| Jul 14 2009; 4:25 PM | |
From the "Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism." comes the following interesting summary of the ongoing coverage of Michael Jackson's death and Palin's resignation.
"the Jackson story was primarily a television event last week. Cable and network news each devoted 28% of the airtime studied to the story. It was a particularly hot topic on the network morning shows, where it filled 43% of the a.m. newshole studied—the first half hour of those broadcasts."
"Together the Jackson and Palin storylines accounted for about a quarter of the coverage last week, as measured by PEJ’s weekly News Coverage Index, which monitors the coverage in 55 different media outlets. Those two stories, indeed, generated more attention than three events that might fit a more traditional definition of news. The ongoing economic crisis, the skirmishing over health care legislation and President Obama’s Moscow summitry combined to fill 22% of the weekly newshole." (source: www.journalism.org)
The coverage of the Jackson memorial also drew huge numbers to TV news websites. CNN drew nearly 10 million video streams and MSNBC had over 19 million streams.
As noted in our "editors picks" feature, over 35 breaking news alerts have been sent out around Jackson's death. Based on the feedback we have received and on votes on our site, the post death alerts have been see as unnecessary and not real news. We have seen and heard lots of criticism of the seeming blanket coverage of the Jackson death, but the numbers sure indicate that while many complain about what they have to watch , they continue to do so themselves, in record numbers. | | 61 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Jul 6 2009; 3:50 PM | |
A few notes from a busy period including:
6 majors sent "alerts" re Federer's win & only 4 re Serena Williams win. USA Today sent one for Serena but not for Federer?
Only Fox News had the Steve McNair story as an "alert": "FORMER NFL QUARTERBACK STEVE MCNAIR REPORTEDLY KILLED IN NASHVILLE SHOOTING"
"Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin Not Running for Re-Election" was covered with "alerts" from all
Only Fox News and ABC thought Biden's trip was "alert" worthy, "Vice President Joe Biden Arrives in Iraq on Unannounced Trip"
Looks like CNN beat TMZ on the death of Billy Mays. Guess that's a consolation prize in the "got it first contest"; missed MJ's death but....
and of course we were swamped with Michael Jackson alerts, a summary of which can be seen under the heading "Editors Picks". Can't help but wonder how many more we will be adding over the next few days | | 19 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Jun 30 2009; 5:19 PM | |
We have collected all the "breaking news alerts" related to Michael Jackson's death and have posted them on one page. In addition to tracking the different coverage you can also see the much discussed timing of the TMZ alerts.
see the full list by clicking on "Editors Picks" in our masthead or http://www.breakingnewsornot.com/ editorspick.php | | 14 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Jun 26 2009; 1:49 PM | |
Answers to a number of email questions about this story:
Yesterdays news did generate a large number of "alerts" and the coverage was very consistent, but no it was not the busiest day ever for alerts. Both the U.S. primaries and U.S. election day generated many more alerts.
We were also asked about who had the story first. As far as we can tell TMZ was the first to report both the ambulance part of the story and his death. From the more traditional media CNN seems to have been first with the "Cardiac arrest" portion of the story, and both MSNBC and CNN were first in reporting his death with an "alert", but both cited "other sources" in that release. | | 14 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Jun 25 2009; 3:58 PM | |
Was the icon status the reason all the news sources sent out this news as an alert?
It will be interesting to see if there is the same reaction to the coverage of her death as there seems to be when alerts go out about the death of other "celebrities", with Ed McMahon being the most recent example.
Other deaths reported via breaking news alerts that sparked comments on this site included Bea Arthur and last years death of Heath Ledger.
Age, stardom level, and type of death all seem to impact on both the editors decision to send out an alert and on our readers reaction to whether or not it was truly breaking news. My guess is that Farrah Fawcett's status as an icon from the 1970's will mean most will understand and agree that this was breaking news, at least to those of us of a certain age. | | 12 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Jun 24 2009; 11:43 AM | |
As noted in the previous post (June 23) we had a day busy with many alerts, on a wide range of topics, but no story that was covered by more than three sources.
No sooner was that noted when the news broke of Ed McMahon's death, a story that generated alerts from nearly all our sources (only BBC did not cover it as an alert).
That kind of coverage certainly supports the arguement we see a lot on our pages, that entertainment related news is what drives ratings, and therfore qualifies as real news more and more often, and now more than ever seems to even qualify as breaking news. | | 13 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Jun 23 2009; 9:34 AM | |
Only three of these nine stories were covered by more than one source.
Train crash, earthquake, US Open and Iran, just four of the nine different topics that resulted in alerts on June 22nd. While nine different alerts is a lot in one day it's not a record. What is very unusual is the lack of consistency. Of the nine alerts only three stories were given the "alert" treatment by more than one source, and no story had more than three sources deem it "Breaking News". See the summary below with the source in brackets.
Two D.C. Metro trains collided during rush hour Monday (CNN, MSNBC)
Plea deal reached in singer Chris Brown’s... (MSNBC)
Stocks tumble; Dow down 2 percent (MSNBC)
5.7 Magnitude Earthquake Strikes Alaska, Felt in Anchorage (ABC)
Obama signs anti-smoking bill (Fox)
Lucas Glover Wins U.S. Open (FOX, New York Times, USA Today)
Accused Craigslist Killer Pleads Not Guilty to First Degree Murder and Other Charges (ABC)
Supreme Court Leaves Voting Rights Act Undisturbed (New York Times)
Iranian Riot Police Attack Demonstrators With Tear Gas, Live Fire Into Air, AP Reports (ABC & MSNBC) | | 15 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Jun 4 2009; 10:23 AM | |
- CNN Air France coverage included an alert about debris being found, but CNN did not send out an alert when the plane first went missing or when it was clear that the plane had met a tragic end. Seems a little inconsistent.
-The economy coverage seems to generate less and less "alerts" with only Fox News sending an alert out on June 1st noting the "Dow closes up 221 Points"
- ABC sent out the following alert on Wednesday June 3rd. "Princeton University on Lockdown After Reports of a Gunman on Campus". They were the only ones to send out the alert and happily the incident at Princeton was not serious. Seems ABC could have held back a little longer. Interesting to note that the other major sources not only avoided sending out an alert but also avoided playing it up on their sites until more was known. | | 6 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Apr 17 2009; 8:55 AM | |
A new low! and it's from CNN. Even if it's newsworthy to some, how can it possibly be considered worthy of a Breaking News Alert?
It's ironic that in a "race" to get subscribers to the Twitter version of their Breaking News Alerts, CNN has made a mockery of that very service.
Sad day for those interested in real news, and for those who felt that CNN had been finding a way to walk that line between light news and real news.
"CNN Breaking News" now means a whole lot less today than it did yesterday. | | 19 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Apr 1 2009; 4:42 PM | |
Six out of the last seven Breaking News Alerts from Fox News have been about the President about to give a speech, announce a strategy, host a town hall meeting, or host a press conference. All of them are followed by "Watch Live".
Personally I have appreciated some of them as they have reminded me of the event and have encouraged me to watch. So I guess that proves their value from a marketing point of view. But do they really qualify as worthy of an alert?
Most seem like leads and links to news events about to happen, live on Fox News, versus true "breaking news". News stories that are truly "breaking" often have the "click for more" option and obviously that drives traffic. That option is logical in the alert, both from the reader and the publishers perspective.
A reader to this site noted this Fox News "ploy" and suggested that for those who have signed up for "Breaking News Alerts", and not "programming alerts", these seem wrong. Your thoughts? | | 8 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Mar 23 2009; 4:53 PM | |
Good news as Breaking News? Nice change!
A number of visitors have asked the question can good news be "Breaking News"? Based on today's market surge (that most would presumably see as good news) the answer is yes. In fact the networks have been giving breaking news coverage to a few of the positive economic signs of the past few weeks.
Have good and bad economic news been treated equally? Should they be? | | 9 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Feb 13 2009; 10:44 AM | |
Two separate airline crashes have proven to be stories that all our news sources have responded to with "Breaking News" Alerts. In both the case of the Hudson River Miracle and the tragedy near Buffalo all the news sources we track had released "Breaking News" alerts, and all within an hour of each other. A number of the sources used subsequent alerts to follow up on the story (especially in the Hudson river case).
While this is not really surprising given the magnitude of these stories, what is more surprising is that these are two of the only examples in the last year where all sources released alerts on one story, within an hour of each other. | | 10 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Jan 6 2009; 11:01 AM | |
The answer seems easy at first...
We recently had a water cooler debate over whether or not 2009 would end up with more breaking news alerts than 2008. The original consensus was that given the number of alerts around the primaries and the election it would be hard for 2009 to beat 2008 in terms of sheer number of alerts. Upon further review, and debate, the answer seems less clear.
This site was built, in part, as a response to what seemed to be a growing trend towards the watering down of what is defined as "Breaking News" (and offer an opportunity to debate the issue). Based on the response of our visitors, and the subject line of many of 2008's "news alerts", the
trend towards "softer" news and the use of "alerts" as a marketing tool shows no sign of slowing down.
For 2008 the normal news cycle would have provided us with enough content to keep the site dynamic. Little did we know that we would also get news alerts for stories like "Pregnant man is expecting second child" (ABC News-see a previous blog entry), and "Madonna Divorcing" (USA Today).
Ongoing discussion about the definition of "breaking news" and ongoing coverage of unfolding stories will continue to drive much of the debate on the site. Based on our experience in 2008 (and the large number of alerts already in 09) there should plenty of alerts and topics to keep this site fresh, and the debate about what truly qualifies as "breaking news" very topical. | | 13 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Dec 9 2008; 10:24 AM | |
From the New York Times? Yes - believe it or not.
The full "breaking news" alert from the New York Times reads:
"NBC Expected to Give 10 P.M. Show to Leno
The network is expected to announce Tuesday that it has
signed Jay Leno to a new contract that will give him the 10
p.m. time period each weeknight for a show."
I guess this is just another example, from a growing list of examples, that highlight how entertainment news is now considered real news. What makes this one even more puzzling is the Times are the only ones running this as breaking news. Even MSNBC, with a more obvious self interest, has stayed clear of it. Perhaps they will play it up when the formal announcement is made.
In the meantime you can chalk up this "alert" from the Times as a real surprise and disappointment. Agree or disagree? | | 8 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Nov 13 2008; 11:58 AM | |
Another new low for ABC News?....
ABC News did lead the ratings in non cable news coverage on election night, so maybe they do know what they are doing at some level. But this alert, coupled with the Elisabeth Hasselbeck alert on OCT 23 (see previous posting), sets new lows for using "breaking news alerts" as a veiled ad for other ABC programming. If this is ad, and the story it is promoting, are what ABC News department now defines as "breaking news" then this must surely be a sad day for the many notable news reporters, editors and newscasters who once called ABC News home. | | 12 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Nov 9 2008; 1:55 PM | |
A total of 62 "Alerts" from the eight news sources we follow.
Total #
7 from USA Today (including one that was really an ad for their coverage)
7 from ABC News
3 from CBS
9 from the New York Times
17 from Fox News (including one ad and one alert that stated that "VOTERS IN THE EAST BEGIN CASTING BALLOTS TO DECIDE CAMPAIGN '08" )
7 from MSNBC
8 from CNN
1 from BBC (surprisngly low when compared to their "alerts" around the primaries) | | 9 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Oct 23 2008; 1:05 PM | |
ABC News - Are you kidding me ? This can't really be what you define as worthy of a "Breaking News Alert"
Maybe I am missing something, but this "alert" now ranks near the top of my list of "hard to believe" alerts.
Am I alone on this? | | 20 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Oct 23 2008; 11:08 AM | |
Is the result of each game of the World Series really "Breaking News"?
One of the ongoing and most popular debates on this site. Are the results of big sports events worthy of breaking news alerts?
The debate always seems to involve two key points. First -should any sports results be considered breaking news by "real news" sources, or do sports results belong on sports pages and sports sites only?
Second - if some sports do cross over to "real news" what sports qualify as being that important. Is it the Olympics ? the Super Bowl? World Series? or any results involving your own favorite team? | | 9 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Oct 23 2008; 10:58 AM | |
Should Fox News have waited until more information was available?
They were the only ones to send out this alert, but would have been "first" with the story had a tradgedy occured.
Is this the result of trying to drive traffic to their site as one reader suggested, or simply a case of wanting to be first at all costs ? | | 7 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Oct 15 2008; 8:58 PM | |
This is an ad - NOT Breaking News.
I think this one leaves no room for debate (no pun intended). Let us know how you feel about receiving this in your inbox as a "Breaking News Alert" | | 7 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Oct 15 2008; 10:31 AM | |
Did this one slip through the editors at USATODAY.com? I am looking for the rationale but having trouble finding it.
- The Rays did not win the series with this game
- The Sox did not lose the series with this game
- A quick check through the collection of previous alerts from USA TODAY (accessible from "Read by Source- top right hand of page) shows no previous game results from this series as alerts
- Dodgers and Phillies played last night as well - but apparently they are not worthy of an alert
- Thanks in large part to our sinking economy, USA Today have sent out 16 other alerts this month so this can't be an issue of quotas or keeping the database fresh | | 9 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Oct 1 2008; 3:30 PM | |
Debate changed from "what is real news" to what parts of the news story qualified as "Breaking News".
September was the first month where the feedback and comments to this site were not focused on the usual broad arguments and challenges of trying to define real news. All the sources we cover gave the Wall Street crisis, and by extension the economic crisis, the kind of coverage that most of our readers seemed to think the story warranted.
For those of you keeping track it was The New York Times (no surprise) that sent out the most alerts in September about the economic crisis.
To check or compare how the story was covered simply click on the individual source in the top right corner of our page to see a complete list of all alerts as sent out, in order, from each of the news services we cover.
Bring on October....... | | 11 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Aug 22 2008; 11:07 AM | |
Have any news stories been breaking news to all the sources you cover?
This question came up during the debate about whether Olympic results were truly breaking news worthy (see previous post). Since we began to track the alerts the one story that generated near simultaneous alerts from all the sources we track was the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. The long trail of breaking news alerts about that story can be seen in our Editors' Picks feature.
It's Friday morning as this is being written and we are close to what we expect will be another story that will result in a complete set of alerts - the selection by Sen. Barack Obama of his Vice Presidential running mate. He is set to tell the world via email and it will be interesting to see which networks get the story out first and whether or not there will be any leaks before the big announcement. Stay tuned... | | 8 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Aug 18 2008; 12:15 PM | |
If it did not happen in prime time - did it really happen? and other questions and notes about coverage via breaking news alerts
It started with: MSNBC.com BREAKING NEWS: Beijing Games declared open by China's president 2008-08-08 11:52:01 MSNBC
Air Rifle results - Wow - looks like New York Times is going deep with coverage "Czech Republic Wins First Gold in Beijing. Katerina Emmons of the Czech Republic won the first gold medal of the Beijing Olympics on Saturday in the women's 10-meter air rifle." 2008-08-08 23:04:34 NYT
and deeper "First U.S. Gold of Games Comes in Fencing Event Mariel Zagunis, the 2004 saber champion, led an American sweep Saturday in women's saber fencing. " 2008-08-09 08:53:46 NYT
and then the NYT and most others focus on one story - with the first of many alerts about the truly news worthy Michael Phelps..
"Phelps Smashes World Record in First Race. The Michael Phelps gold medal count commenced early Sunday morning in Beijing with the 400-meter individual medley final, and his pursuit of a record eight golds began with a victory and a world record." 2008-08-09 22:14:25 NYT
With NBC holding the rights to the Olympics will MSNBC alerts just promote U.S. wins and news? In fairness no - MSNBC looking good at this point..
"China wins men's team gymnastics gold; U.S. takes bronze" 2008-08-12 00:53:34 MSNBC
"China beats out U.S. for gold in women's team gymnastics" 2008-08-13 00:38:01 MSNBC
and in the build up to the race to determine who is the "World's Fastest Man" comes this update from MSNBC
"American sprinter Tyson Gay fails to qualify for Olympic 100m final" 2008-08-16 08:26:04
and then in what looks a lot like an attempt to help viewer numbers for NBC in prime time MSNBC ignores the results of the actual race that takes place at approx 10:30 am EST.
I half expected to see MSNBC send out an alert at 10:30 pm after NBC broadcast it on tape delay. In fairness the race may have lost some significance for an American audience when Tyson Gay did not qualify but Usain Bolt's dominate win, complete with world records,and a U.S. Bronze, seemed like one of the biggest stories out of Beijing.
The NYT did find it alert worthy - but they were the only ones. "Usain Bolt Sets World Record in 100-Meter Final
Usain Bolt of Jamaica won the gold medal in the 100-meter dash, setting a world record of 9.69 seconds. The silver went to Richard Thompson of Trinidad and Tobago, and the bronze to Walter Dix of the United States." NYT 2008-08-16 10:40:27
Phelps: The one unanimous "breaking News" coverage from Beijing has been the coverage of Michael Phelps. At least for the NYT, USA Today, CNN and MSNBC.
In the meantime CBS, ABC and BBC have been consistent and have not sent out any alerts about Olympic results. It brings up one of our ongoing debates - is sports news, at any level, qualify as being worthy of a "Breaking News Alert" ? | | 23 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Aug 8 2008; 4:53 PM | |
This story is made for this debate!
This has everything that makes the debate about what constitutes "Breaking News" so interesting.
- The story is not new, just new to the sources we cover here. The National Enquirer has been telling this story for two weeks (minus the confession of course).
- While reading through news blogs the last two weeks it has been fun to read about the story as it was always framed by the question "when would it be covered by the mainstream media". I guess we have the answer now.
- Both then and now the question of coverage seems to break down quickly across party lines. The blogesphere is already jammed with every Republican seemingly complaining that the media held back on this one versus coverage of the "wide stance" or McCain's supposed affair (New York Times controversial story two months ago).
- Equally interesting is how bloggers are reacting to ABC's coverage. It appears ABC broke into regular TV programming to break this "exclusive" story and that helps the great "Breaking News " debate.
- Other networks who sent out alerts did give ABC credit for the story (except for Fox) | | 11 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Aug 8 2008; 11:27 AM | |
Bret Favre stepping off a plane as Breaking News?
The Daily Show host Jon Stewart asks David Gregory of MSNBC how and why Bret Favre stepping off a plane warrants "breaking news" coverage. Guess we are not the only ones asking the question and debating what makes "Breaking News" Watch the clip here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/ video/ index.jhtml?videoId=178681&title=david-gregory | | 7 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Aug 7 2008; 6:01 PM | |
Bret Favre wears out his importance
Only one of these major sources saw the latest news in the Bret Favre affair as worthy of breaking news status. What a relief. More proof that his on again, off again retirement has greatly tarnished the once golden boy of football. Saw one quick survey asking TV viewers what they thought Bret should do and the overwhelming percentage voted "don't care".
Those of us who have tired of this story may be proven wrong when he plays in New York, but for now I (and probably many others) wish he was satisfied with his great career in Green Bay and left the game when he was on top - and when his great play made him newsworthy! | | 7 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Jul 29 2008; 11:38 AM | |
How low will you go BBC?.....Sorry, couldn't resist!
This one is as baffling to me as any breaking news alert over the last year (with the possible exception of the "Pope celebrating Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve" - see Editors Picks).
Who does this appeal to? Are freshwater diving records that big a story? Did the BBC consider this breaking news because the Russians narrowly beat out other top ranked freshwater diving countries?
As we have seen many times on this site, stories qualify as breaking news depending on the target audience of the media outlet. This mini submarine was Russian, not British. Am I missing something being on this side of the pond? | | 7 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Jul 22 2008; 10:18 PM | |
Few covered this – is this the sign of a change?
On the heels of the biggest opening weekend ever for Bale’s new film "Batman – The Black Knight" I just assumed this would have been designated as “Breaking News” by more sources.
After the coverage given to the legal problems that both Paris Hilton and Britney have received, this just seemed like it was going to be another example of what is arguably "Entertainment News" moving over to real news – and "breaking News"
This keeps up and I will have nothing to complain about….. | | 16 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Jul 16 2008; 7:45 PM | |
A meaningless baseball game as "Breaking News"?
Wimbledon, Euro 2008, NBA & NHL Champs have all recently received "Breaking News Alerts" treatment and in today's news world that does not surprise me, but a meaningless baseball game?
One person's trash is another ones treasure – and one could argue the same thing is true in deciding what sports events are important and newsworthy, and which ones are not.
I doubt many would argue with the results of a Super Bowl or the World Cup qualifying as "breaking news", but I wonder how many feel the same way about the MLB All Star game.
I also suspect that many would argue that all these sports results belong on the sports pages only, and that maybe using a Breaking News Alert to highlight a sports story is simply wrong. | | 8 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Jul 14 2008; 1:40 PM | |
The sale that won't "happen on my watch", that no one seems to care about
Arguments for why this story is not Breaking News for most sources could include that it is really just business news, or the fact that the deal went through is not that surprising or "breaking".
At some level though this really feels odd – how does a company so often described as being as "American as apple pie" be so quietly bought up by a company that calls Belgium and Brazil home?
One can safely assume that Anheuser's chief executive officer August Busch's declaration, before the formal bid appeared, that a sale wouldn't "happen on my watch" will make it on many year end "great quotes lists". August the IV - Embarrassed – hopefully, richer than ever – no doubt. | | 6 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Jul 13 2008; 7:40 PM | |
How many dead before its "breaking news"
This kind of story must really be a nightmare for news editors. At what point does the death of soldiers fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan become "breaking news"? Is there a magic number that moves the story up the page –and ultimately to the status of an alert? The death of 9 soldiers in one "incident" warranted coverage from only 3 of the 8 sources we track. Would 10 or 20 deaths be the number that gets full coverage?
One death is tragic for the family and friends of that soldier. Have the rules against footage and coverage of the return of bodies from these wars meant that the networks have moved away from giving these deaths the coverage they might once have got? | | 5 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Jul 13 2008; 8:10 AM | |
MSNBC felt this story was worthy of an alert – but thankfully they were the only ones.
I have truly become so tired of the crossover of entertainment news to real news that the fact this story was only "breaking news" from one source is truly a pleasant surprise. I’m not even sure that I understand how having a baby even qualifies as "Entertainment" news, but I can live with that. | | 7 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Mar 14 2008; 11:05 AM | |
editor: Will
Thank God for Eliot Spitzer! If not for this pompous moralist being caught in a sleazy and sordid affair, television pundits would have to comment on the never ending self destruction of the Democratic Party. Thanks to “Steamroller Spitzer” however, they now have a story with sex, duplicity, wire taps, a spurned wife, a semi good looking hooker and possible money laundering. Television producers and talking heads all over the dial are breathing a huge sigh of relief. Just days ago they were looking at six weeks (six weeks?!) of continuous coverage of the Barack and Hillary slug fest. Even Lou Dobbs was running out of things to fulminate against. He was spending as much time promoting his book and new radio program as he was being part of “the best political team on television.” Now he can shake his head in sorrow as he ruminates on the folly of politicians who never understood the need to stop illegal immigration or keep a marriage vow. (I’m sure the two are connected, but only Lou knows how.)
So instead of row after row of talking head dissecting the latest move by Hillary or Barack, we have been inundated with images of properly indignant Republicans calling for Spitzer’s resignation; psychologists explaining why Eliot’s wife, Silda stood glassy eyed by his side as he publicly humiliated her and her children; political pundits explaining what impact it would have on Hillary Clinton’s campaign (it turns out that there will be none, by the way); and even the sight of a self proclaimed former high priced call girl explaining why young women would get into such a business and the effect the publicity would have on the trade in general and the young prostitute in particular.
In fairness to the networks, there is a lot to get the public’s attention and boost the ratings. Spitzer was the self proclaimed moralist who loved to get his picture taken as he made business executives take the “perp walk” for the TV cameras and proclaimed that it was his duty to get the sleaze out of politics. Spitzer saw himself as a later day Thomas Dewey, another self proclaimed moralist from New York. He enjoyed the cameras and lights of the TV networks and used his highly public outrage at white collar crime as a means to enhance his own political ambitions. However, his duplicity, and stupidity, it seems knew no bounds.
While publicly calling for a cleanup of New York politics, the Governor of New York became “Client #9” of a high priced call girl ring. The irony of the situation never crossed his mind. At the same time he moved money from the account of one shell company to another to hide his actions from his wife and never figured out that this would attract the attention of the authorities (who it turns out began investigating him for possible tax fraud and/ or corruption). If he had once in is political career tried to work with people rather than steam roller them, he might not have had to resign. After all, Bill Clinton did worse and survived, but Bill had friends. Eliot Spitzer antagonized both sides of the political spectrum so he had no friends to come to his defense. In fact, while there was dancing on Wall Street at his sudden downfall, the silence from the New York Democrats was positively deafening. He was considered politically inept, socially grating and rapidly wore out his welcome with his one man crusade to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens. He is being replaced by New York’s first black Governor with a long political pedigree, progressive ideas and who is known for consensus building. Perhaps the only people as happy as the TV networks at Eliot Spitzer’s flame out are the leaders of the New York Democratic machine. | | 8 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Feb 26 2008; 5:24 PM | |
editor: Will
For all intents and purposes the race for the two presidential nominations is over. Despite Mike Huckabee’s quixotic determination to stay in the race, John McCain is the effective winner of the Republican nomination. And unless some miracle happens in Texas and Ohio, Hillary Clinton will be denied what she felt was hers by right. It is all over but the shouting. And boy, are they shouting.
Hillary, in a desperate attempt to tarnish the luster of her eloquent opponent has been getting more and more strident every day. She is accusing Obama of lying; making empty promises and even distributes pictures of him dressing as a Somali. She is sounding shriller every day and it isn’t doing her a bit of good. As one of the more astute observers has noted, it is Ms. Clinton’s misfortune to be running an old style political campaign against a new style opponent who, for the first time in years is offering the American public something they have been without at least since the Reagan years, hope. She is caught in a classic bind and has no way out. The more she attacks, the less presidential she looks and if she does nothing, she hands the nomination to Obama.
On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee continues to believe in miracles and hopes the Lord will lead him out of the wilderness. It ain’t going to happen. John McCain has got the establishment of the Republican party lined up behind him now and the rank and file of the Christian right has turned on their so called leaders and voted for McCain in all of the important states. Like him or not, McCain has the nomination locked up. He no longer mentions Mike Huckabee except to praise him (a sure sign of ones political demise) but has instead turned his bile on the Democrats, and specifically Barack Obama.
But the ones who are shouting the loudest are the whacko right wing commentators. They are absolutely apoplectic! “Doesn’t the American public realize that the candidates for both parties will destroy the American way of life?” says Glen Beck. “Forget the fact that he will continue the war in Iraq. John McCain is a closet Liberal,” screams Bill O’Reilly. And if Hillary Clinton is the Devil in a pant suit, Barack Obama must be the anti-Christ. According to Beck, Obama isn’t just a liberal, he is a (wait for it) Socialist! O’Reilly says he has a “secret agenda.” Of course he does Bill. He wants an America that offers hope to everybody, not just the rich and powerful. He wants to get back to the values enshrined in the constitution, not the so called values mouthed by the likes of you.
The real problem for these goons of course is that for the first time in years, no one is listening to them. How can you profess to be the voice of the American people, if the American people decide what you say is irrelevant at best and absolute dribble most of the time. If there is no other outcome from this election, perhaps it will be that we can get back to intelligent political discourse and rid the airwaves of loud, obnoxious, jingoistic buffoons like Glen Beck, Bill O’Reilly. It is a consummation devoutly to be wished. | | 2 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Feb 8 2008; 4:42 PM | |
editor: Will
While everyone recognized that 2008 was going to be a watershed year in American politics, no one had any idea what great theater it was going to be as well. Over just the last week or so we saw a good man withdraw from the Democratic race, witnessed one of the greatest televised debates in the history of American politics, and bit our nails as we awaited the results of some of the closest primary races of all time. As of Tuesday night, the pundits were saying that it was not decided. The Democratic candidates had squared off and ended up dividing the delegate pie evenly and John McCain had not pulled away from his rivals enough to secure the Republican nomination. By Thursday afternoon that had all changed dramatically.
On Tuesday night, John McCain won 12 states and had 703 delegates (out of 1191 needed to win). Mitt Romney had 11 states and 269 delegates while the surprising Mike Huckabee had notched 6 states and 190 delegates. While he had a commanding lead, McCain had not won the knockout victory he felt was within his grasp and it looked like it was going to be a hard fought campaign for at least another month. The rhetoric between McCain and Romney heated up immediately (if that was possible after the almost visceral animosity between them during the California debate) and Huckabee was poised to be the spoiler (and potential Vice Presidential candidate).
But on Thursday, Mitt Romney, tired of putting his own millions into a losing campaign, surprised everyone by pulling out of the race and implicitly endorsing John McCain for the nomination in his speech to the Conservative caucus. So instead of the long and bitter battle everyone predicted just days ago, there are now only two contenders for the Republican nomination (all you Ron Paul supporters knew he was just in it to make a point didn’t you?) and one of them has no chance of getting any delegates outside of the South. The man who was written off last August as a sad relic and a has-been is going to be the candidate for his party for President of the United States.
On Monday, the airwaves were filled with the rumors of an Obama tidal wave that was going to sweep Hillary Clinton out of the race. But by Tuesday night (or early Wednesday morning for us in the east) Hilary had won not only her home state of New York, but Massachusetts and California despite the best efforts of the Kennedy clan on both coasts. But the split in delegates was almost 50/ 50 with Senator Clinton picking up 739 (for a total of 1000) and Senator Obama picking up 706 (for a total of 902). If the Republicans were going to have a tough battle, the Democrats were in an all out war of attrition.
By Wednesday however, it was revealed that the Clinton campaign was in financial difficulty and the Senator was forced to loan her campaign $5 million dollars after asking her senior campaign workers to forgo salaries for the next month to ensure they had the money they needed to stay in the race. Hillary Clinton was loosing the support of the major financial backers and the much vaunted Clinton fundraising machine was spinning its wheels as the Chardonnay and Volvo crowd moved their allegiance to Obama. In addition, the upcoming primaries and caucuses in Louisiana, Washington, Maryland, Virginia and DC are heavily favored to go to Obama which would destroy any momentum Clinton had and even derail her chances in Texas and Ohio in March. Unless a miracle happens so the pundits said, Hillary’s quest to be the first female President of the United States was coming to a sad end. The Democratic “sure thing” would be out of the race.
Now let’s all take a deep breath, relax and think this through. John McCain may have the Republican nomination sewn up, but he sure as heck doesn’t have the allegiance of die hard conservatives who drive the Republican election campaigns. Bill O’Reilly has started a campaign to find a “true conservative” candidate and such intellectual heavyweights as Anne Coulter are saying that a vote for McCain would be the same as voting for Obama or Clinton. If the radical fringe of the Republican Party is as stupid as they appear (and I have to take them at face value on that point at least) they will hand the election to an already rejuvenated Democratic Party that is looking for revenge.
But John McCain wants the presidency he thinks was stolen from him by the Bush crowd and he knows how to build fences with people he doesn’t like. Hell he has been doing it for years with the Democrats. More importantly, McCain has learned how to be mean and nasty in the political arena and he will throw everything he has into securing the nomination and defeating whoever is the Democratic nominee. Like him or not, even Neanderthals like O’Reilly are going to have to hold their noses and support the only candidate they have who can possibly win.
On the Democratic front, while I would never underestimate the ability of Hillary and Bill to come back from adversity (haven’t we all seen that movie before?) I think it is going to be a very hard hill for them to climb this time. The chattering classes have turned against them (which is no real surprise), but even more importantly, the smart money in the Democratic Party has shifted to Obama. He started this campaign as an almost naive idealist, but one of the advantages of fighting the Clintons is that to survive you must learn how to get down in the trenches and gouge with the best of them. While he still has his charisma, he has added a toughness that should carry him over the top and get him the nomination.
And then the fun and games will really begin. The nastiness of the primaries will look like a pillow fight compared to what will be thrown around both camps. There will be negative ads, viral campaigns and whispered slanders all over the place. Lou Dobbs will have a field day taking shots at both parties and Fox News will be apoplectic. But the American electorate will be faced with two radically different candidates for the first time since the late 60’s. Hopefully this time they will get it right. | | 2 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Jan 30 2008; 11:40 AM | |
Editor:Will
So the Kennedys have endorsed Barack Obama. In what has all the appearance of an anointment, Caroline Kennedy issued a statement the other morning saying that she was endorsing Barack Obama because he is the first politician to inspire her the way her father inspired the youth of the sixties. Ms Kennedy was then joined by a bevy of cousins and cousins in-law who each gave their rousing endorsements at regular intervals throughout the day.
To climax this well orchestrated passing of the torch, Senator Ted Kennedy held a love in with Barack in Washington on the same day that George Bush gave his last State of the Union Address. Guess who was on the front pages of the major newspapers?
Trying hard to sound like he meant it, Ted not only compared Obama to his late brother but implied that Jack Kennedy had to fight off the establishment of the Democratic party in the person of Harry Truman, in the same way Barack Obama is fighting off the establishment today. One assumes that Ted means the Clintons when he talks about the establishment. Then, claiming to quote Jack, Ted stated, “The world is changing. The old ways will not do. … It is time for a new generation of leadership. And so it is with Barack Obama.” Hogwash.
Let’s clear up the historical inaccuracies first. Far from being part of the establishment, to Democrats in 1960, Harry Truman was not unlike George Bush is to Republicans today, an embarrassment. And old Harry wasn’t saying that Jack’s youth should keep him from the presidency. Good Baptist that he was, Harry objected to Kennedy’s notorious womanizing, which he felt was a sign of immaturity and definitely not presidential. He also despised Joe Kennedy who he considered a crook at best.
The real establishment of the Democratic Party was centered on Lyndon Johnson, who like Hillary Clinton today, felt that his experience and service as Senate Majority leader made him the logical choice for the nomination. That an upstart dilettante like Kennedy would even presume to run for the office was incomprehensible to Johnson. Lyndon (and Hubert Humphrey in West Virginia) didn’t know what hit him. Johnson may have had the political connections, Humphrey may have had the hearts of Democrats everywhere, but Kennedy had more money than both of them combined, plus a real understanding of the importance of image in the age of television. And he was not above playing politics in the true Boston style… mean, nasty and brutish.
Now it can be said that Barack Obama does have many of the same qualities as Jack Kennedy. He is relatively young, he has limited experience in national politics, he made his name at a Democratic convention where he gave a rousing speech that had the delegates on their feet, and he was considered good vice-presidential material by the major contender. Like Kennedy, Obama has ties to some of the sleazier denizens of Chicago politics, but unlike Kennedy, it is improbable that votes will be bought on his behalf by his father.
John Kennedy implied health and youth, while his opponent, Richard Nixon, who was about the same age, was considered old and looked sickly on TV. The facts, of course were very different. Kennedy’s youth hid chronic health problems and heavy dosages of prescription drugs gave him his so called vitality. His perfect marriage was a sham. More importantly, Kennedy was not a liberal Democrat. He and his brother (who had served as counsel on the House Un-American Activities Committee) were conservative on social issues (especially civil rights for blacks) and hawkish cold warriors. Kennedy virtually invented the “missile gap” in the 1960 election and actually painted Richard Nixon as “soft” on fending off the Russian threat! His term in office is remembered for the Bay of Pigs, Bobby’s fight with Hoffa and the Teamsters, and his untimely death. All of the major accomplishments that younger democrats think of as his legacy were actually the work of the master politician who was his successor – Lyndon Johnson.
Now I know that in politics you look for every advantage that you can get. And I’m sure that the blessing of the Kennedy clan will help Senator Obama immensely. But Barack Obama is no John Kennedy and for that I am grateful.
Besides, I think a female Lyndon Johnson would be a better bet for the country this time around. | | 2 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Jan 21 2008; 9:53 AM | |
Editor: Will
Say what you will about the cable television networks, but their almost continuous coverage of the Democratic and Republican presidential races have provided some fascinating close ups of politics in the raw and opened the whole (sometimes sordid) process to public scrutiny. In the last few weeks we have seen Hillary Clinton “discover her own voice” (and Bill O’Reilly savaging her in what has to be – even for him - a new low in personal attacks); Mike Huckabee, the “Christian” candidate, preview an attack ad on Mitt Romney to the assembled press and then pull it at the last moment (there by making sure that the message of the ad if not the ad itself got wide coverage); Barack Obama being accused of drug dealing by the Clintons and fighting off a whisper campaign that claims he is a Muslim; John McCain successfully countering a scurrilous attempt to “swift boat” his campaign with claims of collaboration with the enemy while a prisoner of war and on Saturday night we got a bewildering and rambling speech from Fred Thompson that may or may not have been his swan song.
We have seen a former president of the United States attack a local television reporter who had the temerity to ask a pointed question and a former Governor of Massachusetts belligerently try to dodge legitimate questions from the Associated Press. We have had obfuscation on policies, out right lies on finances and blatant attempts to bribe the electorate – all live on our TV screens.
We have had town hall meetings, You Tube debates, press conferences, victory speeches and concession speeches, policy statements, clarifications, and apologies all accompanied by the staccato pronouncements of the pundits. Boy have we had pundits. In fact you could say we are up to our armpits in pundits. CNN (“the best political team on television”) covers the caucuses from two o’clock in the afternoon until midnight with as many as eight so-called experts offering their take on every twitch, cough, or stumble made by the candidates or their surrogates. “What does Obama’s win in a white state really mean?” “Did Hillary fake the tears?” “Is Mitt Romney’s religion holding him back?” “Has Rudy’s Florida strategy backfired?” “Why Hillary can’t lose.” “Why Hillary can’t win.” “McCain is dead in the water.” “McCain has the nomination sewn up.” “Obama is playing the race card.” “Clinton is playing the race card.” Any position you want to take, the pundits have given us. In fact the only thing that has been more entertaining than their prognostications is watching them back track when they are (inevitably) proven wrong.
We are in a veritable feeding frenzy of politics that began almost a year ago when candidates began announcing their intentions to run. Each week the intensity gets ratcheted up and the pronouncements more shrill and we have eight months left just to get to the conventions! For a political junkie it doesn’t get much better than this. I don’t know if Wolff Blitzer will make it to November, but I’ll be there, glued to the tube and watching one of the most fascinating presidential races since 1960. | | 7 Comments add a comment | | | |
| Dec 16 2007; 9:21 PM | |
As a long time self proclaimed news junkie I can say that CNN has been a staple for many years. But now it'is hard to find a newscast on either CNN or Headline News. CNN resembles the documentary channel - repeating the same "specials" over and over - Specials like CNN Investigates , Planet in Peril , God's Warriors, CNN Heroes or repeats of the CNN/ YouTube debates . Nothing really wrong with the quality of these shows - in fact a few of them have really been standout - but where has the news gone ? The quick answer would be Headline News - but try to find it there between Glenn Beck and Nancy Grace. I guess one could argue the regular news coverage is now on CNN.com - but more on CNN .com in a later post.
CNN primetime - when it's not a documentary it seems like its either Lou Dobbs flapping on about his one issue - The border and immigration - or its Rick Sanchez flapping his arms and interrupting every guest (he reminds me of that friend we all have who feel compelled to always one up your story with details of what happened to them). I realize Rick Sanchez is apparently filling in for Paula Zhan's eventual replacement - but right now you watch and wonder- Paula Zhan out - Rick Sanchez in ? - but I digress.
Over on CNN Headlines you might be fooled by a show with the title "Prime News with Erica Hill", but CNN's own tag line for that show tells you what they cover - "the day's controversial and emotional headlines" - rather then search out "emotional" news can't "emotional headlines" be a part of the overall news when it is relevant or indeed newsworthy.
Anderson Cooper and 360 does seem to walk the line better then others. It does seem like his show will actually cover news first - and then lose focus. But in my view he would have to do a lot wrong before I would give up on his show after his coverage of Katrina - and his ongoing follow up on the situation in New Orleans.
I fully understand the need for personality, conflict and characters on the news to drive ratings. But watch CNN from 6:00pm to 11:00pm and ask yourself if you really saw the news? | | 40 Comments add a comment | | | |
| |
Copyright © 2010 BreakingNewsOrNot.com
