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.

Actually heard from a reporter on CNN last night:

“So here’s Hillary Clinton criticizing Barack Obama for criticizing her for her critical ad.”

I am not making this up.  Politics is alive and well this year.

Recently, I wrote a post about Fred Thompson’s appearance on NBC’s Today show, during which he complained about the media running with a story that he was rumored to be on the verge of dropping out of the race — of course, he has dropped out, but let’s ignore that little part — then said that the media ought to check with him before reporting what someone else had to say. He then made claims against an unnamed campaign, and when Lester Holt asked for elaboration, Thompson was oddly mum, actually refusing to provide any facts or substantiation, demonstrating that his position about the media “checking their facts” only applied when something bad was said about him, not anyone else.

Bill Clinton demonstrated this week in South Carolina that he is capable of pulling the same kind of “I’m going to blame the media then make myself part of the problem” double standard.

Responding to reporter questions about Dick Harpootlian (former head of SC’s Democratic Party) who called the former president’s comments about the Obama campaign “reprehensible,” Clinton went into a long, drawn-out tirade during which his advisers were probably secretly wishing he’d be struck with sudden laryngitis.

His almost five-minute-long finger-pointing diatribe included this:

“This rhetoric is getting a little carried away here. … And the final thing I would like to say is, you’re asking me about this, and you sat through this whole meeting. Not one single, solitary soul asked about any of this. And they never do. They are feeding you this because they know this is what you want to cover. This is what you live for. But this hurts the people of South Carolina, because the people of South Carolina are coming to these meetings and asking questions about what they care about. And what they care about is not going to be in the news coverage tonight because you don’t care about it. What you care about is this. And the Obama people know that. So they just spin you up on this and you happily go along.”

On the surface, it’s a valid point. The people in the crowd aren’t asking Bill or Hillary what they think about a former Democratic party head accusing them of playing the race card against Barack Obama. But take that with a grain of salt: the people who attend such meetings are generally people who support Bill and Hillary — make that Hillary and Bill — so there’s no reason for them to ask anything pointed. That’s what reporters are supposed to do.

I’m sure Hillary and Bill wouldn’t get even a little upset if a reporter asked a similar question of another candidate or candidate’s spouse accused of playing the gender card. I’m quite sure that they would probably be cheering at the television set.

I’m also quite sure that Clinton is bright enough to know that by becoming so animated and getting somewhat “fired up,” he was pretty much guaranteeing that his comments would end up on the media he was so clearly accusing of focusing on the wrong thing.

To put it another way, he complained about a burning fire by throwing gasoline on it.

A deadpan “That’s not even worth a response” would have been so much better suited to accomplishing the goal he seemed to want everyone to believe he had: to kill the “non-story” once and for all. I’m sure I’m not telling you anything he didn’t know all too well.

Who’s trying to fool who, Bill?

CNN was forced to explain itself earlier this week when a giant black X flashed over the face of Vice President Dick Cheney during a live broadcast.

According to a statement, the network’s senior managers immediately began an investigation, and concluded that the problem came not because of operator error, but from a momentary glitch in a switcher, the device that allows television directors to switch from one shot to another. There is speculation that the X in question serves as a video cue that allows directors to set up animation that is superimposed over the images, and the playback source that displays the animation was apparently left on the cue-point, thus the X.

According to the Drudge Report, the X’s only appeared for a fifteenth of a second each, but created an “odd subliminal effect.” Drudge has still not added CNN’s official explanation to his initial report, but he asks whether the timing of the X, which came as Cheney was stating that he did not think it is wrong to criticize the administration, was meant as a message from Atlanta.

A lot of folks are criticizing CNN, wondering why the glitch only occurred during Cheney’s speech. Some say they were trying to make a political statement. I’ve worked in television for fifteen years now, and I can tell you that there are some glitches that happen when you’d least expect them and at the worst-possible moment.

Anything is possible…but I have a hard time accepting the political agenda theory. I think that if CNN wanted to slip in some kind of political statement, they might have found something a little less obvious than a giant black X that covers Cheney’s whole head. Does anyone really think that if it had been intended as some kind of commentary, it wouldn’t have been noticed?

Where is Osama bin Laden? CNN turned to its experts for the elusive answer to that question and this, apparently, is the best they could do.

Makes you wonder who these experts are and what their particular area of expertise happens to be, doesn’t it?

(This is what happens when you pay more attention to getting a headline ticker on the air than what it actually says. It happens to all news broadcasts sooner or later.)

The photo was posted by BigBrainBoy, whose blog can be found here (non-AOL).