CNN: Bring Back Crossfire!

 

Mainstream news channel ratings come out, and normally there isn't a distressing situation afterwards.  This time, however, CNN faces a 40 percent drop in viewership since 2009.  Pretty large huh?  Say what you want about mainstream media news outlets, this isn't what this diary is about.

CNN has been in the bottom of the big 3 for awhile now.  Fox News Channel has been the leader for quite some time, and we are constantly reminded of this by Mr. Bill O'Reilly and other prominent noise-makers on that network.  MSNBC normally takes the second highest spot on the podium, however the difference in viewership between number 1 and number 2 is quite significant.  And then there is CNN.  Since the departure of Lou Dobbs, CNN has lacked any significant program along the lines of advocacy journalism

The lack of non-objectivity seems to be hurting CNN significantly.  Politico has noticed this (and this is where I pulled the stats for this btw) and has outlined a few tactics for Ted Turner's cable news creation to increase viewship.  One of these that I took notice to was advising CNN to bring back crossfire.

James Carville, Geraldine Ferraro, Pat Buchanan, and of course Tucker Carlson and his ridiculous bow ties. If anyone remembers Crossfire, chances are it's because of a Mr. John Stewart.  The youtube sensation of John Stewart ripping apart Tucker Carlson on air marked seemingly the end of Crossfire

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

Stewart had a point.  His claim of partisan-hackery was certainly an issue, but I personally found Crossfire to be entertaining nonetheless.  I think its important to have open debates live on air between pundits, but talking points consuming the show over real issues unfortunately plagued the show in its past.

In my opinion, there is no show (with the exception of Meet the Press and other sunday news shows) that really allows for open debate with a slew of different individuals on both sides of the political spectrum, at least in the 3 big mainstream outlets.  Keith Olbermann seems to never bring anyone on his show for a serious and intellectual debate, Rachel Maddow does but not very often.  Chris Matthews and Harball normally has a decent track record of open debate, but still lacks a lot of consistency in my opinion and viewership from more right-wing sources are less likely to watch MSNBC... because its MSNBC.

Fox, on the other hand, as well all know is obviously truly fair and balanced.  Its hard to properly emphasize sarcasm via typed words so bear with me.

Glenn Beck's biggest stride in bringing on bi-partisan debate was having the esteemed guest Eric Massa on to talk about snorkeling and fondling men.  Of course, this actually was a big stride for Beck.. sadly enough.  Bill O'Reilly can sometimes have a decent guest in which to "debate" but that normally involves O'Reilly yelling louder to prove a point, to the degree of nearly soiling himself.  And of course, there is Sean Hannity and his "Great American Panel."  You can guess who is on this "Great American Panel."  Normally the token Reagan worshipers to the equivalence of Liz Cheney's and Bill Kristol's. 

I love watching open and fair debate.  Not constructed partisan ploys done by the other "debate" shows.

If CNN could craft Crossfire to actually contain a Fair and Balanced debate show, yes thats making a mockery of fox news, then they could potentially increase viewership significantly.

At least, I know I would be watching it nightly. 

History Doesn't Bode Well for Palin 2012

The closer election day and the more likely a positive outcome for the Democratic ticket, the more you can see and hear about Sarah Palin getting ready for a 2012 run for the nomination.

This got me wondering: has anyone ever won the nomination of their party or even the presidency after being the running mate on a losing ticket?

Follow me below the fold for what I found. Let's just say history does not bode well for Palin 2012.

There's more...

Obama injects race

Obama is doing a pre-emtive strike on Republicans. He assumes that Republicans will create fear by playing the race card. It seems strange to me that Obama would bring up race before anyone else does. Bringing up race is what got Geraldine Ferraro into trouble isn't it?

Here's Ferraro's comment:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is.

Here's Obama's comment:

"We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid.

"They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsN ews/idUSN2040982720080620

Regardless of whether or not Republicans go after Obama using his race, IMO, it's not wise for Obama to accuse someone in advance.  It really is nothing more than an assumption on Obama's part. I'm surprised Obama would make a pre-emptive accusation like this, especially since many have claimed Obama trancends race.

There's more...

Geraldine Ferraro Praises Obama Yesterday?

Geraldine Ferraro Praises Barack Obama In a Speech Yesterday

RENO - Ex-Democratic vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro praised the Nevada Women's Fund on Tuesday for using their resources to help young women overcome adversity in the same way Barack Obama beat long odds to become his party's presidential nominee.

"I want a fairer country for women and girls - black, white, yellow or brown, I don't care what color. And I'm not going to stop pushing. You women are empowered to help make that happen," Ferraro told about 1,000 people at the nonprofit group's 17th annual "Salute to Women of Achievement."

"Last year at this time, when Sen. Obama announced for the presidency, people white and black alike said, 'You can't do it. This country is not ready for a black man to be nominated president of the United States,"'she said.

"Well, he said, 'Yes, we can.' And he didn't wait for someone to give it to him, he worked hard and he earned the nomination," said the former New York congresswoman, who became the first woman on a major party's presidential ticket as Walter Mondale's running mate in 1984.

"And now today, the Nevada Women's Fund and your honorees' devotion to fairness, you are also saying, 'Yes, we can.' And I have no doubt that together, we will be successful."

There's more...

Gerry Ferraro Strikes Again!!

I'm tired of Gerry Ferraro and her ignorant rants and since March I have decided that I would just ignore her but today her editorial in the Boston Globe just set me off.

Let's take a look at what she had to say.

Here we are at the end of the primary season, and the effects of racism and sexism on the campaign have resulted in a split within the Democratic Party that will not be easy to heal before election day. Perhaps it's because neither the Barack Obama campaign nor the media seem to understand what is at the heart of the anger on the part of women who feel that Hillary Clinton was treated unfairly because she is a woman or what is fueling the concern of Reagan Democrats for whom sexism isn't an issue, but reverse racism is.

I will admit that there has been sexism on the part of the media as well as racism.  I think most of us can all agree on that. However, to blame the Obama campaign is just ridiculous. Why is it that Clinton supporters cannot name a specific example of sexism during this primary that is Obama's fault? If someone is willing to give me an example of Obama being sexist and not the media then I am more than willing to listen. It is understandable that Hillary's supporters are furious at the media for how she has been treated but to blame everything that the media has done on Obama is absurd.  

Gerry tries to explain Reagan Dems to us:

They're not upset with Obama because he's black; they're upset because they don't expect to be treated fairly because they're white. It's not racism that is driving them, it's racial resentment. And that is enforced because they don't believe he understands them and their problems. That when he said in South Carolina after his victory "Our Time Has Come" they believe he is telling them that their time has passed.

What on earth is she talking about? How is "our time has come" meaning that Obama is leaving white people behind?  Is she trying to say that these voters feel like a black man is going to take over the country and leave all the white folks behind? Has Barack  Obama ever signaled or even said that he is going to lock white people up so that blacks can rule the country? Has she forgotten that he is HALF white himself?  Does Gerry really believe this nonsense?

Gerry closes out by basically calling Obama an uppity black man:

They don't identify with someone who has gone to Columbia and Harvard Law School and is married to a Princeton-Harvard Law graduate. His experience with an educated single mother and being raised by middle class grandparents is not something they can empathize with. They may lack a formal higher education, but they're not stupid.

In case  anyone didn't notice, Hillary Clinton went to Wellesley and graduated from Yale law school. She and Bill are now worth over $100 million dollars.  The Obama's, because of his book deal and their house are worth about $4 million and they just finished paying their student loans off from law school. For the record, Obama's mother was on food stamps. Yes, food stamps and he went to school on scholarships. What Gerry Ferraro is saying is what many of us felt about some of these so-called Reagan Dems--they will under no circumstance vote for a black man no matter what he does or say. Geraldine has also made it clear that she won't either. No one should be surprised as she has actively campaigned against black Democrats in New York in the past.   I understand being angry that Hillary lost I would be too if my candidate lost but I would get over it and vote Democrat because the democratic party cares about the issues that are important to me in this election.  

I know many Hillary Clinton supporters who would strongly disagree with this crap and for Gerry to continue on her "insult everyone who doesn't support Hillary" tour is disgraceful and not helpful. Gerry Ferraro is bitter because a woman did not win. She should be bitter at Mark Penn who ran Hillary's campaign into the ground and not Obama. Obama didn't win because of sexism against Hillary, he won because he knew the rules and planned accordingly.  He also won despite 20% of voters in Kentucky and West Virginia stating that race was an important factor and they voted overwhelmingly for Hillary.  

Hillary came into this primary with every possible advantage. She had over 100 super delegates, money, name recognition, and the support of the most popular Democrat in the country. She squandered it all. Was it sexist when the media called Hillary the inevitable democratic nominee eight months ago?  Where was Gerry then? We only started hearing of the cries of sexism from Gerry when it was clear after the primaries in February that Hillary's chances of becoming the nominee were dwindling fast.  

If Gerry wants to continue down this shameful path it is time for her to leave the party. I'm sure that the GOP will be waiting with open arms for her.

There's more...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads