This means two things: One, that it's hard to think of even one reason to keep watching CNN; and two, that the bar just got raised on the incoherent mess that is the Sunday talk shows. It'll be nice to have a show that actually addresses foreign policy for once.

And Amanpour is not going to roll over for the powerful the way so many of the talking heads do:

ABC News has poached one of CNN’s biggest stars, Christiane Amanpour.

Ms. Amanpour will anchor ABC’s Sunday morning public affairs program, “This Week,” beginning in August, the network news division announced Thursday.

A longtime foreign correspondent for CNN, Ms. Amanpour will give “This Week” a global spin.

[...] Along with “This Week,” ABC said Ms. Amanpour would also anchor “prime-time documentaries on international subjects.”

The network news division — which is reeling from an impending staff cut — has been seeking a replacement for George Stephanopoulos, who shifted from “This Week” to “Good Morning America” in December.

ABC’s gain is a serious loss for CNN, which introduced a daily show on CNN International with Ms. Amanpour as host just six months ago. Jim Walton, the president of CNN Worldwide, said in an e-mail message to staff members that “her work burnished our news brand and gave it authority. In turn, the CNN imprimatur opened doors for her around the world and provided a global platform for the intelligent, courageous, principled reporting that is her signature. CNN and Christiane helped make each other great.”

CNN said her daily show, “Amanpour,” would finish at the end of April.

In a telephone interview on Thursday, Ms. Amanpour said there were no points of disagreement with CNN that prompted her exit. Rather, she said, the job at ABC was a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.”

Ms. Amanpour said her mission regardless of news organization was to “make foreign news less foreign.” On “This Week,” she said, she would “focus on the intractable convergence of domestic and foreign policy.”

It's a little weird to be posting a video that features me as a guest on Washington Journal (not the least of which is that it feels really creepy to be writing headlines about myself), but here goes: On the whole, I'm happy with my segment. (Except for the part where I missed it that a caller said he was reading the Drudge Report to find out what was going on. Arggh. I missed a real opportunity to educate him.) You can see Parts 2 and 3 here. (Thanks, Heather!)

My favorite part is when I call Glenn Beck "a nut, we all know he's a nut".

Among the other issues addressed: Netroots "Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow" Syndrome; healthcare reform; network news "analysts," and much more. Enjoy!

And as I mention in the closing segment, I was interested to note that the Republican and Democratic callers all expressed similar concerns.

DOWNLOADS: (843)

PLAYS: (1690)

Embed

You know how when someone says, "Now, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but ...", you can be certain that what will follow is them being a jerk. Same with Bill O'Reilly last night in his Talking Points Memo segment: He declares that he's "not gloating, just reporting" the fact that Fox News is knocking the socks off its cable competition in the ratings wars, but then of course proceeds to gloat by claiming that Fox's big draw is its "fair and balanced" approach:

So why is this happening? Well, a major reason is the health care debate. While the other network news broadcasts downplay the dissent and promote the government takeover of the health care industry, FOX News highlights the intense debate. When we cover the town hall meetings, we don't describe the protesters as loons. We don't denigrate people who disagree with President Obama. That's the big difference between FOX News and all the others.

Actually, Fox News does more than just "highlight" the intense debate: It outright foments it, particularly in spreading such bogus claims as the notion that health-care reform means "euthanasia" for senior citizens. That is, Fox has been deliberately injecting irrational fears into the debate and stirring up paranoia and anger.

Now, some liberals will say we intentionally glorify the protesters. That doesn't happen here. We've said there's no doubt some of the dissent is organized by people who dislike President Obama. That's a fact, and we've reported it.

That may be so at The Factor -- though in fact O'Reilly has openly pandered to the claim that universal health care will mean discarding the elderly, did so later in the same broadcast -- but it is certainly not true elsewhere at Fox.

Moreover, nowhere at Fox (or anywhere else, for that matter) has there been any reportage about the empowerment of right-wing radicals that's become part of the whole "tea party" scene.

"The Factor" also gives voice to both sides, something you will never get on NBC News. So, fair-minded Americans know our reporting is honest, while much of the other TV news media is simply in the tank for the president.

Now you'd think that liberal Americans would flock to hear their side propped up, but that's clearly not happening. For libs, conservatives and independents alike, there's really no choice. They have to watch us if they want to know what's going on. And they are in record numbers.

Actually, a more logical explanation is that liberals don't need to hear their side propped up the way conservatives do -- they know what's right and what's wrong in this debate. And there may indeed be more of them watching Fox News because they also know that this is the wellspring of the opposition -- the place where people are getting ginned up and angry enough to throw up anything that might stick as a roadblock to reform. It's important to know what's being thrown up next.

So yes, we do need to watch Fox to know what's going on -- but not the way O'Reilly thinks.

MediaBloodhound: The Ivins anthrax case is yet another black eye for Network News

Martini Revolution: I wonder if all the rightwigers who give sole credit to Ronald Reagan with winning the Cold War will blame Bush and his epic failure of leadership in losing the post-Cold War? Now, John McCain wants to compound the blunder! If McCain's speech had been part of a college term paper, he'd have flunked.

EconoSpeak: Who are the Ossetians?

Corrente: We need Health Care, not Health Insurance

The Pump Handle: Anthrax is in the news but which bacteria should we fear?

How Appealing: Juror: "Hamdan didn't seem like an Al Qaida warrior."

The media is once again derelict in their duty....

Eric Boehlert

There is, however, ample evidence that the American media, on the eve of the crucial midterm elections, have lost interest in the chaotic saga, with network news coverage in recent weeks plummeting and Page One newspaper dispatches from Iraq growing sparse. The media fade has come at a perfect time for the White House as it attempts to shift voters' attention away from Iraq and move it over to the war on terror.

What's so startling is that we've seen this exact media retreat before -- during the fall of the 2004 campaign. Back then, when sustained, aggressive coverage of the unfolding chaos inside Iraq could have done real damage to the Bush/Cheney ticket, the press shifted its attention away from Baghdad. Instead of a summer of tenacious war coverage, Bush was blessed with a cable news agenda that focused on endless hurricane updates, Martha Stewart's legal woes, and the tawdry Laci Peterson trial...read on

NewsMax: Network Snub: ...ABC anchorman Peter Jennings, for instance, begged off on making the trek - saying he was "feeling under the weather," according to the New York Post.

Then the NY Post: ...Although the pope's death is arguably the television news story of the year, network news divisions are treating it like just another funeral Mass.

ABC News anchorman Peter Jennings — the last of the Big Three still on the air — was feeling under the weather and stayed home.

It was announced Jennings has lung cancer. Get well Peter.