Predictably, Japan Disaster to Be Scene of Next ‘Battle of the Network News Stars’

So predictable, you can set your watch by it: A catastrophe or crisis makes headlines, and TV news operations compete to see who can get their celebrity on-air talent to the scene first:

Cooper, Amanpour among TV journalists to Japan
U.S. broadcast and cable networks, some of which were short-staffed Friday morning in Japan, are now sending top anchors and correspondents to the northeastern region of the country that’s been ravaged by [Friday’s] earthquake and tsunami. . . .
[Christiane] Amanpour — who’s recently escaped the Beltway to host “This Week” from Tucson, Cairo, and Libya — will host the Sunday public affairs show from Japan, too. . . .
CNN’s Anderson Cooper, who devoted several shows to the Haiti earthquake in 2010, plans to leave for Japan after [Friday night’s] show, a spokeswoman confirmed.

As with the Egypt protest Live-From-Cairo Derby — where the rioting mobs were in danger of getting crowded out of Tahrir Square by all the American network anchors setting up for live remotes — this pilgrimage of TV talking-heads to Japan has absolutely nothing to do with providing news coverage.

Each of these networks has foreign correspondents who could do the job of reporting from the scene. No, let’s call this what it is: A publicity stunt, a star-system celebrity-status game where it’s not enough to let reporters do the reporting, but instead the networks want to send their Famous Faces With Big Names.

The purpose is to signify that this is really important news and that their anchors aren’t just Pretty People who read a Teleprompter in a Manhattan TV studio but are actual honest-to-God journalists. It’s like how, when TV news does a story about Congress, it’s important that the reporter be on camera with the Capitol dome in the background — “See? He’s really there at the Capitol, covering Congress!” — even if what he’s reporting is just stuff that anybody could have picked up off the AP wire.

So now we’ll get to watch footage of Christiane Amanpour and Anderson Cooper walking through scenes of earthquake-and-flood devastation, because it’s important for the networks that we see this story “reported” by their $4-million-a-year superstars.

Beyond the transparent synthetic bogusness of it all, what bugs me is knowing that these jetsetting anchors-on-the-scene are greedily gobbling up air time that, by all rights, ought to go to their networks’ usual Asian/Pacific bureau reporters (who, of course, get a mere fraction of the fat salaries paid to Amanpour, Cooper, et al.).

UPDATE: Is Little Miss Attila accusing moi of cynicism? Don’t hate the player, sweetheart, hate the game.


Oops: PBS Got Stung, Too

One of my friends who has very close connections to the operatives involved in James O’Keefe’s sting against National Public Radio had hinted in a phone call that I should expect further exposures and — my, oh, my — what do we have here?

PBS confirmed Wednesday that like NPR, one of its executives attended a lunch with people who posed as members of the Muslim Education Action Center Trust, a fictional group.

Liberals: We’re So Much Smarter Than the Rest of America!

UPDATE: An interesting reaction:

Note the presumption that PBS is the innocent victim of the “right-wing” bad guy O’Keefe. We haven’t seen the video, and therefore have no idea what actually happened at the meeting, but Charles Johnson knows who the villain is!

Because he is now smarter than everybody else, now that he has “parted ways with the right.”

‘National Palestinian Radio’ Sting Shows That Liberals Still Blame America First

During James O’Keefe’s undercover video sting of (now ex-)National Public Radio executive Ron Schiller, “Ibrahim Kassan” — pretending to represent a Muslim Brotherhood front group that wanted to make a large donation to the NPR foundation — made a number of provocative statements about Jewish control of the media:

“Jews do kind of control the media or, I mean, certainly the Zionists and the people who have the interests in swaying media coverage toward a favorable direction of Israel,” the man posing as Ibrahim Kassam said as Schiller concurred. . . .
“The Palestinian viewpoint — since NPR is one of the few places that has the courage to really present it — there is kind of a joke, we used to call it National Palestine Radio,” said Kassam while Schiller laughs and the second executive featured in the tape, NPR’s director of institutional giving Betsy Liley, replies, “That’s good, I like that.”

As Philip Klein of The American Spectator points out, “Schiller chimes in, saying that Zionist influence doesn’t exist at NPR, but ‘it’s there in those who own newspapers obviously.’ ” Was that a shot at Pinch Sulzberger of the New York Times?

Jack Shafer of Slate attempts a defense of Schiller, saying that ” rich people . . . have a lot of crazy ideas” and “we’d last about 15 seconds in the fundraising business if every time a potential donor said something crazy or offensive, we told them to shut their pie hole.”

Nice try, Jack. But O’Keefe’s sting also involved setting up a Web site for the group “Kassam” supposedly represented, so that Schiller knew going into that lunch meeting that the agenda of the “Muslim Education Action Center” was to “spread acceptance of Sharia across the world.”

Or at least if Schiller didn’t know what “MEAC” was about, he had no excuse for not knowing. This goes back to what O’Keefe’s sting was intended to demonstrate: While NPR was so sensitive about “Islamophobia” that it fired Juan Williams for expressing concern about Islamic terrorism, NPR was willing to accept donations from an organization that was unabashed in its radical Islamic enthusiasms.

So now the news is that NPR CEO Vivian Schiller (no relation to Ron Schiller) has resigned:

“The Board accepted her resignation with understanding, genuine regret, and great respect for her leadership of NPR these past two years,” board chairman Dave Edwards said in a statement.

But as Jeff Dunetz of Yid With Lid notes, the CEO’s “resignation” was actually a firing, as NPR’s media reporter David Folkenflik said: “I’m told by sources that she was forced out — that this was, I guess, the final shoe dropping, you could say.”

What have we learned? A few years ago, it was often said that “9/11 changed everything” and, in some sense, I guess it did. But the change for most Americans — a long-overdue wake-up call to the threat of Islamic jihad — was different than the change for liberals like these NPR executives. For liberals, 9/11 was a morality tale about America’s alleged sins against the Muslim world, in which America’s ally Israel was the villain and al-Qaeda terrorists were in some sense justified in hating America. (“Chickens coming home to roost,” so to speak.)

More than 35 years ago, Jeanne Kirkpatrick described the essence of liberalism’s foreign policy instincts:

They said that saving Grenada from terror and totalitarianism was the wrong thing to do – they didn’t blame Cuba or the communists for threatening American students and murdering Grenadians – they blamed the United States instead.
But then, somehow, they always blame America first.
When our Marines, sent to Lebanon on a multinational peacekeeping mission with the consent of the United States Congress, were murdered in their sleep, the “blame America first crowd” didn’t blame the terrorists who murdered the Marines, they blamed the United States.
But then, they always blame America first.
When the Soviet Union walked out of arms control negotiations, and refused even to discuss the issues, the San Francisco Democrats didn’t blame Soviet intransigence. They blamed the United States.
But then, they always blame America first.
When Marxist dictators shoot their way to power in Central America, the San Francisco Democrats don’t blame the guerrillas and their Soviet allies, they blame United States policies of 100 years ago.
But then, they always blame America first.

Some things never change.

UPDATE: Jeff G. at Protein Wisdom points out that NPR is “an entity so practiced at building and maintaining improbable cultural narratives,” yet has now lost control of its own narrative. Permit me to suggest that the secret of NPR’s narrative-control operation was their exclusion of dissent from the discourse. But you already knew that, right?

UPDATE II: Oops: PBS Got Stung, Too.


Has Barrett Brown Scammed NBC News?

In-freaking-credible!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Barrett Brown is either, as Michael Isikoff reports, “an underground commander in a new kind of warfare” — a member of a criminal conspiracy who should be under arrest — or else he’s one of the most successful hoaxers in recent memory. What astonishes me is to realize that just two days ago I was exchanging e-mails with Brown after he threatened me via Twitter over a post I wrote Feb. 14:

Is the FBI Watching Barrett Brown? (And
If They’re Not Already, Shouldn’t They?)

Everything I know about Brown leads me to believe that his claim to be a leader of “Anonymous” is self-aggrandizing nonsense. But here’s the problem: Absent complete access to his computer records, how would you go about verifying or falsifying that claim?

Consider what bush-league crap Brown was up to less than three months ago: In late December, he was posting videos of himself arguing with his girlfriend’s roommate. Before that, he was getting himself banned from blogs. Before that, he had his lawyer threatening me for making jokes at his expense.

So here we have a guy who seems to have spent December trying to get himself noticed by somebody — anybody — and now in March he’s interviewed by Michael Isikoff on NBC Nightly News?

An ability to detect the aroma of bovine excrement is essential to a newsman’s trade and it is my considered judgment that NBC News has been bamboozled, hoodwinked and scammed by Barrett Brown.

There’s an old saying in this business: “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” And unless the Justice Department announces that Barrett Brown is the focus of a federal investigation, I’m calling bullshit.

UPDATE: Let me explain further why I’m so dubious of Brown’s claim. Stars and Stripes reports:

 The Financial Times reports this week that U.S. law enforcement agencies are investigating plans by members of a hacking collective known as Anonymous to disrupt [Marine Corps Base] Quantico’s operations in protest over the alleged rough treatment of Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, a suspect in the Wikileaks data dump that has sent countries around the world into a tizzy with the disclosure of state secrets big and small.

OK, so “Anonymous” is threatening the U.S. Marine Corps, and meanwhile Barrett Brown — who has been publicly claiming since mid-February to be involved with “Anonymous” — is strolling down the street doing an interview with NBC News? Doesn’t basic common sense tell you that there’s something wrong with that picture?

UPDATE II: Linked by Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs — thanks!.

‘Right-Wing’ Sarah Palin?

A story from the British Daily Mail about a deranged teenager stalking Sarah Palin brought me to a screeching halt in the first sentence:

A teenager who sent threatening letters to right-wing US politician Sarah Palin has been arrested in her home state of Alaska.

What is it about that phrase, “right-wing,” that obtrudes? It’s mainly because I have trouble imagining a scenario where a reporter would use “left-wing” in a similar context. Surely if Palin is “right-wing,” Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer and many other Democrats must be judged “left-wing” by the same measure, yet that label is never applied to them.

Sarah Palin is a Republican and, like most Republicans, is generally conservative. Barack Obama is a Democrat and, like most Democrats, generally liberal. Yet studies by the Media Research Center and others show that reporters apply the labels “conservative” or “right-wing” to Republicans far more often than they apply “liberal” or “left-wing” to Democrats.

Why is it that Republicans can win an enormous electoral landslide, a political indication that GOP views are closer to the mainstream “center” than the views of Democrats, and yet supposedly neutral reporters still feel the need to apply the label “right-wing” — suggesting an extreme “fringe” ideology — to one of the most popular figures in the Republican Party?

…

Just askin’

‘Piss Karl’: Rove’s Genius Media Strategy

Ben Smith points out that New York magazine hired “Piss Christ” photographer Andres Serrano to do a portrait of Karl Rove, and I wonder if Rove expected the resulting profile feature by Joe Hagan to include such sentences as this:

The woman, Karen Johnson, is a lobbyist rumored to have been Rove’s mistress before his divorce from his second wife in 2009.

Given that Rove is a major “get,” he might have told the editors at New York: “Sure, I’d be glad to do the story, if you will give the assignment to Matt Continetti or John McCormack or . . .”

Never mind. Rove’s a genius, and needs no advice from mere mortals.

‘Parker-Spitzer’ to Become ‘Spitzer’?

The logical consequence of one of the worst programming decisions in the history of television news:

“Parker Spitzer,” CNN’s troubled prime-time talking-head program, is losing its Parker.
Kathleen Parker, a Pulitzer Prize-winning opinion writer, will leave the ratings-deficient show after just four months, the network said Friday.
The program, which airs at 8 p.m. weeknights, will be replaced starting Monday by “In the Arena,” which CNN described as an “ensemble” program that will feature Eliot Spitzer, Parker’s co-host on “Parker Spitzer.” . . .
Parker writes an op-ed column for The Washington Post that is syndicated nationally and will leave to “focus on her writing,” CNN Executive Vice President Ken Jautz said in a face-saving staff memo released to the media. . . . .
“Parker Spitzer” has occasionally finished fourth in its timeslot behind Nancy Grace’s program on CNN’s HLN . . .
Perhaps worse, the program’s audience spiked during a week earlier this month when Parker was off the air. The program had its best weekly ratings in early February, fueled by interest in the crisis in Egypt, with Spitzer as solo host.

So CNN keeps Spitzer, but dumps Parker, evidently deciding that she was the problem, rather than the disgraced former New York governor.

And notice who isn’t getting fired: The CNN executives who came up with this retarded idea for a show.

Category: CNN