CNN

Out-Foxed

How Rupert's red-state cable channel waved the flag and beat CNN.

Caution, you’re about to enter a No Spin Zone. Or is it the Twilight Zone? We’ll report, and you decide, based on this recent “unspun” news update from Fox News’ flagship primetime program “The O’Reilly Factor.”

“Why are some Americans hindering the war on terror?” O’Reilly barked at the camera. “As we predicted, President Bush’s poll numbers have gone up after last week’s press conference. The elite media wanted Mr. Bush to grovel, but he remains defiant and determined to fight the terror war his way. Today the Supreme Court heard arguments that the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay should have lawyers and due process. Predictably, the New York Times wants lawyers for the accused terrorists, editorializing that some of them ‘may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time.’

“Sure. They just took a wrong turn into Uzbekistan and wandered onto the battlefield. How ridiculous is that?”

Remember, the Spin Stops Here.

There was a time, not too long ago, when Fox News was a joke — albeit a bad and sick one — to liberals and TV journalists raised on Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley. But even those who rue the success of Rupert Murdoch’s flag-waving cable channel have to admit: The old boy has done it. CNN founder Ted Turner once famously mocked Murdoch, saying he’d squish his cable news rival like a bug. We all know now who has squished whom.

Just check the Nielsens: When the president gave his prime-time press conference last week, 5.2 million viewers watched on Fox News, compared to CNN’s 1.7 million and MSNBC’s 867,000 viewers. For the year, Fox ranks ninth among all cable networks in primetime, averaging 1.4 million viewers. CNN and MSNBC don’t even make the Top 20. In 20th place: The Home and Garden Network.

How the erstwhile journalistic laughingstock Fox News — or “Faux News,” as mocking bloggers know it — managed to climb atop the cable news industry in the 1990s is the topic of Los Angeles Times television reporter Scott Collins’ often entertaining book “Crazy Like a Fox: The Inside Story of How Fox News Beat CNN.” Collins traces Fox’s scrappy success — and the simultaneous tanking of rivals CNN and MSNBC — through the colorful characters who have ruled the seamy journalistic underworld of cable news over the past decade while detailing the wheeling and dealing that made Fox’s success possible.

At its core, Collins’ book is a business story. Drama and suspense ensue from backbiting rivalries among the cable news players, behind-the-scenes jockeying and big media mergers. It’s laced with killer quotes that buoy the story along. Ted Turner, who didn’t sit for an interview but still gives nutty commentary, likens himself to a genitally mutilated African girl, saying he’d been “clitorized” by Time Warner. Turner tells TV producer Rick Kaplan he’s the “biggest goddamned Jew” he’d ever seen. Ailes, also with a flair for the outlandish, offered this take on the failed MSNBC experiment to pit Phil Donahue against Fox golden boy Bill O’Reilly: “[Donahue] made his name convincing all the women in America that their husbands were fucking their secretaries. Now all those women are 65 or 70, and they want their husband to go anywhere. They don’t care who he’s fucking. They didn’t want [Donahue] on nuclear proliferation. They didn’t give a shit.”

But Collins’ book is most compelling when showing how Murdoch tapped into conservative disaffection with the so-called “liberal media” — and capitalized on the floundering of once-dominant CNN — to become America’s most watched cable news channel. The Aussie right-wing media mogul combined his business prowess with a conviction that the news media was hopelessly biased to give birth to his conservative cable baby in 1996. With former Nixon aide Ailes at the helm, Fox attracted right-leaning journalists convinced America’s newsrooms were uninhabitable for people like them. John Moody, a former Time reporter and editor once stationed in Nicaragua, lamented how his magazine colleagues were “drawn ideologically, romantically, theoretically, to the side of the Sandinistas. I always was able to hold my enthusiasm.” Moody defected to Fox, where he felt at home.

As a political consultant, Ailes was known as the master of the attack sound bite. At Fox, he devised the sleight-of-hand slogans “Fair and Balanced” and “We Report, You Decide,” phrases that provide endless fodder for the likes of Al Franken and send journalism school professors apoplectic. But the Fox team denies bias — they say they’re correcting the course of a left-slanted media. Before Fox’s launch, Murdoch taunted Turner by saying CNN was “too liberal,” and needed a rival that would restore balance to TV news. Ailes said Fox’s mission was to “be objective, to do fine journalism. We’d like to restore objectivity where we find it lacking.” As Ailes told the New York Times Sunday Magazine in 2001: “In most news, if you hear a conservative point of view, that’s called bias. We believe if you eliminate such a viewpoint, that’s bias. If we look conservative, it’s because the other guys are so far to the left.”

Collins largely avoids the debate over whether the media does actually skew left, although he cites studies, like a 1995 Times Mirror poll that showed 40 percent of Americans identified as conservative while only 5 percent of journalists did. He might have acknowledged the strong arguments, presented most prominently by the Nation’s Eric Alterman, that mainstream, corporate-owned media is not “liberal” at all. Any true lefty knows that corporate media-owned television news outlets do not reflect the “liberal” mindset. Million-dollar TV anchors who wine and dine with titans of government and business — who themselves rank among the nation’s most powerful and wealthy, with fortunes to protect — don’t tend toward the progressive. And TV news operations living and dying by ratings don’t adequately cover progressive causes. Ever wonder why you aren’t bombarded with TV news stories about the impoverished and the oppressed? Right.

But whether liberal bias rules TV news is almost beyond the point here. Ailes understood that perception is all that counts. “Somewhere between 65 and 75 percent of the American people believe the media tipped to the left,” Ailes said, according to his own research. “Now whether it does or it doesn’t, if that’s what they believe, that leaves a lot of room as long as you don’t tip to the right.” Fox, of course, does tilt to the right, as any even casual observer would know. But this ruse of blazing an objective swath through a blindly biased news media is the foundation of Fox’s philosophy.

Whether it’s Bill O’Reilly spinning yarns about his “No Spin Zone,” or feeble Fox Democrats like Susan Estrich lamely presenting an opposing viewpoint, Fox playfully perpetuates its fair and balanced myth. The selectively worded “Fox Facts” are often anything but. One Fox Fact plastered across the screen as President Bush spoke in Buffalo, N.Y., last Tuesday: “Bush: Free Nations are Nations Where People Find Hope.” Another Fox Fact on the same day came from the lips of Donald Rumsfeld as he gave a press briefing about violence in Fallujah. “Rumsfeld: Enemies of Freedom are Taking a Final Stand.” In comparison, CNN’s banner under Rumsfeld at the podium during the same briefing read, in relatively humdrum fashion: “Donald Rumsfeld, Defense Secretary.”

On Thursday, as other TV news outlets scrambled to air images of U.S. soldiers’ flag-draped caskets home from Iraq, published online by an industrious First Amendment activist who FOIA’d the Air Force, Fox decided against running the poignant images. Fox’s allegiance in this case was to the Pentagon, not the freedom of information. And of course, Ailes embarrassed Fox when Bob Woodward revealed in his book “Bush at War” that Ailes sent the president a memo after 9/11 containing political advice. There’s a reason Fox News is the default channel on White House televisions, and it ain’t because of fair and balanced coverage.

But, to its credit, Fox often combines its attitude with good old-fashioned breaking news work — the kind that made CNN its name during Gulf War I. Last Saturday, a channel-surf of Fox and CNN yielded something telling. The Hamas leader had been assassinated, and the body of missing student Dru Sjodin was found. Over on CNN, a Paula Zahn magazine show featured a documentary about the life of Christopher Reeve. The news-junkie in me yelled at the screen — and I turned to Fox News. Fox nimbly switched from one story to another, giving expert analysis and live video from both locations. An agenda was also quite apparent. On the Hamas story, there was talk of “wiping a terrorist leader from the face of the Earth.” As for the case of the missing girl, the Fox anchor seemed most concerned about whether the feds were getting involved so the suspect could be eligible for the death penalty. Once he got word that the feds were on the scene, he practically sighed in relief. His subtext: Don’t worry, people, this guy at least has a chance of getting fried — something we at Fox wholeheartedly endorse.

It’s impossible to understand Fox’s rise to ratings glory outside of the context of CNN’s crash and burn. After the first Persian Gulf War, when the Boys of Baghdad thrilled America with their gutsy war reporting, CNN’s ratings — and reputation — soared. But Collins shows that CNN’s troubles began when the bombing stopped. After the made-for-TV war, news became less exciting. Ted Turner’s slogan early on was “news is the star,” Collins writes. But not all the news is fit to be the star, it turns out, when you’re out for ratings. Collins describes CNN adrift after the mid-1990s. The deeply controversial 1998 Tailwind report about the U.S. government allegedly authorizing a chemical attack on American defectors in Laos during the Vietnam War — which CNN retracted — was a tremendous embarrassment. The incident so disturbed Turner that he said at the time: “If committing suicide would help, I’ve even given that some consideration.” Tailwind also fed conservative anger that the Communist News Network had taken another hit out on the U.S. government. Ted Turner’s CNN became one more target for conservative conspiracy theorists looking for a liberal cabal in their remote controls.

CNN’s editorial foibles were compounded by business deals that weakened the network, Collins shows. The Time Warner merger, in loosening Turner’s grip on cable systems, gave Fox access to more homes, and the AOL Time Warner merger distracted management and brought personnel changes, including morale-killing layoffs, that alienated stars and lowly staffers alike. After the merger, WB founder Jamie Kellner took the helm of Turner Broadcasting. Although Kellner brought in the highly respected print journalist Walter Isaacson to run CNN, the network continued casting about for a purpose. Kellner wanted to “rejuvenate” CNN, and make it more “viewer-friendly,” Collins writes. But Turner considered Kellner and others in the new CNN management to be Hollywood carpetbaggers.

The book also covers the study in mediocrity that has been MSNBC, an experiment that never quite took off. NBC’s Andy Lack thought MSNBC would be like a Starbucks for news: “People are going to be on television, drinking coffee.” As it turns out, MSNBC became the Peacock’s ugly stepsister. MSNBC sometimes has seemed a continuous loop of soft, pseudo-documentaries like the nostalgic “Time & Again” and Matt Lauer’s “Headliners & Legends.” As Tom Brokaw’s heir-apparent Brian Williams says of the recycled fluff, “If you played the guitar in one ‘Partridge Family’ episode, there’s a half-hour show about you in the MSNBC archives.”

MSNBC’s story shows how even top media gurus like Bill Gates and NBC president Bob Wright failed miserably at the cable news gamble. But it also helps us understand the true star of the book, Roger Ailes. Ailes built CNBC, but when NBC executives made a splashy announcement at Rockefeller Center about the launch of MSNBC in December 1995, Ailes was pacing in his office across the river, watching on TV. He had been passed over. “Fuck them,” Ailes swore at the screen. He eventually quit, channeling his feelings of revenge into future endeavors, including squishing his former bosses like bugs.

Ailes may be un-P.C. — He once introduced a female lawyer by telling a joke about the difference between lawyers and prostitutes — and he may be reviled by news purists. But Ailes has always been, at the very least, interesting. As a sickly hemophiliac child in an Ohio factory town, he sold his mother’s handmade embroidered handkerchiefs door-to-door. As a 20-something staffer on “The Mike Douglas Show,” Ailes scolded guest Richard Nixon: “Television is not a gimmick, and if you think it is you’ll lose again.” Nixon hired him. Later, in what can only be described as a career transition, Ailes took a turn as a Broadway producer, staging the theatrical bomb “Ionescapade” — yes, that Ionesco. Ailes eventually worked for Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush before landing with Rupert Murdoch.

In Fox’s early days, the channel suffered from typical new-kid-on-the-block stumbles. But its red-state approach to news began resonating with conservatives during the Clinton years and reached critical mass with the viciously partisan 2000 presidential election. But the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, were the real turning point. 9/11 was to Fox News as Gulf War I was to CNN. Fox’s ratings soared 43 percent after the attacks, and while CNN and MSNBC’s ratings went up too, only Fox sustained its flood of viewers. Fox also introduced the now ubiquitous “news crawl,” and added its own special patriotic branding after 9/11: An animated flag waving over the anchor’s right shoulder. Fox News eventually surpassed CNN in the ratings in 2002.

Those who flocked to Fox after 9/11 were looking for more than just the facts, Collins writes. “If terrorism had made Americans feel wounded, frightened, and confused, Fox helped wash those feelings away, becoming a beacon of moral certainty and defiance … If viewers during Desert Storm wanted just the facts, viewers post-Sept. 11 wanted a rallying point. To paraphrase NBC’s Bob Wright, Roger Ailes had converted viewers to his church.” And there’s no shortage of preaching on Fox.

Indeed, editorializing is now a hallmark of all news on cable, where a steady flow of bickering pundits fills the hours. The “Crossfire” culture has seeped into the general media, making the 24-hour opinion churn a driving force behind even print coverage. Fox’s influence should not be overblown — network news still commands many more viewers than cable. Still, many Americans do seem to be looking for more than just the facts. They also want the spin.

But Fox’s success, like Rush Limbaugh’s on talk radio, may indicate that in echo chambers like Fox, many Americans are looking less for real political debate than validation for their strongly held beliefs. And this isn’t just true for conservatives. Liberal publications — including Salon — serve as havens for those feeling alienated and angered by the president’s policies. A recent study by the Austin-American Statesman newspaper showed America is a nation of politically segregated neighborhoods, that we actually live near people who think like we do. But do we also want our media in red and blue? So far on cable, Fox has the red all taken care of. There is no such blue-state equivalent, yet — something Al Gore would like to change.

Being the objective reporter, Collins withholds his judgment from Fox, showing how Murdoch succeeded, not pronouncing whether his success was ultimately bad for the news business. As a reader appalled by many of Fox’s pseudo-journalistic tactics, I wanted a bit more criticism from Collins. But the facts do speak for themselves. Fox’s success should scare anyone concerned about the future of news.

In a way, I understand why Fox gets such relatively high ratings, and why some Americans find comfort in its patriotic and populist overtones. Those alienated by mainstream media may wonder why more journalists don’t outwardly express their sympathies with victims of crime — or why they aren’t allowed to wear flag pins on their lapels or ally themselves with U.S. troops in combat. Fox may soothe a certain segment of American cable consumers in uncertain, frightening times, but where will its viewers go when they need more? Or will they not know the difference? Near the end of Collins’ book, he shares this quote by Fox News anchor Shepard Smith, responding to critics who said Fox shouldn’t say things like “our troops” when referring to U.S. soldiers. “Fuck them. Once we’re in this war, it’s us against them. And we’re going to win.” As Collins says, Smith may as well have been articulating the Fox News creed. Collins’ book makes clear that there are no winners here, especially in the viewing audience.

Geraldine Sealey is senior news editor at Salon.com.

Is Kirk Cameron “brave” to condemn gays?

Piers Morgan defends the actor's anti-homosexual stance VIDEO

Kirk Cameron and Piers Morgan (Credit: Reuters/Fred Prouser/Keith Bedford)

Having Piers Morgan call you brave is like having Rick Santorum call you smart. You’ve got to consider the source. So when the CNN host and Murdoch apologist told TMZ what he thought about former “Growing Pains” actor turned evolution naysayer Kirk Cameron’s comments on Morgan’s show Friday night, Morgan was restrained to the point of admiring. “He was honest to what he believed,” Morgan said. “It’s a very contentious issue. I think that he was pretty brave to say what he said.”

And what, precisely, were Cameron’s bold remarks? When prodded on the subject of same-sex marriage on Morgan’s CNN show, the Christianity-themed movie star and father of six said that “I believe that marriage was defined by God a long time ago…. Do I support the idea of gay marriage? No, I don’t.” And when Morgan asked if he thought homosexuality was a sin, Cameron hedged a bit, refusing to use the word “sin” but declaring, “It’s unnatural, it’s detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.” Maybe “sin” would have been a nicer way of putting it.

Cameron’s remarks — along with his assertion that if one his children came out to him, “I would say … just because you feel one way doesn’t mean you need to act everything you feel” — were not greeted with universal applause. Over the weekend, GLAAD started a petition to “Tell Kirk Cameron it’s time to finally grow up,” calling him “out of step with a growing majority of Americans, particularly people of faith who believe that their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters should be loved and accepted based on their character and not condemned because of their sexual orientation.” Perez Hilton, speaking for much of the Twitterverse, referred to the interview as a “spew” of “homophobia and bigotry.” But as Hilton notes – and anyone familiar with Cameron’s hyper-evangelical ways would likely agree – “Did anyone really expect less from him?”

That’s where Morgan comes in. He knew exactly what a guy who’s currently on a “marriage tour” — and shilling a new documentary that says that “something is sick in the soul of our country” – would say. It was not going to sound like the lyrics to a Lady Gaga song. Accepting a person’s right to say things, even stupid things, isn’t the same as condoning them. Speaking to TMZ, Morgan described Cameron’s statements as what many would argue is “an antiquated view” and asserted, “I think that you can take the biblical thing too far.” On CNN, Morgan told Cameron directly that if one of his own children admitted that he was gay, “I would say, ‘That’s great, son, as long as you’re happy.’”

Unlike the even-more-loathsome Rush Limbaugh, Cameron wasn’t going out of his way to personally attack an individual, or to denigrate anybody in the name of a repulsive stab at humor. He was just answering a question. Morgan is correct in his assessment that Cameron’s response was an authentic one, and that there is a kind of bravery in that. It doesn’t make that kind of thinking good or right or decent, any more than it makes Morgan less of a hack for noting it. We may be demoralized by Cameron’s answer, and rightly decide that such rhetoric needs to be challenged. We can refuse to support his films. But in the fight against intolerance and hypocrisy, what we can’t do is ask a man a question point blank — and then be outraged when he answers it truthfully. All we can do is fervently hope that with the right amount of tolerant persuasiveness, one day he might be able to give a different one.

Continue Reading Close
Mary Elizabeth Williams

Mary Elizabeth Williams is a staff writer for Salon and the author of "Gimme Shelter: My Three Years Searching for the American Dream." Follow her on Twitter: @embeedub.

Wolf Blitzer writes perfect political blog post

CNN anchor predicts election will involve lots of disagreements and possibly impolite exchanges of words

Developing at this hour, reports of nastiness (Credit: CNN)

You know that computer program that automatically generates baseball game reports based on box scores? Wolf Blitzer is like an extremely primitive and unsophisticated version of that, for political news. (Or “news.”) Today, the CNN anchor takes to “Blitzer’s Blog” to report that the 2012 election campaign has been very intense. He also predicts that it will get more intense later, when it gets closer to the general election.

BLITZER’S BLOG: It’s going to get nasty!

By Wolf Blitzer, CNN
(CNN) – If you think it’s been a rough ride for the Republican candidates during this current campaign season, just wait. This will be seen as child’s play once the general election campaign begins.

I’ve said this before but I’ll say it again: the war of words between President Obama and his campaign supporters versus the eventual Republican nominee and his supporters will be fierce.

Even though there has already been a lot of talking and stuff happening during this political campaign, you won’t believe how much additional talking and arguing there will be as it continues. I have said in the past that Barack Obama and the person running against him will say things at and about each other, and I am saying it again. Things will be said.

If you think Wolf Blitzer’s blog post about the intensity of this campaign is finished, just wait. He quotes three lines from last night’s debate, then writes four more one-sentence paragraphs:

And that’s just for starters. Just wait for what’s coming.

By the way, the president and his supporters will not be shy in fighting back.

And like the Republicans, they will have hundreds of millions of dollars to finance attack ads.

Get ready for a brutal political season.

I am, Wolf! I am!

THIS JUST IN TO THE SITUATION ROOM: Every other political blogger has retired from political blogging to curate Pinterests about sandwiches instead, because Wolf Blitzer just made our jobs redundant.

The only remaining question is whether Wolf Blitzer is a better blogger than his Fox counterpoint in incisive online commentary, Greta Van Susteren. As long as CNN insists on “copy editing” Blitzer, we may never know for sure.

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

Nancy Grace is more terrible than ever

Wild and unfounded speculation about Whitney Houston's death is a new low for the HLN host VIDEO

Nancy Grace (Credit: AP/Chris Pizzello)

Cable news depends on colorful characters to draw eyeballs in between those reminders that there are “no new developments” in the real stories of the day. But even in a sea of distinctive jerkwads – your Erin Burnetts and Piers Morgans and Bill O’Reillys and Megyn Kellys –  HLN host Nancy Grace never fails to distinguish herself. And just when you think she can’t find new depths to plumb, along comes the Whitney Houston story.

Grace, the woman who has made an entire cottage industry out of her indignation over Casey Anthony, who paints herself nightly as the avenging angel of poor dead Caylee, has never been one to trade in subtlety — or, for that matter, facts. CNN had to settle a wrongful death suit after the mother of a missing child killed herself after being browbeaten on her show. (The parties agreed that Grace “engaged in no intentional wrongdoing.”) She fearlessly championed the prosecution’s side in the Duke lacrosse team rape case, blithely referring to “the victim,” and went ballistic over the very notion that the accused might be innocent. (She then conveniently remained quiet on the subject after the case was dismissed.) This, folks, is a woman who has guilt-tripped abduction victim Elizabeth Smart for not playing along with her interview tactics. And even after a jury found Casey Anthony not guilty last summer, she has held on to the story like a dog with a bone, insisting that “I told the truth,” luxuriating in descriptions of “the backdrop of 2-year-old Caylee’s decomposing body just a few houses down from where Tot Mom put her pillow every night,” and excoriating Anthony for – rich irony alert –“generating interest in herself.”

Yet apparently there just aren’t enough kidnapped babies and alleged gang rapes out there to keep Grace satisfied. She’s turning her attention now instead to the mysterious death of a diva. Grace, who famously said last summer that she knew more than the “kooky jury” on the Anthony case, now seems to know more than the L.A. coroner’s office. Despite word that foul play is “not suspected at this time” in Saturday’s death of Whitney Houston, Grace isn’t so sure. On Monday she appeared on CNN to ponder, “Who, if anyone, gave [Houston] drugs following alcohol and drugs.” That itself isn’t a crazy question, though it is a bit of a reach – a suggestion that the story of a superstar dying alone and surrounded by prescription bottles just isn’t sexy enough. Not when surely there’s a villain on the loose for Nancy Grace to bring to justice. Cue dramatic theme music!

Medical accountability is to be considered whenever someone dies who may have had drugs administered to him or her. Just ask physician Conrad Murray, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Michael Jackson. But where Grace, in her totally Nancy Grace-like way, went totally bananas was when she asked, “Who let her slip or pushed her underneath that water? … Who let Whitney Houston go under that water?” Uhhhhhmm… Whitney Houston?

The sad desperation of news networks, and their flailing competitiveness in a glut of information overload, is rarely pretty to watch. But Grace isn’t just some blowhard, saying provocative things to get a rise out of the viewership. She’s a full-on loose cannon, a disseminator of disinformation and an ego gone rogue. That CNN and its sister network HLN continue to permit her to spew her wild speculations, to proudly flaunt her flat-out contempt for the facts as they are known, and to engage in character assassination long after a not guilty verdict has been rendered in a court of law, is blatant and arrogant recklessness. Unchecked, how long before Grace decides she knows who “pushed” Houston under the water? How long before she’s on another crusade, deciding who is a victim and who is a perpetrator? How long before a real criminal investigation or trial is tainted because of her nightly yammering?

After her jaw-dropping segment Monday, CNN anchor Don Lemon had to leap into fire-dousing mode, issuing a hasty reminder that “This is not CNN’s reporting. We don’t know that to be true.” Here’s a crazy idea – you shouldn’t be talking about things you don’t know to be true on a network with the word “news” right there in the middle of it. And CNN shouldn’t continue to provide a platform to a woman whose self-interest makes a mockery of journalistic credibility.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Continue Reading Close
Mary Elizabeth Williams

Mary Elizabeth Williams is a staff writer for Salon and the author of "Gimme Shelter: My Three Years Searching for the American Dream." Follow her on Twitter: @embeedub.

Wolf Blitzer presents “A salute to politicians”

CNN anchor can't help admiring those brave, hardworking candidates

Wolf Blitzer (Credit: CNN)

Wolf Blitzer, the face and droning monotonous voice of CNN’s breaking news coverage, has written the finest blog post of the year, so far. Blitzer has penned “A salute to politicians,” because, really, someone had to.

“I know it will probably sound weird,” Blitzer begins, “but I admire these politicians who put themselves out there before the American public knowing full well that all their warts will be exposed big time.” We have a breaking news alert for you here in the Situation Room: Situation Room anchor Wolf Blitzer admires members of the political ruling elite.

Politicians, you see, should be admired, because even though they are by and large rich, they still work very hard, every couple years. So says Wolf Blitzer in his essay on politicians, “I admire politicians, by Wolf Blitzer.”

Most of them already have lots of money. They could easily coast at this point in their lives and sit back and relax.

Instead, they are working hard on the campaign trail.

Sometimes people have to do stuff they don’t want to do, unless they have a lot of money. Usually people with a lot of money like to play golf, because playing golf is more fun than going to work. If a person with a lot of money goes to work, he must like work a lot. Even though sometimes work is hard:

I’ve seen them in action, and it’s tough. They get up early in the morning and go to sleep late at night. They have to deliver the same stump speech over and over and over again, and then answer an endless amount of often annoying questions at town hall meetings, at diners and from reporters such as me.

Next time you think about criticizing a politician, step back and think about how early he woke up this morning, and how many times he had to give a boring speech. He might have even had to deal with Wolf Blitzer! Now don’t you feel guilty?

Blitzer hits his main theme — it’s admirable that politicians actually get out of bed and do things even though they are rich — once more and names the politicians he is specifically saluting:

Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul and Rick Perry could have taken the easy path and relaxed and enjoyed life. Instead of playing golf and hanging out with their children and grandchildren, they are working hard trying to get the Republican presidential nomination. In the process, they are bitterly attacked – often for good reason.

In their pursuit of more power these already powerful men have allowed themselves to be scrutinized and even occasionally criticized, which is quite a sacrifice.

This salute to politicians even ends in the most perfectly CNN-y way possible, by presenting two vague and conflicting viewpoints and refusing to adjudicate between them:

Why do they do it?

I know what they say. They say they are interested in public service and want to help the American people. They say they believe in what they are trying to achieve.

The cynics say they have huge egos and are simply seeking power and glory.

That is certainly true of some politicians.

But having covered many of them over the years, I also know some are trying to do the right thing, and I salute them.

“Some say politicians are power-hungry narcissists, others say they are noble public servants. Both sides could be part right, some of the time, most likely.”

The sole disappointing aspect of Blitzer’s salute is that it includes no musical tribute.

[Via Glenn Greenwald]

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

Our creepy, endless fascination with Casey Anthony

"Tot Mom" resurfaces in a new video, and the cable-news universe remains as gleefully obsessed as ever VIDEO

(Credit: Gavonlaessig)

It’s been six months since a Florida jury found Casey Anthony not guilty in the 2008 death of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee. Since then, the woman who spent three years awaiting trial behind bars — and in the glare of the news spotlight – has kept a low profile. Considering the lingering questions about her innocence, the intense public resentment over the verdict, and a steady stream of death threats, her hibernation is hardly a surprise. But perhaps some part of Casey Anthony has missed the attention.

In a new video — ostensibly recorded in October but which did not emerge until Thursday — a now blond, bobbed and bespectacled Anthony narrates a four-minute “diary” entry about her new life. She says she’s “extremely excited” about her future and new computer – being able to Skype, take pictures, and “finally have something that I can finally call mine.” What she doesn’t mention? The child she used to call her own.

Though Anthony, still on probation in Florida, makes no mention of her exact location, her parents said Thursday they were “concerned” the video might endanger her. It has definitely stirred up the usual outrage from the most predictable mouthpieces. In other words, CNN is stoked. For Nancy Grace, the video has been like a late Christmas present, an opportunity to froth like she hasn’t frothed about “two-year old Caylee’s decomposing body” since last summer. Trotting out her favorite nickname for Anthony, Grace opined that “I think this is very simply Tot Mom Casey Anthony and her lawyers, possibly, injecting themselves back in the national media because nobody’s touching her offer for a paid-for interview with a 10-foot pole.” She added that: “It’s all about Tot Mom… generating interest in herself.” Dr. Drew Pinsky, meanwhile, eagerly pointed out her “narcissism and … issues of judgment.”

Out in the wider world, meanwhile, the public reaction has been mostly an excuse for another outpouring of revulsion against the lady one MSNBC commenter called “the most hated person in the U.S.A.” Also unsurprising — and straight-up gross — is that Anthony has her fair share of rabid admirers. On the shudderingly self-proclaimed “#1 Casey Anthony Fan site,” reaction toward the “smokin’ hottie” and her video has been considerably warmer. Or, as one commenter put it, “I would love to rock your world sometime.”

But why did the video emerge now, and who is Anthony really communicating with? Is this a public statement or truly a private “diary”? Anthony’s lawyers told a Florida Fox affiliate that “Casey has maintained some notes on her thoughts for personal use, especially for counseling. She did not release this video to YouTube and does not know how they got it. It could not have been legally obtained and was not authorized.” And John Riley, the man who runs a “Boycott Casey Anthony” Facebook group and first posted the clip, told Nancy Grace Thursday that he found the clip on a few pay-per-view sites and “kept looking and looking and looking” until he found it for free. He says he posted it “so there would be no money made off it.” Try to get your head around the idea of someone clawing doggedly around the Internet for four minutes of what Anthony  promises “will be as tedious as my audio recordings have been” and you begin to appreciate the apparently endless fascination this woman still holds.

Anthony’s “tedious” four minutes don’t reveal much about the inner workings of someone found not guilty of killing her daughter. They do seem in line with thoughts of someone recently released from jail – the simple relief of having one’s own possessions, the pleasure of having a dog. And she might well be circumspect about talking about her child and her trial, even on a supposedly private “video log,” if her lawyers have coached her to be. So is her video a case study in narcissism, a private moment from a “smokin’ hottie,” or just personal thoughts before a counseling session? The answer is simple. It’s whatever you already thought. Though Casey Anthony says, “Things can only get better,” minds aren’t changed as easily as hair color. “It’s surreal how things have changed since July,” she declares at one point in the clip. Then she adds, as if speaking for both herself and everyone watching, “and how many things haven’t.”

Continue Reading Close
Mary Elizabeth Williams

Mary Elizabeth Williams is a staff writer for Salon and the author of "Gimme Shelter: My Three Years Searching for the American Dream." Follow her on Twitter: @embeedub.

Page 1 of 32 in CNN