Broadcast TV searches for the new bottom

We thought they couldn't debase themselves any further than the 2008 campaign, and then came the 2009 death and memorializing of Michael Jackson.

“ABC, CBS and NBC are supposed to be the last bastions of sober broadcast news reporting, but the flight of viewers and advertisers to the Web and the no-holds-barred slugfests of the cable nets have thrust "real" journalism into a deep identity crisis. Like your 50-year-old moonwalking uncle, they tried to be hip with their coverage of the Michael Jackson memorial, and it was a sad sight to behold.”

I heard it on the street while sitting on my porch at Lakeside. It was storming and our power was out. People were walking around surveying the damage and I heard someone on a bicycle say, “Michael Jackson died.” But millions found out via the internet (they had power).

“We were all treated to the awkward sight of ABC's Charles Gibson and NBC's Brian Williams having to preside over a commercial-free memorial for an entertainer -- not a dead president, pope or princess to be found for miles. CBS's Katie Couric was a little better prepared, thanks to her previous "Today" experiences; in the first hour of her former NBC morning show, she would interview princes and kings; in the last hour, personalities like Prince and Don King. Tuesday didn't have to happen. The Web was ready to step in and save Charles, Katie and Brian from cable news hell.” Story at TechNewsWorld

What media bias?

". . . none in the media are complaining about Big Guy not doing any live TV interviews, where he could get hit with "gotcha" questions about the budget deficit, veteran health-care cutbacks, or how much Michelle spends on shoes." Barack Obama’s Teleprompter . One of the best written, well researched blogs out there. Don't miss it.

And you wonder why I call Obama a marxist?

Actually, the real reason is all those Soviet history courses I took back in college, the PL 480 books I cataloged, and my Chinese roommate whose family lost it all under Mao, but here are three more reasons a bit more current, seen at the Taxman Blog about Obama's interview with Charlie Gibson. Gordon calls it socialism. I think B.O's well beyond that when you look at the encouragement by his campaign of sexism and misogyny, add up the millions coming from foreign countries that will never be investigated because of Congress, the thousands being illegally registered to vote in the swing states that can't be verified because of lack of staff and desire on the part of Democrat officials, and the felons in Florida swamping their ability to check. These are old tactics, maybe a bit more sophisticated than 1917 and 1949, but they still work:

Listen to Obama's interview.

1) He doesn't care if the capital gains rate increases Treasury receipts, he's raising it out of "fairness".

2) Democrats refuse to drill to lessen our energy dependence, even if it means struggling workers pay more for a gallon of gas. Caribou are more important than people....


3) Never mind that the end result of the Fannie Mae was a worldwide financial meltdown, democrats still think it's a good idea to push loans for people who cannot/will not pay them back.

Sorry, Charlie. The people want interviews without bias, not bias with no interview

Remember the Starkist tuna commercial from the 1960s?

"Sorry Charlie. . .StarKist wants tuna that tastes good, not tuna with good taste."

"ABC's Charlie Gibson is only the latest to offer himself upon the altar of self-parody with his pop-quizzing of the Alaska governor during their interview last week.

Gibson: "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?"
Palin: "In what respect, Charlie?"

Which was a sensible answer, given that no higher authority than Jacob Weisberg of Slate has counted six versions of the thing (including "absence of any functioning doctrine at all"). Further pressed on the subject, Gov. Palin explained that "what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism," which better sums up the gist of Bush policy than Mr. Gibson's cramped definition of the doctrine as "anticipatory self-defense." WSJ article here

Shame on you, Charlie

The not-so-subtle sexism and hostility in Charlie's opening question for Sarah Palin about experience and hubris would have never been asked of Barack Obama, or any man running for public office. Fortunately, she was a lady as well as an experienced leader, and she "didn't blink." Ladies, we have a long way to go--vote McCain-Palin.

Mr. Gibson, she answered you the first time, you didn't like the answer, and then you just looked silly.

GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.

PALIN: I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.

PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself. More here

Shut up George

Charlie broke away from Sarah Palin's speech, one of the best I've heard this entire campaign, to interview George Stephana- stepa- stupa-, well you know, the former Clinton aide with all the hair. Then George S. announced that if Gustave hits NOLA, McCain should scale back the Republican convention and go to Louisiana, the "site of GWB's disaster." No, George, that was a Democratic city with a Democratic governor. With Democrat disaster plans. Republican states fared much better. The failure was theirs. And Charlie? Thanks for nothing. We had to switch to radio to hear the rest of her speech.