New Poem: KEEP CLEANING UP AISLE USA

 turn away from sparklers waved by gotcha interrogators 

 don’t fall for lies told by the cemetery desecrators

 there’s no reason to again wallow in the Pit of Venality 

 we must be better than this

That Was The Debate That Was Ramble

 CNN said no on-camera fact checking apparently because if facts were checked on-camera and one candidate had more wrong facts and/or outright lies than the other then pointing this out via on-camera chyrons would have indicated bias and CNN in the Zaslav era cannot indicate bias at all whatsoever.

And this is how democracy dies.

New Poem: ODE TO CHRIS CUOMO

 see that news person crying in the corner

 he was fired for dubious ethical decisions

 and he tried to keep his even more dubious brother in power

 now he cries ice cubes like a penguin in a Bugs Bunny cartoon

 wailing about the big comedown of working for NewsNation

 oh I’ll never again be Number One, he despairs

 then a smile breaks through the misery

 he yells to the other patrons:

 wait until I win my $125 million arbitration suit against CNN

 as Alisyn Camerota appears on the big screen TV

 in the time slot he thought he might own forever

Chris Cuomo explains to Don Lemon why Rick Santorum isn’t likely to leave CNN

By now, readers of this post are aware of a certain racist remark at the expense of Native Americans made by televised-by-CNN house conservative panelist Rick Santorum.

Santorum was a guest on Chris Cuomo’s Monday night show.

Don Lemon wasn’t having it.  Below is a link to the Cuomo-to-Lemon show transition:

https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1389402315359199233?s=21

New Poem: 2020 FORETOLD

both parties have paid almost two years of rent

on the National Electoral Battlefield

so let the cable news speculation run rampant

and allow the online and print media to join in

with lots of chatter about electability

also please don’t impeach the President

because it messes up the timetable

> 

brush away any Green New Deals

plus talk of Medicare For All

not to mention Free College Tuition

keep Incrementalism alive by

dry repeats of “how do we pay for this”

> 

smash the hopes of young voters,

children and teens taking Civics classes

and the yet-to-be-born

> 

teach them how the concept of Change

doesn’t mean real change for the better

> 

instead, it’s merely a shiny buzzword 

used by a minority party

as a giant crowbar 

to separate power

from the majority party

Margaret Sullivan on “balanced” news in the Trump era.

Excerpted from a WASHINGTON POST op-ed column:

The news media continues — even now when it should know better — to be addicted to “both sides” journalism. In the name of fairness, objectivity and respect for the office of the presidency, it still seems to take Trump — along with his array of deceptive surrogates — at his word, while knowing full well that his word isn’t good.

When major news organizations publish tweets and news alerts that repeat falsehoods merely because the president uttered them, it’s the same kind of journalistic malpractice as offering a prime interview spot to Kellyanne Conway.

Eulogizing Piers Morgan's CNN career.

Most Americans are still contentedly unaware of Piers Morgan's UK tabloid past (including being questioned about phone hacking that occurred with Rupert Murdoch publications).

Instead they may remember his US television breakout as  Omarosa's blustering nemesis on THE CELEBRITY APPRENTICE, followed by a judging stint on Simon Cowell's AMERICA'S GOT TALENT.

Morgan came to CNN prior to Jeff Zucker's current "trivia is News too" regime.  The apparent reason for the hiring of Piers was that he would be a younger, more vibrant alternative to Larry King.

Essentially, Piers Morgan was obsequious, Tory-leaning and not too probing an interviewer.

The exception was his post-Newtown advocacy of gun control--something that caused CNN executives to reach for smelling salts.  Unfortunately, Morgan tossed some of this goodwill away by giving airtime to the kind of pro-gun advocates he could engage with via cartoonish confrontation. But, as CNN/HLN viewers know, outsized guests and panel "experts" are considered "good television."

Apparently former NIGHTLINE host Bill Weir is being considered for Morgan's CNN slot.

And recently, CNN tried some pilot shows tailored for Don Lemon's new social conservative persona.

 Regardless of its flaws, we'll now be looking at LARRY KING LIVE as part of an era in CNN history where news was treated with the relative sobriety of, say, Edward R. Murrow's SEE IT NOW.

Random comments from the CNN website after the Steubenville rape trial verdicts.

Names of the commenters omitted here.  Comments presented intact.

What is remarkable, if only for its absence, is the discussion in the media about those who stood by and did nothing as this happened.
It's frightening to know that we live in a society where when people are in danger or being victimized the accepted social response is to break out the mobile phone and record it happening, rather than intervene. People will dial 911 to report a spanking at a mall, but not one of these teens thought to text or call someone to help this girl, or God forbid, speak up on her behalf?

The blame lies with and only with the sick little freaks who decided to rape this young woman, period, we as a society need to stop trying to blame the victims, and lay the blame at the feet of the sicko's in our midst. I am personally for castration of anyone who is convicted of rape, but perhaps that is just me.

Drunk or sober, no one should be violated. Just like people are trying to say that the boys were just stupid kids that did something stupid, so was she. What she didn't do however was violate another human being. She got drunk...a lot of people get drunk and don't get raped or violated just because they have indulged in too much alcohol. If I drank as much as witnesses say she did, I would not be sober enough to consent to sexual contact and I'm 41, so it's easy to see how someone her age and size could be completely incapacitated by the amount of alcohol in her system. Just because someone CAN NOT say no, doesn't mean yes. I have to wonder however about this series of parties that were going on where the alcohol was being consumed. If there were so many of them, where were all the adults in this town? Did they all go on vacation together and just leave all their teen aged children at home?

While I agree with you, she did break the law. She should also be punished. One could also argue that the boys fell prey to pressure and didn't realize that they were doing anything wrong. Some men aren't taught what consent actually means. I had to explain to a group of young boys what consent meant when this case occurred.

[Direct reply to the previous commenter]No, one really cannot "argue that the boys fell prey to pressure and didn't realize they were doing anything wrong." 16 and 17 are more than old enough to know that what they were doing was not just wrong, but a heinous crime. Rape is an act of violence. She was nothing more than a toy, a thing for them to abuse. They did not view her as a human being. They violated her willingly and in two different locations over a period of time There is no excuse for their behavior.. They are predators. They enjoyed what they were doing. They are criminals. One more thing, you think she should be punished for underage drinking? I find that incomprehensible that anyone would want to "punish" the victim of a rape for a misdemeanor.

So her rape, her body being posted all over the internet isn't punishment enough???

[Direct reply to the previous commenter] NO because these boy's lives were ruined by a classroom slut. they will never see a football career or any decent career because they will be branded as sex offenders. all because of what? a slut whose mom doesn't realize how loose her daughter is? try the same shit when she's in collage and they'll call it ''kids just having fun'' i hope the mother sees more of her whore daughter on the internet'

You see a stupid drunk girl laying down dirty drunk, and assume that because she is drunk she was raped. Where in any video or photo's that were shown does it show these two men raping her. One guy holding her by her hands, and the other holding her by her feet carrying her while she is fully clothed, does not constitute rape. Yes she was drunk, but who fault is it but hers

[Direct reply to the previous commenter]
Rape is an act of violence that objectifies another person, they used her as an object. Next you will say if a woman dresses slutty, or is out too late it is her fault if she is attacked. Why do we assume men have no self control and are unable to stop themselves from raping or assaulting if we tempt them too much? A kid who would do that, and send out pictures of it to laugh with his friends, has a long life of using and abusing women ahead of him. Women sometimes blame a victim because that makes them feel that they are not at risk because they would never do 'something so stupid.' Trust me, an entitled kid who feels he has the right to violate a woman and send pics out if not a safe person to be out and about, and he might not wait until a woman is drunk to do it. He is someone who believes that women are toys and are to be used for his entertainment. You need to try to babystep yourself into the present century.

Something to remember when violent movies get re-condemned in the wake of Connecticut and Oregon.

Reposting this comment made by "djiggs" on the HOLLYWOOD ELSEWHERE site:
"From his review of Gus Van Sant's 'Elephant,' a fictionalized account of a Columbine-like school shooting, here's Roger Ebert on the media's behavior while reporting these kinds of events:
"Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. "Wouldn't you say," she asked, "that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?" No, I said, I wouldn't say that. "But what about 'Basketball Diaries'?" she asked. "Doesn't that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?"
"The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it's unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.
"The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. "Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory."
"In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them.
"I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy."
This is Ebert again. I gather my point is what goes around, comes around.

Suggesting possible series that CNN head Jeff Zucker might consider

http://www.deadline.com/2012/11/jeff-zuckers-first-memo-to-cnn-staff/ …

Jeff Zucker's NBC career spanned the heights of the Matt-and-Katie era of THE TODAY SHOW to the depths of THE JAY LENO SHOW/throwing Conan O'Brien into the Siberia of basic cable.

Given that CNN pre-Zucker was planning to manage for margins by giving series deals to edgy gourmand Anthony Bourdain and pop-documentarian Morgan Spurlock, one can easily imagine the kind of programming that Jeff might greenlight:
WHERE ON WALL STREET IS ERIN BURNETT?
PARKER BLITZER (teaming conservative columnist Kathleen Parker with Wolf Blitzer)
WINNING HEARTS AND MINDS IN AFGHANISTAN WITH LARA LOGAN
THE KATIE COURIC INTERVIEWS (goodbye, Piers Morgan)
and, of course,
THE NEW JAY LENO SHOW.

Time Warner apparently wants CNN to get stupider.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/oscars/2012/08/cnn-reality-shows-talk-shows-makeover

Guessing that CNN is preparing for what looks to be economic austerity in the USA circa 2013 (regardless of who wins the White House), by lots of cheap chattering opinion shows plus greater doses of fake-reality series.

Newt Gingrich: South Carolina gives an angry old man a further 15 minutes.

Probably the lowpoints of the political coverage I sat through last night:
1. On CNN, Erin Burnett trotted out her superfabulous CEO poll that showed that 11 out of 15 CEOs prefer Mitt Romney to Barack Obama.
2. On MSNBC, Chris Matthews was practically drooling over the Gingrich victory because it extends
the horserace (which Matthews seems to like covering more than the issues beneath it) a few more months.

As far as the Republican scrapfest of back-to-the-past ideological/economic titans is concerned, this primary cycle could climax in the GOP's first down-to-the-convention-floor nomination fight since the Gerald Ford vs. Ronald Reagan duel of 1976.

Let's leave Ron Paul and his scary no-government minimalism off the table.  Consider the Big Three candidates carefully.

If you're not at least a millionaire (either through inheritance or actual work), Mitt Romney doesn't give a damn about you.

If you're not a heterosexual/literal-minded (aka Fundamentalist) Christian, Rick Santorum doesn't
give a darn about you.

And then there's Newt Gingrich, who, in essence, is every scowling, snarling, point-at-the-clock, fake-pious, never-ever-wrong boss (who keeps at least two sets of books) you've ever had the misfortune to work for.

Thanks to John King's Bernard Shaw-esque "gotcha" question (which should have been phrased as a more subtle query on the financial/sexual morality Gingrich asks of people that aren't named Newt Gingrich) and the angry voters of South Carolina (guessing a mix of anger/resentment/overdoses of Fox News/fierce dislike of being told to fall into line behind Mitt Romney), we're stuck with the frightening, monstrous blowhard behavior of ultimate nonwinner Newt into at least the late spring.

Ex-CNBC, now-CNN newsperson Erin Burnett still hearts Wall Street.

Looks like the Fox News notion of "fair and balanced" has traveled to CNN.  Here's an article about "International Superstar" (phrase coined by MSNBC's Joe Scarborough) Erin Burnett and her open disdain for Wall Street protests:  http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4408

A key passage from the article (highlighting by me):
"Burnett used to work for the same financial companies that profited from the bailouts--Goldman Sachs, Citigroup--and she is engaged to be married to a Citigroup executive (Business Insider, 9/30/11). Burnett's journalistic career includes plenty of attempts to promote Wall Street interests, earning her praise from the likes of Rush Limbaugh (FAIR Blog, 10/3/11). She even tried to defend Wall Street giants from criticism over using TARP funds to pay giant bonuses (FAIR Blog, 2/3/09)."

[UPDATE]:
Glenn Greenwald's article on Erin Burnett:
http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/05/erin_burnett_voice_of_the_people/

Here's the Piers Morgan Americans don't experience on CNN.

The quote below is from former UK newspaperperson Piers Morgan's Twitter feed--expressing Morgan's feelings about Hugh Grant (who was a victim of the celebrity phone hacking scandal in the UK--along with actress Sienna Miller) and Grant's appearance on the BBC show QUESTION TIME (presumably discussing how the phone hacking of celebrities, 7/7/05 terror victims and those concerned in the case of a murdered young woman brought an abrupt end to Rupert Murdoch's tabloid NEWS OF THE WORLD):
"You don't have to have any sympathy for the News of the World to think Hugh Grant's being a screechy, sanctimonious little prick."

New poem: WITHDRAWAL

I'm trying so hard to withdraw,

to untie the rubber tube

and wrench the syringe of cable news

from my veins.

Don't want to see the CNN Saturday anchor

smile every time she reads something 

off the prompter.

Don't want to see MSNBC hosts

named Lawrence and Ed

competing for who can get the most headlines

to fill the ratings void left 

when Keith Olbermann was unjustly fired.

Don't want to see Chris Matthews

saying things about Anthony Weiner

"sticking it out."

Don't want to see Anderson Cooper

being a puppet of his writers and producers.

Don't want to see Fox News

unless I'm in a doctor's waiting room

where I have no choice.

And, even then, I want a magazine

to keep me from being irradiated

by Republican talking points

and facts twisted like Silly Putty.

Don't want to watch HLN

and hear Nancy Grace

snarl about Lady Justice.

Or, for that matter, 

Doctor Drew and his endless quest

to present himself

as a sober-minded moralistic ambulance chaser.

I just want to tear out the needle

and the syringe

and throw them across the room

hearing the breaking glass of the syringe

and pronouncing myself

cured of propaganda and endless distraction

from the news that really matters.

It's all over now: the end of LARRY KING LIVE.

It's going to be easy to snark about the latter years of LARRY KING LIVE where Larry's tendencies to throw overdeferential-to-guests softballs, not ask follow-up questions and become disengaged in the proceedings caught up with him.

Better to focus on what LARRY KING LIVE meant to CNN upon its 1985 debut: a chance for the network to evolve beyond its just-straight-newcasts-around-the-clock original formula.

Perhaps the show was at its best in the latter 1980s.  I particularly remember 1987, when news events such as the Iran/Contra hearings and the Jim Bakker/Tammy Faye Bakker/Jessica Hahn/PTL scandals were front-page news.  And it made for lively viewing as participants in the above events would come onto Larry's show to spin things their way.  In those days, Larry was still actively engaged in conversation with guests.

Now, that's all been washed away by CNN; CNN is now run by the guy who helped turn HLN (Headline News)'s prime-time lineup into Tabloid Central.  And it will be interesting to see if Piers Morgan's UK tabloid approach can transfer to CNN as successfully as Larry King's talk radio format did.

The bombast/"respectability" schizophrenia of CNN.

http://nymag.com/news/media/68717/

Gabriel Sherman's NEW YORK magazine article brings together a lot of over-the-years anecdotes relating to CNN, FOX NEWS, MSNBC (remembering its brief, John Gibson-powered, imitation of FOX NEWS in the last decade) and HLN and mostly concentrates on their prime-time programming.

And a point is made in the piece that CNN should probably transform into a "class" brand--to the extent of trying to woo someone like Charlie Rose over from PBS.

But, despite who's running CNN, the network tends to be too attracted to bombastic news types like Tom Foreman (the RAW POLITICS guy), Tony Harris and, of course, the now-departed Rick Sanchez.  And it looks like Anderson Cooper's being nudged to take a more confrontational stance (in a sort-of-neutral way) with GOP extremist-types.  But you and I both know that Anderson Cooper wouldn't behave like that around John Boehner and/or Mitch McConnell.

Or there's weekend anchor Fredrika Whitfield, who seems to have been told by consultants to smile just about every time she delivers a line from the prompter.  But at least Ms. Whitfield, at this stage in her career, isn't actively grating.

And I fear that grating-nerves newsjunk, under the "Keeping Them Honest" tag, is the path CNN will travel down with the ex-HLN head honcho at the helm.

Rick Sanchez and the ghost of Richard Nixon.

I've never been able to watch now-former CNN cartoon news-anchor blowhard Rick Sanchez for more than a few minutes at a time.  Having said that, I was rather sickened by the anti-Semitic, anti-"Eastern intellectual elite" bilge that Sanchez blurted out on Sirius/XM leading to his firing earlier today:
http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk/article/rick-sanchez-fired-over-remarks-on-jews-media-jon-stewart/19657894?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main-w%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk2%7C174810

This is comparable to former President Richard Nixon's hateful anti-Semitic rantings:
http://hnn.us/articles/657.html

Time for another Larry King-esque Random Topics post.

1. Seems to me that CNN, as it heads into Year 31, ought to not listen to media gossips advocating a boost in the amount of "opinion" shows because they seem to be a better short-term fix than the network's usual passive center-right "neutral" retell the Official Story programming. Perhaps more shows like, say, Fareed Zakaria's GPS, might be better--news shows with actual news and analysis. And a de-emphasis on personality-driven shows (which began when dull-but-attempting-to-be-substantive Aaron Brown was deposed for more conventionally-network-friendly Anderson Cooper, who only seems to be truly useful when on location) defintely wouldn't hurt.

2. Am I too sensitive, or is it okay to be offended when SiriusXM considers Helen Reddy's "I Am Woman" part of the "Jukebox of Cheese" on its 70s channel?

Ted Turner decries "fluff" on CNN.

Just read an account of a gee-I-wish-I-were-running-things-now interview with Ted Turner (I believe it was on Bloomberg News) where, among other things, he displayed discontent with the "fluff" on Cable News Network and expressed a wish for more "news" on the channel.

To be absolutely cynical, I don't foresee CNN (along with sister station HLN) decreasing their focus on who-said-that/who-went-too-far.

After all, when corporations run for-profit news channels, there's a ginormous list of news stories that news directors know not to devote their increasingly-less-vast resources to.