The purpose of this post is actually twofold.

First, it’s to point out the inconsistencies in what presidential candidate John McCain says in various interviews.   Here’s the video in question.

Towards the end, you’ll note criticism of the media.  That’s a little ironic, since some of the clips selected feature the mainstream media calling McCain on some of the very points this video is making.

But criticizing the media is just so much fun that it should be okay.  Even if the criticism itself is a little skewed and misses a few facts…like the reports the critics like to jump on so much.

If you watched the 134th running of the Kentucky Derby on NBC this past Saturday, you likely did not see the shocking aftermath of the race, when three-year-old filly Eight Belles collapsed just past the finish line, the ankles of both front legs broken.

At one point, the network replayed footage from a blimp, but did not take close-up shots.

Sally Jenkins, sports columnist at the Washington Post, called NBC’s decision to cut away from the horse lying on the ground “cowardlike:”

“The camera cut away from her, but it should have stayed on her. Eight Belles had run herself half to death yesterday, and now the vets were finishing the job as she lay on her side, her beautiful figure a black hump on the track.”

She goes on to point out that twice since 2006, horses have gone down on live television with “catastrophic injuries.” “Horses are being over-bred and over raced, until their bodies cannot support their own ambitions, or those of the humans who race them,” she said.

But it wasn’t that NBC wasn’t aware of the unfolding tragedy. As USA Today sports columnist Michael Hiestand pointed out, “NBC’s production truck had close-ups of the injured filly it could have chosen to show.” It didn’t, and that, Hiestand says, was the right call to have made.

NBC Sports producer Sam Flood described what he saw on the monitors inside the production truck:

“She was writhing. It was gruesome. I elected not to go to it for the simple reason it’s not something I’d like my wife or children at home to see.”

It is ironic that anyone is angry at NBC for making a judgment call that erred on the side of decency in not showing “gruesome” footage. How many times a day do people argue that the networks go entirely too far, showing footage that is anything but appropriate? And I’m not talking about prime time dramas like Desperate Housewives: producers of news get the same complaints routinely.

Not so ironically, the complaint about the lack of coverage appears part of a bigger agenda to skewer the horse racing industry, whether it deserves it or not, and there are serious reasons to ask why these animals are getting fatal injuries. But if you want the graphic images of a suffering animal shown because “we need a hard look at the real cost to the horses, no matter how upsetting and painful it is to see,” one has every right to question how completely unbiased you are.

As someone who works in the media, I find it sad that this producer, who seemingly took action for what seems to be the right reason, is coming under fire for not doing what gets complained about constantly.

Your turn: Should NBC have shown Eight Belles’ final agonizing moments have been broadcast? Or was cutting away the right thing to do for decency’s sake?

When the new president is inaugurated next January, another big change may take place: CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric might just be moving away from the big desk.

Or maybe not.

The Wall Street Journal reports that after two years of record-low national ratings, Couric is likely to leave the show, possibly just after the election is wrapped up. That’s about two years sooner than her current, $15-million-per-year contract is set to expire.

CBS News, on the other hand, says not so fast. A spokesperson for the network told reporters, “We are very proud of the ‘CBS Evening News,’ particularly our political coverage, and we have no plans for any changes regarding Katie or the broadcast.”

“We like being third place and are delighted that the ratings with Couric are lower than they were with interim anchor Bob Schieffer,” the spokesperson did not add.

As for Couric, she says she’s “working hard and having fun.” “My colleagues continue to impress me with their commitment to the newscast, and I am very proud of the show we put on.”

Should she stay or should she go? Do you watch her? Have you tried? Do you care?

If Fox News is regarded as the Conservative-friendly cable network, and CNN is regarded as the liberal counterpart, it might be interesting to note that for the first time since 2001, CNN managed to beat Fox News for one full quarter of the year in the category of news viewers most desirable to advertisers. That’s according to Nielsen, the company that tabulates television ratings.

Does that mean that the coverage on CNN is better, more balanced, or that people are getting tired of what they perceive as the dominant Republican spin? Is it supposed to show that the Democrats may be gaining steam going into November? Is this tide we’ve been hearing about for eight years really making serious progress at turning?

I guess only time will tell.

Of course there are those studies that show that Fox News coverage — we’re talking legitimate news coverage, not commentary, and there’s a big difference — equals or betters the others on being “fair and balanced.” But for those for whom perception is reality, and those whose perception is that Fox = GOP, this news might well cause some sleepless nights.

I think Hillary Clinton is trying a little too hard to convince voters of how experienced she is in dealing with potential world crises. At a recent press conference, in an attempt to demonstrate that she was right on the “front lines” when the world has been at war — as if anyone would believe that, anyway — she told the story of landing in Bosnia amid sniper fire and being rushed to safety.

She was referring to a visit to Tuzla in 1996, when she was First Lady. Though the war there was over, hostilities remained.

“There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

That’s how she described the scene.

Apparently, Hillary Clinton momentarily suffered from the same problem that hit Mike Huckabee when he was speaking about his comments on the AIDS crisis: she forgot that this happens to be the Information Age.

Let’s think about this for a second. The First Lady of the United States lands in a war-torn country, and has to dodge bullets as she is rushed to safety.

Does anyone really believe that this wouldn’t have been the top story for the week? We’d have seen images from this nightmarish scene plastered across every newscast since Clinton announced her candidacy. Rather than asking who you’d want answering some silly phone at 3:00am, she’d have replayed this video to demonstrate that she can indeed hit the ground running. Literally.

Even if no cameras were around, the scene would have been so well-described as to insure that no one forgot it. I’m sure that there wasn’t a national correspondent among the “lazy press corps” those liberal bloggers keep talking about who wasn’t scratching his head to remember the details of this story. And likely, he was also wondering why he wasn’t there covering such an exciting, visual event. And surely that “liberal media” that the conservative bloggers keep complaining about would easily remember such a harrowing experience for their First Lady.

One particular correspondent, CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson, didn’t have to wonder for long. She was there, it turns out. And her memory was somewhat different.

And unfortunately for Hillary Clinton, Attkisson’s memory was corroborated by videotape.

Clinton said:

“There was no greeting ceremony and we were basically told to run to our cars. That is what happened.”

But it isn’t. Video shows that there clearly was the greeting ceremony. Hillary is shown speaking to a little girl, with Chelsea also in attendance, and no sniper fire to be found. If it wasn’t enough that the First Lady would have to flee from gunfire, doesn’t she think we’d have remembered if young Chelsea had been in harm’s way?  Can’t she imagine that those annoying Republicans questioning her judgment as a mother for bringing her daughter into such an obviously-dangerous setting?

Even worse, the video depicts Hillary singing along at a USO show that featured Sinbad and Sheryl Crowe. Big smiles.

As if the embarrassment of being “busted” wasn’t bad enough, a Clinton aide then made matters worse by attempting to come to her rescue with an explanation: “She meant that there was fire on the hillside around the area when we landed, which was the case.” Trouble is, that ain’t what she said.

When a candidate reaches a point of blatantly making things up just to point out how much experience she has, when is it fair to question why she’s that desperate to make the point?

I heard in passing on the Today show this morning that Hillary Rodham Clinton has complained that she’s facing much more media scrutiny than her opponent Barack Obama.

Aside from the fact that this is a typical complaint of any candidate who isn’t winning by a landslide, and I’m not saying that she’s necessarily correct…but I wonder what she expected: she has slammed down our throats the notion that she is the one with all of the experience, while Obama is a newbie.

If she has such a long and distinguished list of accomplishments, why wouldn’t she expect to be scrutinized more than someone with the “clean slate” she’d like you to believe Obama has?

After all, you can’t scrutinize what doesn’t exist…right, Hillary?

Can you imagine tuning into your local news and seeing this exchange?

Lucky I wasn’t the news director for this shop.  Both of them would have lots of ‘splainin’ to do.

Conservative commentator Jack Hunter, aka “The Southern Avenger,” posted a column called “Media-ocrity” focusing on the sad changes to journalism he has seen over the years, particularly when it comes to covering politics.  According to the post, it was broadcast on a local talk radio station as well.

He points out that covering the campaign trail is much more often about covering appearances and photo ops, the clever soundbites that candidates hurl at one another, and the occasional take on what the candidates’ spouses are up to. What’s missing, he says, is the meat on the candidates’ positions:

“What should be peripheral news is not only the predominant news – but the only news. We hear more about Hillary crying during the campaign than how her policies might make voters cry if she were to become elected. We know Rudy fancies himself as ‘tough’ on terrorism, but how tough would he be on America as president, as evidenced by the scores of NYC policemen and firemen who consider him a failed mayor? Take even an issue like the Fair Tax, which is of interest to many voters and has been a hot topic this election year. If you’re lucky, a voter might understand that it means beyond abolishing the income tax and replacing it with a sales tax, which excites some and scares others. Wouldn’t offering a detailed analysis help voters to form a more informed opinion?”

He certainly makes good points about the superficiality of broadcast news. And it is superficial in many ways. Journalism has evolved over the years, and it has made many changes that are definitely not for the best, prompted by ever-increasing competition in a sea of channels that have diluted viewership to the point that each one is desperately trying to do anything it can to reach as many as possible.

That’s not the way it should be, and I don’t know anyone in the business who thinks otherwise.  I don’t attempt to make excuses for it, but I do at least understand why it has happened — and there’s a big difference.

The problem is, more than anything else, missed opportunity.

It’s those moments, like Hillary Clinton getting a bit weepy during a campaign stop, that lure people to the screen. Those are the moments I’m more likely to focus on if I’m trying to promote a newscast. But you have to understand: my job is to get people to the newscast; it’s the news people’s job to keep them there with content that matters.

Does it matter to anyone that Clinton teared up in New Hampshire? Well, that’s up for debate, since it appears that it might have “humanized” her enough to get her a win there…but in the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t matter much at all.

But in our zeal to get viewers to watch, we are more likely to show the short clip of her show of emotion, and then move on to something else without taking time to focus on the fears of voters and candidates alike that have gotten us to that point, or what Hillary (or anyone else) is specifically planning to do about them…if they’ve even made such plans public, yet.

Granted, there are media sources out there — and I’m not talking about “citizen journalism” — where you can get more detailed information. I suspect that those who really want it are more than aware of where to find it.  Newspapers, news magazines and news websites, by their very nature, are better equipped to cover stories in greater detail than television’s nightly news can. But imagine the news magazines that do the best job of in-depth reporting on stories that are really important, and refer to that thought the next time you’re at the grocery store watching someone pulling copies of National Enquirer or Soap Opera Digest off the shelves instead.

It is little moments like this that drive me crazy.  But part of living in this country, with all of its problems, is having the option not to give a damn.

The media can only do so much, but if the customers are more interested in the superficial, one of two things will happen: either the customers will go elsewhere until they find the superficial, or the superficial will begin moving its way in. It’s the nature of the beast: as I’ve said before, television news is like a mirror: it evolves as the concerns of the audience evolves. If no one were interested in the celebrity meltdown du jour, I guarantee you no media outlet would make any mention of it at all.

The sad thing is, for those of us who work in the media, that when we do spend time trying to produce the kind of “in-depth” report people feel we should only be doing, a good portion of the audience tunes out:  they’d rather watch some crap like Dancing with the Stars or Jerry Springer or American Idol.  Another missed opportunity.

It occurs to me, however, that there’s another opportunity that is missed here. Since the “Southern Avenger” seems to be part of the media — particularly when he used the airwaves to make his point — he had an important choice when he wrote that column: he could have devoted the space to an explanation of what the “fair tax” is and what voters need to know about it. Or a look at how each candidate plans to deal with terrorism. Or a “detailed analysis” of Hillary’s health care plan.

You know, the kind of story he says is so blatantly and appallingly missing from today’s media.

He chose, instead, to take time in the media to preach to a choir of readers and listeners who are likely to shout “Amen” to the rafters.

Missed opportunity.

Look at it this way:  If you’re a nurse in a hospital, and you see someone being handed the wrong medication, do you let that patient become even more sick, then head to some staff meeting and complain about how many errors are being made? Or do you first do your part to fix the problem, then explain, in detail, what you’ve done to be part of the solution?

If you’re a politician who sees a loophole causing families to lose a lot of money they need to keep food on their table, do you file that piece of information away and wait for the next press conference to complain about the growing problem of poverty, or do you fix the problem, and then campaign about how you did fix the problem?

It’s only natural: we like to complain. But complaining about something doesn’t change anything. I suspect even the Southern Avenger doesn’t feel any better about the state of the media now than he did before he sat down at the computer.

Appearing on this morning’s edition of Today, Republican candidate Fred Thompson let anchor Lester Holt hold it over questions about Thompson’s viability as a contender for the Republican nomination and rumors that Iowa could have been the end of the road for his campaign:

HOLT: You were the victim of some rumors on the subject of your viability and questions that you would drop out. How much of that hurt you?

THOMPSON: Well, let’s talk about that. It did hurt me and the media lapped it up. It was put out by another campaign, it made no sense at all —

HOLT: Which campaign?

THOMPSON: — it was two days before the election, when I was coming strong, and the media took it up, and spread the rumor, and probably cost me two or three points in Iowa. So the lesson there is not, you know, politicians being politicians, the lesson there is that the news media really ought to check these stories out and come to me and ask me and take my word for it.

HOLT: Senator, a fair shot against the news meda, but what candidate were you mentioning that put that out there?

THOMPSON: I’m not gonna…I owe you nothing, frankly, in that regard, and I’m not going to say any more about it right now.

So Thompson wants the news media to come to him to essentially “check the facts” when it reports something someone else says, but when he makes a claim and the news media asks him to elaborate or provide any details about accusations he makes about “another campaign,” he expects a free pass to dodge the question?

Sorry, Fred. Double standards do little to make you an attractive candidate for president. You want to make an accusation that another campaign spread the rumor? Fine. Which campaign? Where are the facts? Where is your proof? If you think a campaign isn’t playing fair, don’t you think you owe it to the American people to make it clear who’s trying to skew the numbers unfairly?

Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt — and then some — and say that these alleged “rumors” cost him four points in Iowa: at best, that takes him out of a tie for third place with McCain and has him third alone. Thompson (and McCain) got 13% of the votes in the Iowa Caucus, while Romney came away with 25% and Huckabee led with 34%. Taking those four points away from either Huckabee or Romney still makes no difference in who came out in the top three slots; it certainly wouldn’t have given Thompson a win. So what are all the sour grapes about, anyway?

And he can’t even really complain that no one bothered to ask him about the truth of the reports from sources apparently in or connected with his campaign: here’s an example of a report that did quote the man himself, in which he this time complained that the media was jumping on rumors because they could see the momentum he was building.

Wait a second, Fred…I’m confused: a second ago, you said it was another campaign working against you. Now, it’s the media who’s working against you because you’re the popular choice? If the media and another campaign are working together, why not out them all and save democracy in one fell swoop!

If Thompson thinks a candidate in this presidential race who actually is able to build momentum in a sea of unimpressive choices isn’t news, perhaps he should check with Barack Obama or Mike Huckabee: I suspect they might give him an argument on that point based on the attention their campaigns have gotten even before their wins in Iowa.

I guess I expect too much of a presidential candidate: I expect him to play as fairly and be as honest as he seems to expect everyone else to be.

Silly me.

Brittney Spears’s little sister, Jamie Lynn, is pregnant.

Sure, that’s old news by now, and that’s fine.  This isn’t the kind of story — it certainly doesn’t qualify as “news,” to anyone who is interested in real news — that I’d want to break, anyway.

There are a lot of people, no doubt, who will drag out those tired old arguments about how the media’s mentions of the Spears family sagas du jour is unnecessary.  I think that sometimes, it’s easier for people to blame the media for covering non-news so that they can avoid some more important observations about our society that an rabid interest in such coverage really reveals.

Take a listen to the people who are actually interested in this sort of thing.  They don’t seem to mind that a 16-year-old is pregnant; they think it’s marvelous.  They don’t seem to mind referring to said 16-year-old’s boyfriend as the “baby daddy” as opposed to a father.  They don’t seem to mind that he’s not the husband.  And shortly, when the paparazzi succeeds in capturing Spears’s image when she begins to show, her unborn child will be referred to as a “bump,” not a baby.

And yet there are so many right-wing nuts who worry that gays are the ones to blame for damaging our national image of a family!

(Before anyone jumps on me about the husband remark, I’m sure that there are readers of mine who have had children out of wedlock.  I mean no offense, and if you made the decision that doing so was the best for your situation, that’s your call and I wouldn’t take it upon myself to question your motive.  But it seems to me that we should be encouraging people not to find themselves in such a predicament to start with, not getting so obsessed with those to whom it happens.  And whether you are obsessed with the story or not, the fact that there are so many people who are still says a lot about our culture…like it or not.)

Meanwhile, Jamie Lynn says her pregnancy “shocked” her.  That can only mean that either the father’s sperm reached her egg by some heretofore-undiscovered osmosis that might make couples everywhere think twice before getting close enough to even hold hands, or that she really did believe those childhood stories that babies come not from sex…but from the stork.

There was an Amber Alert issued early Sunday morning. I know this because my cable system keeps interrupting the shows I’ve been watching all morning with a crawl that appears over a black screen and wipes out all of the audio and video, to direct me over to Channel 60, a billboard channel that gives basically no information other than the counties involved and that it is in effect until 10:09am.

There’s no mention of what child may have been abducted. There’s no mention of where it might have happened, or what the suspect or his (or her) vehicle looks like.

I signed on to my work’s email system to see what was going on, and I saw the initial Amber Alert notification from 2:55am.

Then I noticed another email that seemed fairly important. Continue reading “Still Going…”

You know that annoying sense of entitlement so many people seem to have these days? It’s the fault of Fred Rogers, says a Louisiana State University professor. Continue reading “Blaming Mr. Rogers”

Lest you think that everyone who works in television news is thrilled at the very mention of Paris Hilton’s name, I introduce Mika Brzezinski, of MSNBC.

During the cable network’s Morning Joe program, she became more and more demonstrative about her distaste over Paris-related stories.

At different points during the show, as she was about to read the news capsule, she became increasingly impatient with a producer who kept placing Hilton’s release from prison as that morning’s lead story.

She tore up scripts, threatened to light them on fire (which would probably have had OSHA paying her a visit), and ultimately got up from the desk and dropped them in a paper shredder.

Was it grandstanding? Absolutely. Was it a carefully-choreographed publicity stunt? Not likely, from the camera work, particularly when she gets up and walks to the shredder: it is clear that they didn’t have cameras in place ready to follow her along by the delay in getting from one shot to another.

Here’s the video from YouTube if you haven’t already seen it:

Her point, as far as I’m concerned, is well-taken. There are far more important things to talk about.

But what do you think? How would you feel if you were watching your newscast of choice and an anchor did this?

This post has nothing to do with the iPhone, despite the headline: I just hate to break up a set.

This has to do with the heiress. Paris Hilton. Why would I bring up this tired subject? Ratings.

You see, everyone loves beating up on the media for making so many mentions of her. They say that she’s not worthy of being covered as “breaking news.” (And I completely agree.)

They say that the media has no business giving her so much exposure. (And I agree.)

They say that no one really wants to hear about Paris, but that the media is just making too much out of it. I would like to agree, but then the ratings come in.

More than 3.2 Million viewers — three times his normal audience — tuned in to CNN’s Larry King Live Wednesday night for Paris Hilton’s first interview since her release from jail. It was Larry King’s biggest audience of the year.

Seriously: stop watching. The reason the media keeps Paris on the air is because the audience keeps sending the message that they want more of her. I was sick of Paris years ago. I flip the channel as soon as I see the first mention of her.

In a perfect world, the news would never focus on something as insignificant as her little legal drama. But this isn’t a perfect world. So you have to decide what you do and don’t want to see, then send that message. If you don’t like watching Paris Hilton, then don’t watch.

If the media could ever be persuaded that no one would tune in for the latest nugget of news about her, you can bet you’d never hear about her again.