The White House calls bullshit on NBC, and the network digs in, likely to its detriment. David Bauder elaborates:

Through its unusual public criticism of NBC’s handling of Richard Engel’s interview with the president, the Bush administration struck at the soft white underbelly of the news division’s co-existence with the opinionated personalities of MSNBC.

“I’m sure you don’t want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the `news’ as reported on NBC and the `opinion’ as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines,” Bush counselor Ed Gillespie wrote to NBC News President Steve Capus in a letter pointedly released to the public.

Tom Rosenstiel is quoted making an obvious point:

“Getting into the game of trying to attract an audience based on your point of view rather than reporting is dangerous because it does invite this kind of backlash,”

Pshaw, says NBC’s Steve Capus:

“Viewers are savvy enough to know the differences in that kind of programming,” Capus said. “The mission of NBC News hasn’t changed. The difference is that MSNBC has had some success, and success comes with attention and scrutiny.

This isn’t the first time we’ve heard this laissez-fair attitude from NBC. Nor is this the first time I’ve written about this issue.

A year ago, I wrote [note that I have since then updated some inactive links]:

[Why would an organization like NBC News, which just two weeks ago had to [send representatives] on Oprah to explain why they aired as “news” the Cho sick fantasy tapes, be so sanguine about Olbermann switching between opinion (like his denouncement of Giuliani in a Countdown “Special Commentary”) and “journalism” (like his hosting the Republican debate, which featured Giuliani among others)?

Because infotainment rules (obviously!)—that’s why—and it’s up to us viewers to figure out what we should take seriously or not:

Olbermann knows to leave his opinions at home when he anchors events, said Phil Griffin, NBC News senior vice president.

“Keith’s an adult,” Griffin said. “He can tell when it’s appropriate to express himself in a commentary and when to be a journalist. That’s one of his strengths. He knows exactly the tone and his role when he’s doing anything.”

Of course political campaigns are also a circus, and politicians are the world’s most shameless showmen and -women … so, for all I care, Olbermann can throw tomatoes at all of them the next time he hosts a “debate”—that would be really fun!

But he’s still a despicable hack. And NBC News is inviting a further loss of its credibility by referring to Olbermann’s program Countdown as “news” and by referring to anything he does as “journalism.” At least CNN tries to distinguish between “news” and “views” and Glenn Beck refers to himself as a “rodeo clown.”

Since I wrote that post, Olbermann was of course elevated to serious anchor status, with a prominent seat and voice on primary Tuesdays.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I’m wondering when TV “journalists” will face the truth about their profession—namely, that what you see below is not just the future of “the news” but also the present.

(via FishbowlDC)

Fishbowl quotes some of the “juicy bits” from the upcoming NYT Mag article:

 

“By the way, have you figured me out yet?” Matthews said at the end of another phone conversation the following day. “You gotta under-stand, it’s all complicated. It’s not like Tim.” Tim — as in Russert, the inquisitive jackhammer host of “Meet the Press” — is a particular obsession of Matthews’s. Matthews craves Russert’s approval like that of an older brother. He is often solicitous.

In an interview with Playboy a few years ago, he volunteered that he had made the list of the Top 50 journalists in D.C. in The Washingtonian magazine. “I’m like 36th, and Tim Russert is No. 1,” Matthews told Playboy. “I would argue for a higher position for myself.”

Friends say Matthews is wary of another up-and-comer, David Gregory, who last month was given a show at 6 o’clock, between airings of “Hardball.” It is a common view around NBC that Gregory is trying out as a possible replacement for Matthews.

According to people at NBC, Matthews has not been shy in voicing his resentment of Olbermann. Nor, according to network sources, has Olbermann bothered to hide his low regard for Matthews, although when I spoke to him, Olbermann denied any personal animosity toward Matthews and told me that he appreciates his “John Madden-like enthusiasm for politics.”

Hmmm. Recognize anyone?

Laurence Olivier as Archie Rice, in The Entertainer
London, 1957, photo by Snowden

p.s. The last time I used that image was here, in May 2007.

The last time I wrote about Matthews was here.

————————–

*** When I claimed my blog on Technorati two years ago, this is how I described it:

They call it news. I call it infotainment.

No one can say that we weren’t warned well in advance. See, for example, Neal Postman and Michael Schudson and Joshua Gamson.

Just in time for the Episode Two of The Petraeus Show, which pre-game “reviewers” analyzed and critiqued well in advance of opening night (see the headlines on Memeorandum (at 9:30 a.m., just before showtime),
Gallup releases poll results on Americans’ attitudes toward the war in Iraq.

Upshot [e.a.]:

The 2008 presidential election will present voters with a clear choice on Iraq, with Republicans putting forth one of the Senate’s fiercest supporters of the war and Democrats choosing one of two leading Senate opponents, including Obama, who has made his opposition to the war from the beginning a major focus of his campaign. If McCain is elected, U.S. policy on Iraq will likely continue as it has under the Bush administration, with slower troop drawdowns tied to progress in establishing security in Iraq. If Obama or Clinton is elected, finding a quick end to the war will likely be the new president’s top priority.

In general, the public tends to side with the Democrats from the standpoint of favoring a timetable, but relatively few advocate a quick withdrawal. And most seem sympathetic to the Republican argument about the United States needing to establish a certain level of security before leaving Iraq.

Call me crazy, but it looks to me as if, all things considered, Americans would rather stick around and do the right thing by Iraqis than just get out.

It’s my opinion, based on an anthropological reading of the culture, that Americans would like to win in Iraq—as we like to win everywhere, because we Americans are a profoundly competitive people—but the conventional wisdom these days says otherwise.

See Glenn Greenwald, for example, in a post titled “Cokie Roberts speaks out on the war on behalf of the American people”:

Yesterday, Cokie Roberts — while expressing scorn for the “Responsible Plan for Withdrawal” advocated by 42 Democratic Congressional candidates and numerous military experts, and described by fellow panelist Katerina Vanden Heuvel of The Nation — said this:

VANDEN HEUVEL: It is not, but you know what, the responsible thing to do is withdraw. [you hear Cokie odiously chuckling at this point]

VANDEN HEUVEL: If we withdraw responsibly, the region would be more stable in the long term, America will be restored as a responsible global leader, and there are 42 challengers, you are absolutely right Cokie, who have a responsible plan to withdraw.

ROBERTS: Convincing the electorate of that I think would be very difficult, and I also agree that the notion that Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham you heard this morning putting forward, that Americans would prefer to win, is–

VANDEN HEUVEL: But what is winning? This war is unwinnable, there are no military solutions.

The video is also here. Roberts’ claim — that Americans agree with McCain, Graham and her that withdrawal is a bad idea and that they want to stay until we win — is just a lie. There’s no other way to put that.

Really? I don’t see any evidence to back up your claim, Mr. Greenwald. We may quibble about whether Americans want to “win” (since they’re repeatedly told by the MSM that we cannot win) or whether they just want to do the right thing, but the polling (for what it’s worth) suggests that relatively fewer people want to just get the hell out of there and call it “responsible.”

All things considered, people seem much more interested in the political theater surrounding The Petraeus Show. Here’s a gem from the NYT:

Testimony by General Will Test Candidates for President

All three senators running for president — John McCain of Arizona, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois — will have a chance to question General Petraeus and Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador to Baghdad. Each of the three is determined to use the spectacle to advantage, but all face political risks as well as opportunities in the back-to-back hearings before the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees. …

Mr. McCain, a Republican, has the logistical advantage in appearing before his two Democratic competitors. General Petraeus is set to testify first to the Armed Services Committee, beginning at 9:30 a.m., and Mr. McCain, the ranking Republican member, will be the second to speak, after the committee chairman, Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan.

Mrs. Clinton, a more junior member of the panel, will speak later. Mr. Obama, a junior member of the Foreign Relations Committee, which is holding its hearing in the afternoon, will be the 13th on that panel to speak, perhaps after the evening news.

The headline of this piece (referring to a “test”) is yet more evidence of Andrew Tyndall’s thesis about the nexus between the campaigns and the media and the gameshow-type coverage that has evolved during this election cycle.

As for the substance of the NYT’s Elizabeth Bumiller’s piece: she suggests that Obama’s testimony occuring “after the evening news” would be a bad thing.

What century is she living in? Her own paper today cites the woes of the networks’ news divisions. The “evening news” is a woolly mammoth.

Cable “news” is the thing, dontcha know? Who cares if Obama’s “test” occurs last on the floor of the Senate? It will happen just in time for Campbell Brown of CNN and Keith Olbermann to lead with it!

I’ll try to follow up tonight. Stay tuned.

Television is virtually a news-free zone—quick! how many TV programs can you name that tell you, with facts and figures and no spin or attitude, who, what, why, where, and when? huh? how many?—and yet supposedly sophisticated TV critics, like the NYT’s Alessandra Stanley, still refer to something called “cable news.”

The funniest thing about it, though, is that Stanley calls it “news” while describing it, essentially, as an unprecedented media and campaign clusterfuck [e.a.]:

The distinction of all three new hourlong programs is that the hosts are not the stars, the campaign is. Speeches, interviews, surrogate gaffes, opinion polls, delegate math and even party deliberations are showcased with the same swooshing sound effects and flashy graphics that tip viewers to an appearance by George Clooney on “Live With Regis and Kelly.”

It’s a marked change for cable news, which over the last few years has followed the lead of Fox News and promoted vividly opinionated hosts who shape the news flow to suit their own personas and pet peeves. It’s also refreshing …

I wouldn’t call it refreshing. I would call it over-the-top infotainment. But Stanley has got one thing right—it’s the campaigns that are the stars of these shows, and the folks running the campaigns understand the circus atmosphere that is today’s media world (much more so than does Alessandra Stanley. That’s why they’ve got their candidates doing the Ellen show, etc.

This kind of coverage is also, as Stanley points out, a ratings boon for the cable shows:

The public has not been this passionately absorbed in an election in decades, and the candidates are passionately intent on making their case on television. When they do, viewership goes up: it’s a boon for the 24-hour news channels, but even they are hard-pressed to keep up with the constant flow of debates, photo ops, tarmac tirades, so many words spoken and misspoken and so many talk-show appearances.

The candidates show up not just on “Meet the Press” or “60 Minutes,” but also on “Saturday Night Live” (Senator John McCain’s star turn dates back to 2002). More recently, Senator Barack Obama kissed and cuddled the ladies of “The View,” Mr. McCain traded insults with David Letterman on his “Late Show,” and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton joked about dodging sniper fire to arrive at “The Tonight Show” on time for Jay Leno. Mrs. Clinton is also scheduled to appear on “Ellen” on Monday, her first appearance on Ellen DeGeneres’s talk show since Mr. Obama’s last one. (In that appearance, Mr. Obama upped the ante by dancing for her — his second effort to, as he put it, “bust a move.”)

And the cycle is endless and self-sustaining: satirical shows like “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart” and “Saturday Night Live” take clips from the news and make fun of them; news programs take skits from “Saturday Night Live” and replay them.

Andrew Tyndall writes about this campaign—and the TV coverage—much more perceptively over at HuffPo. He says the Horse Race has given over to a Gameshow Reality contest:

Stop thinking of this election as a race to the wire to be won by the candidate with the finest pedigree, truest form and best connections. Start thinking of it as a cast of larger-than-life characters, scheming against each other while simultaneously trying to appear attractive to the electorate audience. Week by week the group undergoes media trials such as candidate debates and Sunday morning interviews. Each primary election constitutes another potential elimination round.

The winner gets to be a constant television presence in our homes for four years.

With open contests in both parties, this Presidential cycle offered the perfect opportunity to unveil this new method of coverage. The casting of the contestants could not have been better. In one tribe, as they say on Survivor, there was a handsome Mormon businessman, a colorful big city mayor, a slimmed-down Baptist minister and a crusty war hero. The other tribe had a self-made trial lawyer, a globetrotting Hispanic diplomat, a diligent feminist with that interesting celebrity marriage and an inspirational young African-American.

That’s infotainment! It rules!

Back when we all had a sense of humor about the buffoon George Bush, we greeted that malapropism with the appropriate skepticism.It turns out, though, that PBS has found a way to do just that—increasing its viewership for Frontline, its superb documentary series,*** by streaming it on the Web:

Executives at “Frontline” do not yet know how many people watched their recent four-and-a-half hour documentary, “Bush’s War,” because of PBS’s complicated Nielsen ratings.Online, however, “Bush’s War,” which was produced for the fifth anniversary of the United States’ invasion of Iraq, has set a record, with more than 1.5 million views of all or part of the program, which was streamed in 26 segments.“Frontline” has streamed most of its documentaries free since 2002 (www.pbs.org/frontline), part of an effort to reach younger audiences than typically tune in to PBS. The online viewing to date of “Bush’s War,” which was broadcast in two parts on March 24 and 25, is an estimated “10 times the traffic of a normal show for us,” said Sam Bailey, the program’s director of new media and technology. Viewers are also sticking around much longer than they usually do on the site, typically for 7 to 10 minutes.

Who says that quality doesn’t sell?Think again.————–*** I have long been a devotee of Frontline. I’m on record as saying that I wish all hard-news on TV were done with the depth of Frontline documentaries. But of course I know it can’t and won’t happen.Still: kudos! serious television lives!

Tom Brokaw was asked an interesting question the other day:

What purpose should the evening news serve today?

His answer (”none”—I’m paraphrasing) shouldn’t shock you if you’ve been reading this blog, where I recently introduced the concept of television as a news-free zone:

Well, it’s a struggle. It was a struggle when I left 3.5 years ago. I think the Nightly News has found the right balance. People still want to know what happened that day. What we do is not so much wire service accounting but two or three of the biggest stories of the day. Maybe do them for a little longer and maybe with a little longer analysis.

And then give them what I call added value: medical news; you can’t do enough about the economy these days; the environment is on a lot of people’s minds. So it’s that mixing and matching that is the trick to holding people and giving them reason to want to come watch it.

Obviously, Brokaw couldn’t say this, but I can. There’s obviously no news on these programs. their purpose is to serve the advertisers of adult diapers, erectile-dysfunction medication, and sleep aids … until even the old folks who watch the network news abandon the ship, like all the rest of the rats.

And then television will be entirely free of the pretense that it is serving the needs of its audience for hard news. And perhaps we’ll all be better off.

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough says that “media people are living in fear“ of saying the “wrong” thing [e.a.]:

“There are all these minefields out there for Barack Obama that I think the press has been tiptoeing through,” Scarborough said. He continued, “If you attack Hillary Clinton, we have found, there are organizations out there that will bombard your sponsors, that will call the president of your network and will say, ‘Get that person off the air.’ Media people are living in fear.”

Scarborough challenged both fellow guest Farai Chideya (NPR) and members of the audience who disagreed with him, saying, “Everybody clapping in the audience obviously hasn’t worked at netowkrs during this campaign, where people take them in the back and say, ‘You’ve gotta be very careful now. If you attack Hillary Clinton too much we’re going to be called sexist. And if you attack Barack Obama too much, we’re going to be called racist.’”

I for one am delighted to hear that the architects, gatekeepers, and practitioners of the culture of political correctness tie themselves in knots as they scramble to avoid becoming its next victims. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch!

You know that almost 50 people died yesterday as a result of the horrifying tornadoes that ripped through several states, right?

Well, here’s how Good Morning America started the day:

Set to Aerosmith’s “Dream On,” Diane Sawyer who, after anchoring five hours last night, told viewers, “This morning, the dream lives on.” After a mention of the storms in the show open, GMA spent the next 12 minutes talking politics. First with George Stephanopoulos then with Kate Snow (with Clinton campaign), David Wright (with Obama campaign), and Ron Claiborne (with McCain campaign). Next, Robin Roberts interviewed Mike Huckabee. The last question to Huckabee was about the tornadoes that affected his state and others. Sawyer then brought in Sam Champion who reported live from Atkins, AR.

I think I have accumulated enough evidence in two years of writing this blog to show that any TV executive who claims to broadcast something recognizable as “the news” is a big, fat liar.

Can it be any plainer than at CNN, a network that, when it began, was devoted entirely to news.—Now, its honchos are delighted to be able to bring you the liveliest entertainment that they can squeeze out of a given event.

As the exchange grew angrier, Sam Feist, the political director for CNN, said, “This can be the rest of the debate — that’s O.K.” … During the thrust-and-parry between the candidates, CNN’s cameras pulled back to show both men.

“Sit on it,” said Jonathan Klein, the president of CNN, who was in the control booth for both debates. “That’s the story, right here, the two of them.”

This was the “two-shot,” which has become the defining image of the recent televised debates. …

“Television traditionally shows the person asking the question, then cuts to the person answering,” Mr. Bohrman said later. “I’m a firm believer in watching the person to whom the question is being asked. I want to see them think.”

The producers made extensive use of the two-shot throughout the Democratic debate, but they mainly captured the candidates nodding in agreement with each other. Speaking to the moderator, Wolf Blitzer, through an earpiece at the halfway point of the debate, Mr. Bohrman suggested taking a tougher stance with the candidates.

“You have to become part of this, Wolf,” Mr. Bohrman advised. “If this was ‘Late Edition,’ ” Mr. Blitzer’s Sunday interview show, “you’d be having more of a conversation.”

I have no objection to horse-race coverage of elections, which are horse races. But have TV executives given up entirely on delivering hard information to their audiences?

And why am I—a lowly, pseudonymous blogger who watches the media as a mere hobby—the only person who seems to care about the news-free zone that is TV? Especially since there are so many organizations that purport to study the media?

I heard this teaser a while back on MSNBC:

Harry Reid says the war is lost.

The White House says, “No way!”

Tune in for the showdown:

Keith Olbermann at 8 weekdays!

Those of us who watch cable “news” are so used to these teasers that we don’t even give them a second thought. I know that’s true for me, and I’m supposedly some kind of media watcher.

I’m just sayin’: that’s not “news.”

There is, of course, news—but you have to dig to find it.

I found some here today, written up by Jules Crittenden, so you know it comes with attitude.

Hey, check this out. Here’s an MNF-I press release from yesterday that suggests lower intensity, longer-duration sweeps can disrupt the enemy.  I scanned the wires last night and did not see this reported.  The Iraq day story by Richard Reid was about 7 U.S. killed, 55 Iraqis found murdered, explosions heard and political setbacks. Nothing about any success. Is this because the AP considers news of successful operations to be bullshit, or otherwise meaningless? Wouldn’t be the first time. But this doesn’t sound like meaningless bullshit to me:

Regimental Combat Team 2 and elements of the Iraqi Army’s 7th Division completed Operation Harris Ba’sil after eight weeks of interdicting and disrupting enemy routes and safe havens outside of the major cities of the Euphrates River valley in western al Anbar province.

The operation, dubbed “Valiant Guardian”, involved nearly 4,000 Marines, Soldiers and Sailors covering most of the 30,000 square miles of RCT-2’s operating area.

“We uncovered over 250 caches, arrested over 250 suspected insurgents and discovered over 100 improvised explosive devices,” said Lt. Col. Michael Manning, operations officer for RCT-2. “We clearly surprised them, the number of caches and detainees attest to that but more importantly, we let the enemy know that they can’t hide from us.”

There’s more at MNF-I.  Terrorist safe house destroyed in Baghdad. 20 armed locals rush to aid of Iraq police in Duluiyah … a dead al-Qaeda bigshot’s hometown described as a Sunni insurgent stronghold. That’s pretty impressive. I’m guessing its the local Shiites trying to defend themselves, but who knows. Why can’t I find it in a Google news search?

Good question.