. This isn’t a compliment, but Sharpton showed once again he doesn’t take orders from anyone.
His approval rating among blacks stands at 69 percent (yes, Quinnipiac conducts polls on Sharpton despite him not receiving one vote to represent any district or state). And when city residents were asked in the same poll who their most important leader was, Sharpton finished first, beating even President Obama and longtime Rep. Charlie Rangel in the process.
Talk about polarizing: Almost 80 percent of black people say he’s been a positive force for the city. Almost 60 percent of Democrats feel the same way. But 81 percent of Republicans say he’s been a negative force. How does Sharpton become the epicenter in every story involving race? Simple: He looks at those numbers and knows he can play one side against the other and puts himself in a position of power accordingly. Understand: The only contingent Sharpton cares about is that of the African-American community. Protecting his brand among blacks is the only thing that matters.
Power Indicator #3: Sharpton has a national television platform for a full hour Monday through Friday on MSNBC. For Sharpton, it’s just a daily trip to the podium. Opposition? Dissent? You’re kidding, right? Sharpton is almost never challenged by his guests because they’re booked based on the premise of agreeing with the host on whatever topic is being discussed. And as stated here on a few occasions, echo chambers never make for compelling television, and the Nielsen numbers for Sharpton’s PoliticsNation especially reflect that sentiment.
Despite being in the middle of many of the biggest stories of the year, the Rev’s return on investment is equal to whatever the ruble is trading at these days. On Monday, for example, on a day where his name was front and center again following the reaction to the execution of two police officers in Brooklyn, Sharpton’s program couldn’t generate even half the audience in the key demo of Wolf Blitzer on CNN, who finished a distant second to Fox’s Special Report (guest anchored by John Roberts that evening). Overall, Sharpton gets beat anywhere from 2-1 (CNN) to 3-1 and even 4-1 by Fox. So despite the spotlight he seems to generate outside of 30 Rock, he can’t seem bring that interest over to his program. And here’s why…
From a critical perspective, Sharpton is as awkward to watch as anyone on television. He’s simply terrible in a host role despite more than three years of at-bats to improve. If you can find even one notable critic who believes otherwise, please send along that review.
So if the ratings are bad and the delivery even worse, why and how does Sharpton still have a program on the air? Answer: Because Comcast and NBC — and this is just an educated guess — must bepetrified to fire him (by, yes, the race card being turned against them). Remember, Sharpton gave his crucial blessing to the Comcast/NBC Universal merger a few years back. Not long after, he was magically given his own show at 6:00 p.m. on MSNBC. Reciprocity at its finest.
Power Indicator #4: Unlike the rest of us, he’s excused from paying taxes. Per a November story in the ultra-right-wing New York Times, he owes $4.5 million (and growing) in current state and federal liens against him and his National Action Network. More on that:
Mr. Sharpton and the National Action Network have repeatedly failed to pay travel agencies, hotels and landlords. He has leaned on the generosity of friends and sometimes even the organization, intermingling its finances with his own to cover his daughters’ private school tuition.
Sounds pretty serious. So will he be prosecuted? No. Will he still have the president’s ear? The Revknows he’s teflon on this given his friends at the top of the food chain in D.C., and willingly flaunts being above the law and even common decency.
And nobody dares challenge him.
The president notwithstanding, Sharpton appears to be the most powerful man in America right now. Just ask Amy Pascal at Sony if she agrees. As we see time and again, he can do and say whatever he wants, and even has a national megaphone on one cable network to spread his message. The White House might as well be a second office listed on Sharpton’s business card. Meanwhile, debts of all stripes and sizes simply go unpaid. Bill de Blasio wins with 72 percent of the vote, or 72 percent more than Sharpton received, but guess who really runs the show in the Big Apple?
Regardless of whether you agree with Sharpton or not, he owns the kind of political power that no other unelected public figure in this country has seen possibly since Capone. And before you say it can’t last forever, keep in mind he is coming up on three controversial decades as a public figure.
In other words, he ain’t going anywhere.
Only in America.
Comments Off on Al Sharpton Arguably Now the Most Powerful Person in America
April 6th, 2014
By Joe Concha.
Putin’s reviving a Stalin-era fitness program to toughen up Russians—with help from Steven Seagal. Why do today’s strongmen have such a weakness for our washed-up celebrities?
Say what you will about Vladimir Putin. For a guy in his sixties—at least based on the shirtless horseback photos we’ve all seen—he’s in better shape than most of us.
So it’s not surprising to see Russia’s president—who has dominated the world stage thanks to a bloodless takeover of Crimea—stress the importance of physical fitness to his 143 million-plus population. It’s all part of his latest initiative to
revive a Stalin-era conditioning programappropriately titled “Ready for Labor and Defense.” Funding for the project is courtesy of all the revenue generated from the recent Sochi Olympics Games, estimated to be in the billions.
Details around the program itself are still fuzzy at this point, but the old USSR version consisted of citizens entering athletic contests such as swimming, skiing, jumping, running, and (of course) grenade tossing (seriously, that’s not a joke). Putin says the program will teach his citizens how “to stand up for themselves, their family, and, in the final run, the Fatherland.” Anyone else feel like watching Rocky IV right about now?
But while Putin is a rock star in Russia (his approval rating is about 40 points higher than President Obama at 80 percent, which is still 20 percent lower than Kim Jong-un of North Korea), he still needs a celebrity pitchman to spread the word on TV and the ‘Net. And what better way to thumb his nose at the U.S. (for the 19th time this month) than calling on Hollywood badass megastar Steven Seagal to push a fitness agenda?
Seagal—like Putin, is 61 years old. But unlike the former KGBer, the actor’s belly appears to be, well… Under Siege. No exact number is available, but at 6’4, Seagal has to be pushing 300 pounds, which is about 100 pounds heavier than he was in his ‘90s prime. No matter. Putin is simply following the playbook of the aforementioned Kim, who began a bromance with former NBA bad boy Dennis Rodman last year. Is Seagal being compensated by Putin re-gifting Bob Kraft’s Super Bowl ring to him? Pravda cannot confirm at this time.
Whether it’s Seagal or Rodman, there’s one thing the Russians and North Koreans have likely noted whenever either leader appears with them publicly:Boatloads of attention from the American media. Seagal praises Putin as the “world’s greatest leader” and the press comes running. Rodman goes all Marilyn Monroe and sings “Happy Birthday” in Pyongyang, and it gets the kind of coverage one would expect on cable news (See: LOTS). And when that happens, the information ministries of both countries take note and likely conclude that Seagal and Rodman are A-list icons to the American public.
Except, of course, they’re anything but…
We’re talking 15 years since either has warranted attention for doing anything that didn’t involve controversy or personal issues.
Was Seagal once a leading action figure? Of course. His films, from Out for Justice to Half Past Dead (classic title), made $700 million at the box office. As for Rodman, he won five NBA titles and is arguably the greatest rebounder ever (particularly offensive boards) despite never being the tallest guy on the court (he’s listed at 6’7).
But when it comes to relevancy, we’re talking 15 years since either has warranted attention for doing anything that didn’t involve controversy or personal issues. Having said that, Seagal has been married four times and has seven kids (and appears to be pregnant with an 8th). As for Rodman, since winning his last NBA championship with Michael Jordan’s Chicago Bulls in 1998, the Worm has redefined the term hot mess. The highlight (or lowlight, depending on your perspective) includes his work with an Irish gambling website that was actually taking bets on who the next pope would be back in March 2013.
Rodman at the Vatican: “I’m just promoting this website. It’s a gambling website, and it’s about people who are going to bet on the new pope, and if he’s black, you get your money back.”
So Putin gets his pal Steven Seagal—who isn’t going to be starring in any action movies this year unlike his contemporaries Schwarzenegger, Willis, and Stallone—to push a Stalinist fitness program in an effort to show the Americans that one of its own strongly supports Mother Russia.
Seagal (and Rodman) now follow in the dubious shoes of has-beens Sean Penn (former BFF: Hugo Chavez) and Oliver Stone (Ditto: Fidel Castro).
Which ‘90s star is next to defy his or her nation?
Wesley Snipes?
Emilio Estevez?
Alicia Silverstone?
Whoever it is, one thing is certain:
It will attract attention… for all the wrong reasons.
Comments Off on What Is the Fascist Fascination With America’s D-Listers?
March 18th, 2014
This is a breaking news alert: CNN, Fox and MSNBC all have their specialties.
For CNN, it’s still breaking news despite the (correct) move to offer more taped programs (See: documentaries) in later hours of primetime…a time when the day’s news has been thoroughly reported and analyzed to that point. The proof is always in the numbers, and every CNN documentary offered up recently has been the highest rated show for the network that day or night in both the demo and total viewers (usually finishing ahead of MSNBC but behind Fox). But big breaking stories, particularly those that help the network leverage its international resources, is where CNN’s bread will always be buttered during dayside and early prime.
For Fox, it’s continuing to maintain the balancing act between breaking/hard news and commentary. Find me someone who beats Shepard Smith in delivering the former, win valuable prizes. The ability to improvise in a factual and oftentimes candidly charming way (for lack of a better term) is almost an anomaly in news both network and cable. In this regard, there’s Shep, and there’s everyone else. And when day turns to night, the commentary topics–which lean right–and presentation of such are invariably chosen wisely and offered up with passion and at the proper pace. Agree or disagree with the overall narrative…the decision making on which topics make the cut and which ones don’t by producers and anchors alike in putting together a program is impressive. Fox’s hosts sell them and sell them well. The numbers prove it, even among younger audiences.
For MSNBC, it’s all about progressive politics and no longer pretending to care about breaking news, which may prove to be a sage decision. Know this: The Boston bombing was very well done by MSNBC when the network wisely leaned heavily on the mothership that is NBC News and particularly the greatPete Williams in the field. But the network saw the Nielsen results for breaking story after breaking story—and it wasn’t pretty compared to Fox and CNN. So it decided to go all-all-in on political stories and narratives instead.
The old saying is you can’t kinda get a girl pregnant. That’s basically MSNBC’s philosophy on breaking news in 2014. The network may give hard news a fair amount time when the story is unavoidable (like the missing 777 plane), but by no means is any story that doesn’t involve Democrats or Republicans going to win even 15 minutes of any hour. Note: This isn’t a criticism, just a perspective on where things are going.
The proof of this trend couldn’t be more perfectly expressed during Wednesday night’s 8:00 p.m. EST hour. On CNN, Anderson Cooper took the baton from Erin Burnett and continued blanket coverage of the missing 777. Burnett’s Outfront did it basically for the full hour, Cooper continued the theme. As did Piers Morgan…
Compare that to Fox, where Bill O’Reilly didn’t touch the plane story (leading with a Gallup poll on what Americans worry about most), and even opting for a packaged Best of Miller Time segment (Dennis Miller) during the show’s E-block (about 45 minutes in). As for MSNBC, the lead story was host Chris Hayes explaining how the Democrats’ Special Election loss in Florida really shows just “how fraudulent the entire conservative uprising during the Obama years has been since the very beginning.” We’ll leave reaction to that fascinating analysis for the fun folks in the comments section below.
So here you have three cable news shows going in three very different directions. This wasn’t the case even a few years ago, when all would likely be trying to do the same story (the missing 777). Now–at editorial meetings held every day at each network to lay out content strategy–it’s a matter of, “Look…this plane situation is CNN’s baby. Let them have it in primetime. We need to give our audience what they come here for every night. We need to offer something different.”)
The result has been a considerable ratings bump for CNN (easily beating MSNBC but falling short of Fox), which has struggled in this department since the Chris Christie scandal broke.
Speaking of which, in the Christie instance, CNN and MSNBC both initially covered that scandal heavily (the latter still does), with Fox showing modest interest. But once it was apparent Christie was MSNBC’s baby, CNN punted instead of playing second fiddle. Ultimately, MSNBC got its ratings bump, andcontinues to squeeze the Christie orange for every last drop. Almost night after night, Bridgegate was/is the lead story on MSNBC. Not because it’s the most important news item out there, but because the political landscape for Democrats isn’t something the network’s progressive audience wants to hear about in too much detail: Impending doom in the midterms, Obamacare’s continued failures/delays, the President’s lame-duck status and sinking poll numbers…
Then along came the Ukraine crisis, which—for the same reasons the network is all-in on Malaysia—CNN, like that old game when running to a car and securing the passenger seat, called shotgun first. A quality piece by Mediaite’s Andrew Kirell breaks down the time and resources spent on this story nicely here.
As we head into Thursday night, CNN gets at least another four days of missing plane coverage thanks to a new Wall Street Journal report that the 777 may have flown for four hours after going off radar. The mystery grows…and so will CNN’s ratings thanks to being Missing Plane HQ since the story broke almost one week ago.
The only question is…what if the plane is never found? As pointed out by CNN’s Tom ForemanThursday morning, if the WSJ report is true, the search area is now larger than the continental United States (See: almost impossible to find). It’s almost unprecedented: How does a network pivot out of such a big story with no closure, no ending? The answer is unclear. What isn’t is that folks will continue to tune–at least for the time being while events continue to unfold—even if most of the reporting is built on speculation.
It used to be that CBS, NBC and ABC used to fight to win the same big stories.
Same deal for CNN, Fox News and MSNBC.
But each on the cable side has chosen its niche…decided precisely where its bread is buttered.
News on the latest Obamacare delay? Go to Fox.
News on Gov. Christie? Lean Forward.
News on a missing jet? All three will provide the latest, but only one is going wall-to-wall day and night. If you’re interested in that story, you know where to go. If you’re looking for something different, you also know where to go.
And when the next big story comes around, it may be MSNBC going wall-to-wall. Or Fox. It’s simply a rotation of what narrative falls into what wheelhouse on a particularly day or week.
Such is the specialized state of cable news in 2014.
Comments Off on Finders Keepers: Cable News Now About Going All-In on One Story, One Narrative
Follow Mediaite