CNN: Living Proof That Market Dominance Does Not Necessarily Last

People under 30 probably have no direct memory of it, but at one point, CNN equaled news.  And if you did not believe that, Darth Vader told you so.  This week, however, layoffs and "managerial changes" are convulsing the network.

When movies wanted to include realistic news references in the early 1990s, they cited CNN.  They were everywhere and showed everything.  Why wait for Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw's updates at the top of the hour or their full broadcast at 6:30?  You could see it now on CNN.

The era of CNN's ownership of modern news came only a little over a decade after the retirement of CBS' Walter Cronkite.  It also came in most major newspapers' most profitable years.

What happened?

Part of the problem emerged in the 1990s when a personal friend of President Bill Clinton's was chosen to lead CNN.  Regardless of the resulting coverage, this created at least the perception, if not the outcome, of a conflict of interest. 

A real or perceived liberal bias opened the market for competition.  This included the conservative leaning Fox News and (at the time) the even more conservative MSNBC.

Does anyone remember when MSNBC featured Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and Tucker Carlson?

Viewers latched onto Fox News, which eventually became the leading cable television news outlet.  Others turned away from television (and tangible newspapers) altogether and started using the internet as a primary news source.

CNN struggled to adapt while trying to maintain their image as the "real" news source.  A 2012 Pew survey praised CNN for keeping 55 percent of its broadcast focused on news (as opposed to 45 percent for Fox News and less than 10 percent for MSNBC.) 

Recent hires should have helped.  Jake Tapper headlines one of CNN's premiere spots.  He is one of the few media figures respected from all ideological points of view.

Problems, however, continued. Reports of extravagant overspending in times of declining ratings dog the news of layoffs.  And these layoffs and early retirements affect many of CNN's most senior, most experienced, and core personnel.

Whatever the problems are, clearly CNN has still not discovered the solution to its viewership and profitability woes in this competitive media age.  The network built its reputation and market dominance in an era of no competition. Only figuring out a way to regain competitive advantage can bring it back towards what it once was.

Inspector General Report Makes Mockery of Jon Stewart, Salon's Mockery of Fox News

Fox News is often a left wing whipping boy.  Last spring, the network reported stories of "widespread" fraud and abuse involving the food stamp program.  Turns out, according to a recent Inspector General's report, Fox had the issue right.

Jon Stewart used the report to bash Fox News, saying for example "We read the chain emails you grandma gets in her inbox out loud like they were true."

Salon piled on. They described Stewart's act as "castigating the right wing propaganda shop" for repeating stories "you hear" about fraud and abuse.

The Department of Justice successfully prosecuted a Camden, New Jersey man for stealing over $2.5 million from the SNAP program. From recipients, he purchased benefits from customers for .50 cents on the dollar, then deposited the benefits as full purchases.

This case has been ongoing since May 2013, well before the Jon Stewart rant and Salon echo.

On the heels of this announcement came reports of the largest food stamp bust in history.  Five Georgians, according to the US Attorney's office, "canvassed low income neighborhoods and solicited WIC (a program to help parents buy nutritious food for expecting mothers and small children) and food stamp participants to illegally exchange their benefits not for food, but for cash."

The conspirators allegedly netted $18 million in the scheme.

Despite left wing pontificating, food stamp abuse is alive and well.

Unfit For Office

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/17/sen_rockefeller_fcc_should_take_fox_news_msnbc_off_airwaves.html

It's not often that I say this, even about an extreme leftist. The voters pick who they want and they have the responsibility to live with their choice. However, I doubt that the voters of West Virginia understood that a part of Senator Rockefeller wants to wish away the First Amendment and get rid of FOX News and MSNBC.

Rockefeller comes from a very patrician family. That means that he descends from forefathers who felt that they had the right and the responsibility to exercise power. In Europe, they would carry the title of "Duke" or "Prince" in front of their last names. Here in America, they just try to influence as much as possible. By and large, most politically active members of the Rockefeller family have expressed little support for the dignity of the common man as an individual, although they express much love for "the people" as a group.

I'll address this next part to the Senator. "Faith" in government comes when government is responsive to the people and respects their rights to innocent life, liberty, and pursuit of and retention of, property. When the government sticks to its basic roles and functions, people will have more faith. However we are not meant to have too much faith. We need to be skeptical. Government should be, but rarely is, our obedient servant and we must keep a watchful eye upon it. Government is run by humans who are not always saints. They at times will lie, steal, cheat, and work hard to keep their power. Having faith does not mean that we always extend complete trust.

The fact is that FOX and MSNBC serve a purpose. They are part of that watchful eye on the government and they do not fail to report on the shortcomings of their political opponents. This has the result of making each party and ideological group more responsive because they know that eyes are on them all of the time.

FOX and MSNBC are also symbols of a free society in action. In our country, when it comes to politics, we exchange heated words instead of bullets and bombs. They are a sign of a healthy political society because no one is afraid to speak their mind and no one is shooting at each other. We should embrace the political society that spawns these organizations instead of bashing it.

When it comes down to it, the Bill of Rights is paramount. When Senator Rockefeller officially and publicly expresses the wistful desire to destroy the natural rights of both conservatives and leftists to speak freely, he has made himself unfit to serve.

Juan Williams Is a Victim of Left Wing Attack On Traditional American Liberalism

Juan Williams is currently a contributor to Fox News Channel and was formerly a personality on National Public Radio. His appearances on shows like Hannity were usually civil and gracious, but Williams is one of the cadre of liberal commentators that Fox calls upon to balance the oratory of its conservative hosts.

Liberals and left wingers generally joke about Fox News's tag line of "Fair and Balanced." My column writing partner Charlie Meyer calls them "F word News." But judge for yourself who is fair and balanced, Fox or the liberal left darling NPR.

On Fox, Williams made the statement that he would feel uncomfortable sitting on an airplane that also carried a Moslem in traditional garb. It was an honest statement that reflected the fact that Islamic fundamentalists tend to be more likely to blow up planes. It was a frank admission by a liberal and a black man who would probably criticize racial profiling. He never advocated any action against the man, but simply admitted his discomfort.

Were NPR smart, it would have involved Williams on air in a discussion about race, religion, stereotypes, and national security. That would have been great radio. Instead it fired Williams almost immediately. Conservatives and no one else have rushed to the defense of the liberal commentator. It sparked a spontaneous and sudden demand from Republican congressmen to remove federal funds from NPR, especially in light of the massive financial support given by left wing billionaire George Soros.

NPR itself stated that it received repeated complaints from listeners about Williams. In the free market, repeated complaints are welcome news because it proves listeners are paying attention. NPR, however, is ideological, not commercial.

Williams was sacrificed to the fact that the Left does not like American liberalism. American liberalism traditionally supports government solutions, but also acknowledges American exceptionalism. The Left hates the idea that we are any better than anyone else. In fact they revel in the idea that we are one of the worst countries out there. Liberals want government solutions, but the Left seeks government control. Left wingers historically hate liberals worse than conservatives because they see them as underminers, devoted to half measures. They are tolerated so long as they are useful.

Juan Williams will be fine. But his firing only underscores the fact that the "conservative" news channel continues to welcome diverse viewpoints much more so than NPR and other bastions of left opinion manufacturing.

Fox News listed a number of offensive statements made on NPR itself. Some were anti-Semitic. Others breezily hoped that four million Christians would evaporate. They called Republicans hate-filled and Tea Party activists "teabaggers."

NPR is right. Williams does not belong there. He is too tolerant and too mature for their brand of broadcasting.

Williams' personal statement on the difference between his traditional liberalism and left wing ideologues is linked below.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/10/21/juan-williams-npr-fired-truth-muslim-garb-airplane-oreilly-ellen-weiss-bush/

Obama's attack on Unbias News organization makes Leno

Will We Soon See a Sedition Act of 2010?

I remember not so long ago that Glenn Beck leveled harsh criticism at a man holding high office. As usual, Beck spoke freely and without restraint, making his target cringe. President George W. Bush was used to being stung by the left. In the wake of the bailouts his administration pushed through Congress last year, President Bush found himself attacked more often than not on the Glenn Beck program.

Different year, different president, same gadfly. Beck still criticizes. Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly get their shots in as well, just like Keith Olbermann used to bash Bush nightly. Bush maintained his dignity, did not respond, and simply did his job.

Free speech in under assault in this country. The Obama Administration blames Fox News for destroying its relationship with the public, thwarting its agenda. They expect Fox to fall into line, to not ask the tough questions, and to not criticize.

We have not seen this kind of direct assault on a news organization since Richard Nixon declared war on the New York Times almost thirty years ago.

Obama is acting as if he is in Britain circa 1750. What he is accusing Fox of in a roundabout way is sedition. Sedition was a controversial, but well entrenched concept in British law. Speech that criticized the government, but was seen to be an obstacle to policy was considered criminal sedition. During the Quasi Naval War in the 1790s, Congress passed a Sedition Act that made the Federalist Party so unpopular that it never again won control of the legislative or executive branches. The concept of criminal sedition has no place in American law, but Obama and the White House seem to be trying to resurrect the concept.

He does it through using the "rules for radicals" playbook. I hate using a conservative cliche, but there is a set of guidelines for radicals that includes personalizing and demonizing the opposition. Obama tried doing that with Rush Limbaugh and got nowhere. Then he tried it on Glenn Beck and only boosted his ratings. Now he wants America to turn against a legitimate news broadcaster because they dare to disagree with him. Here's the problem with using that playbook. It only works in opposition, not when you are the incumbent. When those in power use these methods, they just look like bullies if not heroes standing up for the First Amendment.

I foresee a lot of liberals, not leftists, but liberals quoting Evelyn Beatrice Hall's quote, commonly attributed to Voltaire, this week, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defedn to the death your right to say it." Incidentally, this was the Bush Administration's attitude towards Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and others. A cold wind is blowing in the world of American civil liberties.

V Is For Vendetta and I Is For Incompetence

Obama has never liked Fox News. Obama's court of supporters never have either. Naturally it serves as a media center rallying the opposition, according to studies more partisan than CNN, but much less so than MSNBC.



Obama has personally tried to undermine his media opposition, what there is of it, from the start of his presidency. Rush Limbaugh got the first taste of Obamavective and his ratings skyrocketed. People who had not listened in years started tuning in again. Then he turned his guns on Fox News who now routinely dominate their competition among 24 hour news organizations.



The president tries to make it a battle of personalities and wills, something that he usually won in the past as a senator and candidate. He has yet to realize that the presidency is something else. It is a position of dignity, partisan, yet expected to be above the petty frays of the day. Obama has so little political experience that he is not aware, or does not care, that the Democratic National Committee's job is to smear Fox News. It is the pit bull of a Democratic administration, attacking opponents and taking the hits.



Even left wingers shake their heads in dismay every time they see the White House or the president himself go after legitimate news organizations. The liberal media actually rouse themselves to fact check Obama's inaccurate assaults on Fox, criticizing his inability to distinguish between opinion artists and hard news reporting (Fox was actually the first to reveal an October surprise story against President Bush in 2004.) Liberals dislike Fox, but respect the freedom of the press. President Bush had few friends in the press, but never hit back against much more personal criticism levied against him by even hard news reporters.



Obama has revealed himself, as John Nichols of The Nation, put it (thank you Don Surber for the link) as "whiner-in-chief." He expects media love, as in the preposterous Time article that rated his presidency an A-, but has no clue how to take criticism or dislike in a presidential fashion.



Perhaps because he had no business being president in the first place. The Democrats nominated snake oil for the presidency and we all suffer for it now.

Defending to the Death His Right to Say It

Lou Dobbs has accomplished quite a bit recently. Bill O'Reilly and the CNN US president defend him while Ann Coulter and liberals from organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center attack him.

Dobbs has reported from CNN since the inception of that network. At one point he concentrated on business matters, but now he has a prime time show. This program focuses on important, but little reported issues.

The birth certificate issue has gotten Dobbs in hot water with some and has led to liberal and left wing calls for his firing from CNN. Dobbs went on the record saying that he believed Obama was born in the United States, but he ran a story about the dissenters that apparently did not represent them as kooky lunatics. The outraged left fought back by trying to get CNN to fire him.

The fact is that this was not like the Dan Rather hatchet case against George W. Bush. The story focused upon those that dissented, it did not try to investigate the issue itself. Even then, so long as Dobbs and his team did not suppress vital information or lie outright, they are still well within the realm of professional journalism.

CNN has much to fear from dismissing or downgrading the sometimes prickly Dobbs. The more popular Fox News would love to have him, although fitting him into a good time slot would be an issue unless he worked for their business network. Dobbs also has a popular national radio show that could be used against CNN if they fired him.

Journalists need to step up for Dobbs. So what if his program reported on a genuine news story and stuck to basic facts? Liberals (remember their root word is supposed to be the same as liberty!) want Dobbs shoved off the air for ideological reasons, not factual, not professional, but ideological.

Fox News handled a controversy of its own when Glenn Beck referred to Obama as a racist due to his comments critical of police in the Gates arrest. He said that Obama may like white people, but also seems to have a problem with them. Fox News released a statement saying that its commentators have freedom to express their opinion "as with all commentators in the cable news arena." Could this have been a shot on behalf of Dobbs?

To his credit, Dobbs did not back off and apologize, but called his critics "limp minded, lily livered, lefty lemmings."

Now that is a man worth keeping around. Right CNN?