DOWNLOADS: (435)

PLAYS: (3236)

Embed

Former MSNBC talent David Shuster knows what it's like to be on the bad side of the suits upstairs at 30 Rock. Placed on an indefinite suspension when it came out that he had auditioned for his own show on rival network CNN, Shuster has only recently been officially fired from the network. He had already tested the patience of his bosses by engaging in a Twitter war with James O'Keefe (of the ACORN "pimp" faked video) and suggesting that Hillary Clinton was "pimping" out daughter Chelsea during the primaries.

So for the continual fascination with navel-gazing on their own industry, CNN's Anderson Cooper asked for David's input on the Olbermann departure from MSNBC. Thanks to Heather at VideoCafe, who made this mash up of David's comments.

Anderson immediately goes to the rumors of diva-like behavior of Olbermann. Shuster tries to remain diplomatic towards MSNBC but it's clear that he's a big fan of Olbermann and is confident that Keith will end up on his feet somewhere. (Howard Kurtz is reporting that part of the terms agreed upon prohibits Olbermann from appearing on other television programs through the end of his contract, or 2012.)

COOPER: David, I don’t want to put you on the spot too much, but I guess it’s part of…sort of my job in this case. Was he…well-liked within MSNBC? I’ve heard plenty of…what is your impression?

SHUSTER: Well, yeah, it’s a fair question. I think the people he worked with had a lot of respect for him, the people on his show, the director, the technical people. That’s the sort of people who often get forgotten by, you know, major talent. Keith was very kind to them. The make up artists, that sort of thing. I think as far as the management, I mean, Keith had his conflicts with management, going back to when Dan Abrams was running MSNBC and he had his conflicts with Phil Griffin. I think one thing to keep in mind is that not only are things changing with Jeff Zucker no longer running MSNBC, but the reporting structure. You now have Phil Griffin, from what I understand, is going to be reporting to Steve Capus, instead of directly reporting to the head of MSNBC. So Steve Capus, the head of NBC News, will certainly have much more influence over MSNBC. And this may be part of it. It is no secret that Steve was particularly upset –justifiably so—how Keith handled the suspension earlier this year and the donations and Phil Griffin took a little bit of a different tack than Steve probably would have liked. But yeah, I think what you’re seeing now either Keith recognizing, or certainly Steve Capus influencing MSNBC a lot more than he would have had say, a week ago.

Trying again, Cooper insinuates that Olbermann's ego will suffer from losing his platform, and again, Shuster deflects it by cautioning against counting Olbermann out:

COOPER: I just feel bad. I’ve met him a handful of times, I don’t really know him personally, really. But for someone clearly has a strong opinion, it would be a difficult thing, I would think, to be off the air, you know, at such a critical time in this country’s history, David.

SHUSTER: Well, yes and no. He’s gone down this road before. I mean, he’s worked for…he left MSNBC following the Monica Lewinsky scandal back in ’98, ’99. He was off the air for a period of time. He worked at CNN. He worked at Fox. So he’s certainly gotten used to his breaks in between his successes. And I guarantee Keith is not done in the broadcast world. He’s a very smart guy. A lot of organizations would be very wise to talk to him and to at least see what he could possibly do next, whether it’s a radio show, whether it’s a tv show. I mean, he’s such a super talent and he is good to work with. That’s a combination that I think will mean he’s got a bright future regardless…and it will be on his terms.

I do think that as upset as we currently are over Keith's departure, there is a larger concern over the silencing of voices in the media. Difficult or diva-ish as Keith may be, there is no question that he created the infrastructure of strong, progressive voices in the MSNBC line up. Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell were able to parlay guest hosting duties for Keith into their own shows. Who knows if Chris Hayes or Sam Seder might have seen the same in due time? Few news hosts could do that without a healthy serving of ego, so I'm not willing to begrudge him a little arrogance. But Keith brought ratings, almost single-handedly bringing MSNBC from third place to occasionally besting FOX in his time slot. He didn't lose advertisers and yet, he is now out of a job and yet Glenn Beck--who wouldn't know integrity if it stood in front of him and waved hello--has lost now more than 300 advertisers, seen his ratings plummet and yet still remains on the air, infecting it with lies and craziness.

As we go into what Anderson Cooper notes is a critical time in history, we really cannot afford to lose this voice.

Transcripts below the fold

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (4696)

PLAYS: (3423)

Embed

[Note: I was interviewed last night for CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 program to discuss lone wolves. My interview didn't air yesterday, but Cooper indicated they'd be reporting more on the "lone wolf" phenomenon tonight, so here's hoping my interview airs this evening. In the meantime, here's a warmup report, featuring the first of Cooper's pieces.]

When the Department of Homeland Security issued that law-enforcement bulletin on right-wing extremists two months ago, the mainstream right's chief shrieking point was that somehow the bulletin had conflated them with the extremist right-wingers.

Some typical headlines: "DHS Report Labels Conservatives as Radical Extremists". "The DHS Declares Everyone In America Is A Domestic Terrorist". "DHS To Target Conservatives." "New DHS Domestic Terrorism Report Targets Millions of Americans". And on and on. The upshot: Homeland Security was labeling conservatives America's chief terrorist threat.

But if you read the actual report, here's what it says is the chief domestic-terror threat America faces:

DHS/I&A assesses that lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States. Information from law enforcement and nongovernmental organizations indicates lone wolves and small terrorist cells have shown intent—and, in some cases, the capability—to commit violent acts.

[..] DHS/I&A has concluded that white supremacist lone wolves pose the most significant domestic terrorist threat because of their low profile and autonomy—separate from any formalized group—which hampers warning efforts.

[..] Similarly, recent state and municipal law enforcement reporting has warned of the dangers of rightwing extremists embracing the tactics of “leaderless resistance” and of lone wolves carrying out acts of violence.

Now, here's the odd thing about "lone wolves": Right-wingers like to use the solitary nature of this kind of terrorist act to dismiss them as "isolated incidents." But in reality, the continuing existence of acts of this nature demonstrates primarily that the radical right in America is alive, well, and functioning better than it should. And the continuing -- and as we've seen this week, ultimately futile -- attempts by the right to whitewash their existence from the public consciousness have played no small part in helping that trend continue.

Watch the above video for an instructive comparison in how this is handled by a right-winger like Fox's Bill O'Reilly, and a more rational, rather centrist approach taken by Anderson Cooper and his guests on AC360 last night.

O'Reilly declares the matter over -- move along, move along -- because this was just a "lone nutcase." Meanwhile, Cooper and the SPLC's Mark Potok and anti-racist activist David Gletty have a thorough an rational discussion of what lone wolves are about.

As Potok explains, the "lone wolf" concept was popularized in the late 1980s by an Aryan Nations leader named Louis Beam as an extension of his strategy of "leaderless resistance." One white supremacist, a fellow named Alex Curtis, even went so far as to develop a "point system" for lone wolves.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (1338)

PLAYS: (3011)

Embed

(h/t Heather at VideoCafe)

Granted, it's hard to hear because the voices speak over each other, but the graphics are pretty clear: this ad for Anderson Cooper 360 was meant to claim that Anderson Cooper challenges the status quo and goes beyond partisan spin. Whether the ad is true or not is arguable, but the fact that it mentions both the right and the left is not.

Which makes this op-ed in Time Magazine by Michael Scherer that much more puzzling:

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn appeared Sunday morning on Howard Kurtz's CNN show Reliable Sources to discuss her comments in my TIME magazine story this week. She continued her criticism of Fox News[..].

The ironic part came later, during the commercial break. All morning, CNN has been intermittently running a promo for Anderson Cooper 360, a show that has long billed itself as a classic straight news program with an investigative front man who digs "beyond the headlines" with "many points of view, so you can make up your own mind." The new promo, by contrast, consists of a woman's voice, pitching Cooper's show as, essentially, a liberal alternative to Fox News: "I'm a lifelong Democrat," she says, "and that's why I watch Anderson Cooper." Hmmm. The voice goes on to say that Cooper is the person she can turn to hold "right wing" conservatives accountable. Cooper is not exactly aiming for the political middle ground here.

But then who is? MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz are committed liberals, increasingly focused on the dual project of holding President Obama to a liberal line and attacking his detractors. Fox News, on the other hand, is, well, Fox News. Dunn, on Kurtz's show, made a point of criticizing Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace for "fact checking" an Obama administration official but not its other Republican guests. So it goes.

Interesting. So Scherer thinks that Cooper is playing to the left like those other "committed" liberals on MSNBC. And lemming-like, here comes Dan Abrams, tweeting from his new gig at Mediaite:

UPDATE to WH-Fox 'Gloves off' post: CNN promo calls Anderson Cooper left's answer to FNC.

The only problem? There's no there there. Cooper wasn't playing to the left, as Scherer was forced to acknowledge in an update:

CORRECTION: Ahh, the pitfalls of technology. In the post below, I wrote about an ad that kept running Sunday morning on CNN, which I watched in the background as I scribbled away at my office. Several times, I heard an ad for Anderson Cooper's show that included a woman's voice talking about being a "lifelong Democrat" and watching Cooper because he called out the "right wing." But that's not the whole story. I was told Monday by CNN that I only heard half the ad, which was dubbed in stereo. (Apparently my television is mono.) The other half of the ad had a male voice saying he was a Republican who turns to Anderson Cooper because he holds accountable "left wing politicians." The two voices are recorded to be talking over each other, reaffirming CNN's place in the center of the cable news spectrum. This makes my subsequent analysis largely wrong. Cooper was not signaling a shift to cater to a left-wing audience. He was signaling that he wanted both a left-wing and a right-wing audiences at the same time. The CNN dream of post-partisanship, in other words, is still alive.

Actually, Michael, your analysis is not largely wrong, but completely wrong. As polarized as this country is now (a fact for which I hold the media mostly accountable), it is not the desire of the entire country to get their news filtered through ideological lenses, confirming their pre-conceived notions. Fox unapologetically fills a niche for a select few, who cannot stand to have their ideas challenged. But MSNBC, despite shows with Maddow (the only self-professed liberal listed), Olbermann and Schultz does not cater to the left. If they did, would they fill 15 hours every week (the same as Maddow, Olbermann and Schultz put together) with Scarborough?

And for what its worth, I actually watch Maddow not for a liberal slant, but because she strives to actually present the news, not propaganda. But that seems to be a dying breed in your industry, doesn't it?

DOWNLOADS: (1632)

PLAYS: (4929)

Embed

Argh, there's so much wrong with this clip that it's all I can do to keep typing and not smacking my head against the desktop. First of all, they ask on Krugman to discuss his NY Times column talking about how GOP obstructionism has reached cartoonish levels and they decide to frame the segment on whether Obama lost his "MOJO"? Seriously? A major news organization ignores the absurdity of the GOP overarching need to find things with which to smear Obama and instead frames the issue for the President of the United States as an Austin Powers plot? And no one but a hyper-partisan conservative "party before country" cheerleader thinks that the IOC selecting Rio for the 2016 games has something to do with a failing on any kind on the part of Obama. Cheers to Anderson Cooper for validating what Krugman so aptly described as "bratty 13 year old" behavior and using a Nobel Laureate to do it. Way to keep on top of the issues of the day, Anderson.

And there's that issue of media's bizarre notion of balance again. Sweet Jesus, why on earth would anyone need Mary Matalin's opinion on Obama's "mojo"? The woman has spent years advising Dick Cheney, fer cryin' out loud, what exactly is her expertise in mojo? As would be expected, Matalin never answers anything directly, resorting to the familiar GOP projection and mean-spritied insinuations, saying she's never drunk the kool-aid on the messiah-like qualities of Obama.

Watch as Krugman acknowledges that Obama hasn't done everything perfectly and that there's still far to go, but that the level of discourse from the right prevents any actual adult-level dialog. And Matalin proves him right by devolving into fingerpointing and bringing in one non sequitur after another. Of course, everything that Obama has been hit with has an equivalence in Matalin's mind to that poor, misunderestimated George W. Bush. If you believe Matalin, the Democrats did nothing but screamed "Liar!" and "Loser" to Bush. Constantly. Hmmm....funny that, I don't remember it that way, but maybe that's because I'm part of the reality-based community.

But hey, how much honest analysis can you get from someone who openly admits she reveres the Fat Bastard himself, Rush Limbaugh? For that alone, she should be laughed off camera.

DOWNLOADS: (898)

PLAYS: (3186)

Embed

(h/t Heather)

Well the news is percolating something very positive about the White House, health care and the obstructionist-teabagging republicans.

Given hardening Republican opposition to Congressional health care proposals, Democrats now say they see little chance of the minority’s cooperation in approving any overhaul, and are increasingly focused on drawing support for a final plan from within their own ranks.Top Democrats said Tuesday that their go-it-alone view was being shaped by what they saw as Republicans’ purposely strident tone against health care legislation during this month’s Congressional recess, as well as remarks by leading Republicans that current proposals were flawed beyond repair.The White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said of Republican lawmakers, “Only a handful seem interested in the type of comprehensive reform that so many people believe is necessary to ensure the principles and the goals that the president has laid out.”The Democratic shift may not make producing a final bill much easier.

--

Democratic senators might feel more empowered, for example, to define the authority of the nonprofit insurance cooperatives that are emerging as an alternative to a public insurance plan.Republicans have used the Congressional break to dig in hard against the overhaul outline drawn by Democrats.

The Senate’s No. 2 Republican, Jon Kyl of Arizona, is the latest to weigh in strongly, saying Tuesday that the public response lawmakers were seeing over the summer break should persuade Democrats to scrap their approach and start over.“I think it is safe to say there are a huge number of big issues that people have,” Mr. Kyl told reporters in a conference call from Arizona. “There is no way that Republicans are going to support a trillion-dollar-plus bill.”The White House has also interpreted critical comments by Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican negotiator in a crucial Finance Committee effort to reach a bipartisan compromise, as a sign that there is little hope of reaching a deal politically acceptable to both parties.”

We don't trust Rahm and for good reason since he's been the ex-Blue Dog recruiting Congressman, but it seems that they are leaking out this information. If this is true then the Netroots should celebrate because of the pressure we've been putting on the Baucus Dogs and other members of Congress to include the public option or there will be hell to pay. And Republicans have acted in bad faith the entire time as every one of their leadership has attacked anything in the reform that doesn't make the insurance companies richer.

Anderson Cooper of CNN did a report last night that echoes the NY Times piece.

Cooper: After negotiating with republicans, conservative democrats and seemingly themselves over parts of a plan CNN has learned that the administration could be getting closer to a very big change. Namely crafting a health care bill and try to ram it through the Senate even if it passes by only a single vote.

Henry: Well Anderson there is no final decision, but Democrats close to the White House are saying that they are now actively considering the possibility of doing a go it alone strategy. It's a budget maneuver, very obscure known as reconciliation where they would only need a simple majority, 51 votes instead of 60 votes to push through health reform. Republicans would scream that this is a power grab, it's an underhanded move but White House officials privately are already laying out the ground work by saying look, we've been working with republicans for months. If they don't get something done in the next weeks we're going to have to take drastic measures...."If we're going to have to push it through no ones going to remember how messy it is, but they'll remember at the end of the day that we got health care reform done," his ad visors have said, "a win is a win."

The Democratic Party won a mandate in the general election so how can it be a power grab, Ed? If the GOP won, there would be no talk like this by the Ed's of the media. Part of me thinks that it's possible some republicans and Baucus Dogs will then come back to the table and weaken the bill more, but make it appear to be stronger. They will probably go on TV instead and reeve up the teabaggers some more and we'll see fifty caliber cannons strapped to their shoulders and scowls on their faces in the coming days. We'll see how it all shakes out. Why does Ed Henry think reconciliation is an obscure procedure? We've been writing about this for months on our blogs and the media has been reporting on it almost as long. It's like Henry is trying to set up the narrative that the White House just discovered reconciliation in a cigar smoked, dark room and are screwing the American people by using it. They should look to their hero George Bush because he used it for his tax cuts and to open the Arctic Wildlife refuge for domestic oil drilling when he was in office.

And as Media Matters noted:

Republicans used the reconciliation process to pass the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, and the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, among others.

And Ronald Reagan used it to pass his historic tax cuts for the rich.

But when a Republican uses it, that's normal; if Democrats use it, they are being power-hungry dirty f*&king hippies.

I'd also like to thank the teabaggers for acting like complete psychos while Republicans in Congress looked on with glee. They helped the White House accept what we've been saying if it does come down to this. Republicans would never allow true health care reform in any meaningful way and the nuts put an exclamation mark on this big time. Thank you!