Clinton and Giuliani Most-Lampooned Candidates: But Is That a Bad Thing?

It may be the ultimate test of that old maxim that any publicity is good publicity.

A new study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs found Hillary Clinton and Rudolph Giuliani were the biggest Democratic and Republican targets of late-night comedians in most of 2007, respectively. Clinton has endured 186 jokes this year (all her other Democratic opoonents got a total 197 jokes), while Giuliani for 72 barbs.

Overall, Dems got it worse with 383 jokes compared to 312 knocks for Republicans. Unfortunately, the CMPA looked at a pretty narrow field: monologues from Jan. 1 to Oct. 10 by Jay Leno, Conan O'Brien, David Letterman, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert (not sure why Jimmy Kimmel anmd Craig Ferguson got the cold shoulder; maybe the CMPA doesn't have enough VCRs).

But I think you have to wonder whether this exposure is bad as it seems. Jokes equal top-of-mind recognition. And when you have so many condidates in the most contested primaries in recent memory, maybe even a good jab from Leno or letterman is better than no attention at all.

Here's the rest of the CMPA release:

MAJOR FINDINGS

Hillary Clinton has been the butt of 186 jokes by TV comedians this year, nearly as many as all her Democratic opponents, who combined for 197. Running a distant second in the humor race was Barack Obama with 56, followed by John Edwards (43), Dennis Kucinich (34), and Joe Biden (26).

The jokes about Ms. Clinton focused heavily on her physical appearance, including her taste in clothes (29 jokes), her alleged lack of emotional warmth (43 jokes), and her marital problems (21 jokes). Among the other candidates only John Edwards attracted frequent jokes about physical appearance, often about his hair. (See below for sample Hillary Clinton jokes.)

Overall the comedians found Democratic candidates (383 jokes) funnier than Republicans (312). Rudy Giuliani led the GOP contestants with 72 jokes, followed closely by Mitt Romney (68) and John McCain (54), with Mike Huckabee (27) and Fred Thompson (24) trailing behind.

Only "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart targeted any other Democratic candidate more often than Hillary – he told 27 jokes about Sen. Obama vs.25 about Sen. Clinton. But there was more variety in the choice of Republican targets: Leno zinged Giuliani most often (37 jokes), Letterman focused mainly on Romney (18), McCain led Jon Stewart’s list (25), and Colbert zapped Huckabee most (14).

But the presidential candidates have had plenty of competition from other newsmakers this year; only Ms. Clinton and Mr. Giuliani were among the ten most frequently joked-about public figures. The top ten targets of the TV jokemeisters were topped by George Bush with 826 jokes, followed by Paris Hilton (258), Dick Cheney (197), Hillary Clinton (186), Bill Clinton (142), Larry Craig (116), Alberto Gonzales (103), O.J. Simpson (87), Al Gore (84) and Rudy Giuliani (72).

Sample Hillary Jokes:

If Fred Thompson runs against Hillary, it’ll be "Law and Order" vs. "Cold Case." - Leno

Bill Clinton says that he’s been very conditioned about global warming. As a matter of fact, last week another chunk of ice fell off his wife. – Letterman

During a recent campaign speech Barack Obama called John Edwards "kind of cute." Then he said Hillary Clinton has a really great personality. – Conan O’Brien

Hillary is dressing sexier and sexier. Yesterday she was seen shopping at Victoria ’s Pantsuit. - Letterman

Sen. Clinton said that as president she would bring the troops home. The troops? She can’t even get Bill to come home. – Leno

Over 18 million American men currently suffer from erectile dysfunction. Doctors say that number could double if Hillary gets elected. – Leno

In the Aftermath of Its Greatest Triumph, CNN Finds Mostly Criticism

The press releases coming from CNN yesterday were almost giddy: Wednesday's Republican CNN/YouTube debate imn St. Petersburg drew 4.49-million viewers, making it the most-watched primary presidential debate in history. Before that, CNN's Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas Nov. 15 was the most-watched primary debate in history, drawing 4-million viewers.

But all that success seemed beside the point Thursday, as the cable newschannel drowned in criticism from both sides of the political spectrum. See my story with Wes Allison in today's paper for the blow by blow.

Republican bloggers and pundits were criticizing CNN for allowing a spotlight moment for a gay retired general who turned out to have ties to both Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. The appearance by Keith Kerr, a well-known advocate for rescinding the ban against gays in the military, triggered a microscopic scrutiny of every questioner by right wing bloggers such as Michelle Malkin, Redstate.com and Newsbusters.org.

Liberals, on the other hand, criticized CNN for initially promising to insulate the Republican debate from questions posed by Democrats, though they made no such public promises to Democrats for their debate.

In response, CNN offered a defense that couldn't explain away two key problems: political director Sam Feist told me yesterday the cable channel focused on the questions, not the questioners, refusing to "provide a ideological litmus test" to everyone who submitted a question.

But if the background of the questioners doesn't matter, why did CNN debate chief David Bohrman apologize for using Kerr and say they wouldn't have aired his question had they knew of his Democratic political ties? And since they figured out the final 60 to 70 possible questions for air in the 24 hours before the debate, how could CNN have possibly vetted all those questioners for significant ties to Democratic campaigns?

Unfortunately, as much as CNN officials bragged about making a Republican debate for Republicans, with questions submitted by average people, their question selection process made it impossible to keep out hidden activists. But I doubt anyone would have noticed, if they hadn't handed a signature spotlight moment to a questioner who they hadn't vetted much at all.

And even though some liberal bloggers are saying the political background of questioners shouldn't matter, I have a hard time believing they would have tolerated seeing Hillary Clinton asked a tough question on an issue important to conservatives by someone with hidden ties to Rudolph Giuliani or George W. Bush.

It's an ironic turn, given that so much initial concern about the CNN/YouTube debates centered on whether the questions would be good enough. Turns out, we all should have been playing closer attention to who was asking the questions -- especially CNN.

See all the YouTube clips of the 34 questions asked Wednesday by clicking here.

Here's the three different statements CNN released Thursday:

STATEMENT 1

"The whole point of these ground-breaking CNN/YouTube debates is to focus on substantive questions of concern to real people and to throw open the process to a wider range of Americans all around the country. CNN cared about what you asked, not who you were. This was the case for both the Democratic and the Republican CNN/YouTube debates.

"The issues raised during last night’s debate were legitimate and relevant no matter who was asking the questions. The vested interests who are challenging the credibility of the questioners are trying to distract voters from the substantive issues they care most about. Americans are tired of that discredited low-road approach, and throughout this election campaign CNN will stay focused on what the candidates are saying about the pressing issues facing this country at a critical time in our history. Judging by the fact that last night's event was the most-watched primary debate ever, it seems that the audience responded to our focus on plain-spoken questions about important issues."

STATEMENT 2

“When choosing among the 5,000-or-so questions, CNN considered factors such as length, video quality and whether the question would help Republican primary voters select their presidential nominee. We sought a variety of questions on a variety of topics. We also sought to eliminate anyone with a direct role in a campaign and with one unfortunate exception, which we regret and have fully explained, we accomplished that.”—CNN political director Sam Feist

STATEMENT 3

Following the debate, CNN learned that retired brigadier general Keith Kerr served on Clinton's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender steering committee.

CNN Senior Vice President and Executive Producer of the debate, David Bohrman, says, "We regret this incident. CNN would not have used the General's question had we known that he was connected to any presidential candidate."

Prior to the debate, CNN had verified his military background and that he had not contributed any money to any presidential candidate.

Following the debate, Kerr told CNN that he's done no work for the Clinton campaign. He says he is a member of the Log Cabin Republicans and was representing no one other than himself.
 

Spinning in the Spin Room: My Moment with Chuck Norris

"It says something that, with all these important politicians in the room, Chuck Norris is drawing the biggest crowd."

A friend who works for a big local communications company made that observation to me in the "spin room" at the CNN/YouTube debate Wednesday -- a piece of the Mahaffey Theater's lobby which was curtained off and filled with surrogate advocates for most the Republican candidates, allowing them to argue their candidates' case before the dozens of reporters covering the event once the debate ended.

And the observation was a good one: notables such as onetime presidential comer George Allen, political consultant and TV pundit Bay Buchanan, New York congressman Peter King and Florida Sen. Mel Martinez couldn't hold a candle to Norris, who walked from TV camera to TV camera, trailing a huge scrum of reporters throughout the room.

My moment came when I asked whether he was concerned voters might dismiss Mike Huckabee because he had drafted a Hollywood actor to stump for him. Norris flashed a blinding, white smile before noting "I'm not a Hollywood actor any more." Jab! (he also claimed to have knocked out Huckabee when the two were sparring; I couldn't tell if he was joking)

Allen thought the sniping between Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney over immigration helped Thompson,  citing an old campaign strategist's maxim: When a politician attacks another, they both go down. "Both (Romney and Giuliani) ended up looking bad," said Allen, whose use of the word "macaca" to describe a campaign worker for a rival candidate ended his political career last year. "Fred swooped in and came off looking like a good guy."

Buchanan insisted all the talk about illegal immigration added up to a win for Tom Tancredo, even though most of that talk didn't include him.

Gov. Charlie Crist insisted the people of Florida won the debate, even through he also had to acknowledge that there were few questions which dealt directly with issues the state finds most pressing. He also had no problem with CNN declining to air his You/Tube-submitted question, saying "I'd rather the people have the access to the candidates."

Huckabee also thought the fighting between Giuliani and Romney helped him, noting that "You never jump in the middle of two dogs fighting until they've worn themselves out." Huckabee, who gets points as the funniest GOP candidate, seemed fond of uncorking Arkansas-bred sayings to explain himself -- noting that he's comfortable joking around because "nobody wants their president to drink a bottle of vinegar and swallow a curtain rod before he goes to work." Um, yeah.

And Norris had one fun zinger left. When asked whether he would "open a can of whoop-ass" on anybody if President Huckabee asked him to, the karate master didn't miss a beat: "Absolutely," he replied.

Which made me inch away. Slowly.   

Surprise Loser in YouTube Debate: Anderson Cooper

I'm not sure who actually won tonight's CNN/YouTube debate -- distinguished mostly by the top candidates dancing around a series of surprisingly astute questions fielded from the public through the video sharing Web site.

But I know who lost: Host Anderson Cooper.

Clearly overmatched and a little surprised by the increased squabbling among the candidates, Cooper lost control of the debate too many times -- allowing candidates to eat up time with long stretches of one-on-one arguments, and refusing to call out politicians when they avoided answering the questions asked.

For example, one YouTuber faced the camera and said "The death penalty: What would Jesus do?" And even though Mike Huckabee spent long minutes recounting how he debated handing out  death sentence as Governor of Arkansas, he never got to Jesus' part. When Cooper pressed him to answer the question, he said cracked: "Jesus was too smart to run for public office." Answer over.

When Fred Thompson provided a YouTube-style campaign video for CNN which used past clips of Mitt Romney defending abortion and Huckabee appearing to agree to raise taxes, Cooper asked about the attack by saying "Senator Thompson -- What's up with that?" (Thompson looked a little embarrassed before cracking "I just wanted to give my buddies a little more air time.")

The candidates weren't directly confronted about their inability to answer some questions until Cooper turned to Brigadier Gen. Keith Kerr, a retired military man sitting in the audience who castigated the candidates for failing to answer his question about whether they think the American military isn't professional enough to work alongside openly gay people.

Unfortunately, Kerr turned a rebuke for non-answers into a speech about his own story of coming out after leaving military service and the continuing discrimination against gay people in the armed forces. It was another example of how Cooper let an element of the show spin out of CNN's control, violating the channel's own goal of weeding out "gotcha" questions posed by Democrats to embarrass all the candidates.

(Now Republican bloggers and Fox News are reporting that Kerr was a member of a steering committee of gay supporters for Hillary Clinton; Cooper said during his show, Anderson Cooper 360, that CNN would not have used his question if they knew this allegation was true).

Every candidate dropped at least one doozy of a statement: Huckabee wants to eliminate the IRS and rely on retail sales taxes to run the government (he should ask Florida how well that works); Ron Paul wants to eliminate the departments of Energy and Education; John McCain blamed the American people's homefront reactions for losing the Vietnam War while Fred Thompson said overturning the abortion law Roe vs. Wade should be America's "number One priority" and Romney advocated denying the children of illegal immigrants the most basic health and education services.

The America advocated by this bunch sounded like a mean-spirited, paranoid place, where politicians are more comfortable pledging to kick the children of illegal immigrants out of the country than pledging to take on government subsidies handed to big farming companies. (One upsetting moment for me: Duncan Hunter telling the American people to buy American while Christmas shopping when American retailers such as Wal-Mart are stocked to the gills with cheap goods made in China, Korea and Vietnam. Is he going to insist they buy American this Christmas, too?)

Cooper aside, Romney came out the biggest loser here. At turns too slick and too halting, he managed to reinforce his image as a flip-flopper and an overly programmed candidate. McCain sat above much of the infighting like a wise Yoda -- particularly on the issue of waterboarding military prisoners -- but can't get past his support for immigration reform and a still-unpopular war. Thompson showed more life and knowledge of the issues, but offered few new ideas, leaving Huckabee in a great position as the most reasonable, human-sounding candidate who wasn't really attacked very badly during the debate.

My next post will talk a bit about the backstage stuff, including info on the "spin room," where celebrities such as action star Chuck Norris and former Senator George "Macaca" Allen were spinning journalists on the debate's outcome.

Here's the acoustic ballad which kicked off the debate:

       

   

Relax Dancing Fans: Castroneves' Win Was Supposed to Happen

I imagine the blogosphere is burning up this morning with fans complaining about Brazilian race car driver Helio Castroneves' surprise win on Tuesday night's finale of Dancing with the Stars.

Once Castroneves had finished his final dance last night, it was painfully obvious he couldn't match the power and grace of Spice Girl Melanie Brown, whose mastery of all the dance styles covered by the show has been awesome to behold.

So why isn't this critic complaining that he beat Brown when all the votes were totaled? (hint: It's not because this was a win I predicted)

As I explain in a story for today's newspaper, Dancing's voters seem to reward those who make the biggest transformation. And Scary Spice, as proficient as she has been, made a living for many years singing and dancing onstage. Castroneves, as a cute, charismatic neophyte, distinguished himself by plunging into the competition with gusto -- something the fans often reward.

Castroneves also lucked out because he aced Monday's night performances -- which sparked the audience votes leading to his win. Had the fan vote been based on Tuesday night's final dances, I think Mel B.'s perfect mambo might have wiped the floor with the indy 500 champ.

As it was, I do think the judges punked out a bit by giving both finalist couples perfect scores for their final dances, leaving the decision mostly to the audience vote. Even though Brown ate up the dance floor in her final performance, the experts turned away when their expertise was most needed -- likely to avoid looking like spoilers.

In the end, I was just happy that Marie Osmond got cut 30 minutes into last night's finale.  Between the fainting, the endless grinning and the non-stop jokes about her age, Osmond was wearing out her TV welcome faster than Rosie O'Donnell at a Young Republicans' dinner.

Countdown to CNN/YouTube Debate: Media Madness Comes to St. Petersburg

I can't tell you for sure whether Billiam, the snowman concerned about global warming in the first CNN/YouTube debate, will make an appearance at tomorrow's reprise here in St. Petersburg.

But I can tell you who won't be appearing: Gov. Charlie Crist.

"I can break the rules and tell you we will not be using the governor's question," said David Bohrman, the CNN executive in charge of the debate, during a walk-through of the debate hall with local and national media a couple of hours ago. "Governors have access to these candidates already. We got lots of questions submitted by celebrities and someone well known. We wanted to showcase questions from the people."

Here's Crist question; judge for yourself whether it was worthy of inclusion:

The Mahaffey Theater has the feel of a giant TV studio set, tricked out with an array of lights, teleprompters and camera positions. At stage right, a huge, 25-foot wide definition video screen proudly displayed the event's logo; on Wednesday, that screen will feature each of the 40 or so questions expected to form the meat of tomorrow night's debate.

Host Anderson Cooper hadn't arrived yet.  Flying in from Los Angeles tonight, he was expected to huddle with producers and winnow down the final group of questions to 60 or 70 potentials. Looking at the grand display, including a wide backdrop incorporating the logos of CNN, YouTube, Progress energy and Republican Party of Florida, one local TV reporter wondered how much it all cost.

Bohrman, a big bear of man who sounds like an old hand on the eve of his second YouTube-affiliated debate, handed the assembled media deftly. No, there will be no "gotcha" questions submitted by those who seem to be from the Democratic side of the issues. Yes, the feel of the nearly 5,000 questions submitted is different than the 3,000 or so submitted for the Democrats.

Fun facts: Kirk Douglas submitted a question ("No one even flagged it for us," said Bohrman, who noted somebody stumbled on it while sorting through questions.) Democratic candidates Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich submitted queries, too (don't expect to see them on camera, tomorrow).

And some publicists were buzzing over news that action movie star Chuck Norris was expected to stand in a corner of the Mahaffey lobby reserved as "the spin room" -- where flacks for each candidate provide soundbites to the assembled press -- in support of Mike Huckabee (What's his campaign slogan? "Vote for me or Chuck Norris will kick your ass?")

The buzz was heady enough that Bohrman wasn't even bothered that ABC News and Facebook tried to steal a bit of their thunder, announcing Monday that they would present to back-to-back debates in New Hampshire days before the primary there.

"It's about time somebody followed us," he said, noting that it remained unclear how Facebook users would impact the actual debate. "This is a radical though here -- every question comes from YouTube. I don't think we'll see another presidential cycle where there's no public participation in a debate." 

Check out Huckabee's commercial featuring the Chuckster. If his policies weren't so awful,I'd crossparty lines to vote for him....

Dancing with the Stars Recap: Is it Marie's 10,000-Watt Smile or Helio's Ability?

After watching last night's dances before final voting in ABC's ratings juggernaut Dancing with the Stars, I'm even more confused.

Is this show an actual dance competition, where contestants are expected to, you know, demonstrate ability in particular dance styles? Or is it a popularity contest augmented with spangles and tights?

That answer should come in tonight's two-hour finale, which likely pits Marie's Osmond's super-dazzling smile and legions of old school fans against the show's hidden, dark horse favorite, race car driver Helios Castroneves.

if you haven't been watching every episode -- even I haven't been doing that, and I get paid to watch TV -- my colleague Kate Brassfield did an excellent job of recapping all the dancers and one of the show's major themes: transformation. Last night's show was also an excellent summation, with Castroneves' energy and stunts -- only a pint-size guy could handle a carwheel turn holding his partner through the entire spin the way he did last night -- proving an able counter to Osmond's oddball, slightly corny freestyle and spice girl Mel B.'s sexy, super-efficient moves.

It's been one of the more bizarre DWTS in recent memory, with Osmond cast as the Sanjaya of the bunch -- using her energy and popularity to leapfrog ahead of better dancers, such as Cheetah Girl Sabrina Bryan. And there's the non-dancing drama: from Osmond's fainting spell and the recent death of her dad to the passing of competitor Jane Seymour's mother and her bout with food poisoning (not to mention allegations of romance between Bryan, Castroneves and the pro dancers who serve as their onstage partners).   

Here's my odds on who's left:

Helio Castroneves and Julianne Hough -- Even Money: Yeah, celebrity-wise, the Brazilian race car driver likely has the smallest fan base. But he nailed the coolest dance last night, which seems to count for a lot. And the obvious sparks of romance between Castroneves (who delayed a wedding to someone else to compete in the show) and pint-size fireball Hough are pretty cute.

Marie Osmond and Jonathan Roberts -- 2 to 1: People still love America's sweetheart, even though her increasingly strained smile seems to hide a surprisingly fragile ego (can we stop, stop, STOP all the you-go-girl references to her age?) and dysfunctional private life. I'm betting she's starting to get on America's nerves as much as she is my own.

Melanie Brown and Maksim Chmerkovskiy -- 5 to 1: Transformation-wise, Scary Spice's journey from celebrity wild child to sleek, sexy bombshell has been the biggest  leap. But her poised, increasingly proficient displays often lack the gutsy sizzle which Dancing audiences seem to crave. And I'm betting the sales figures for the last Spice Girls record are close to the numbers of those who watch Castroneves' last race.    

Facebook and ABC: Does an Online-Associated Debate Without Significant User Participation Really Matter?

If I'm correctly reading the information initially circulated by ABC and Facebook, the two debates they are presenting in New Hampshire Jan. 5, just three days before the state's primaries, will feature even less input from online users than the CNN/YouTube matchups.

According to the releases provided earlier today, ABC will allow Facebook members to follow material provided by its campaign reporters before, during and after the debate, which users can discuss in special Debate Groups. Users can also email their favorite reporters and answers polls. Still, while I'm sure the network will find some way to reference the material during its broadcast, I expect anchor/questioner Charles Gibson to live up to his image as the nation's most traditional network news anchor and limit the material coming into the actual debate from online.

This is a "push" event; the network is mostly pushing information at Facebooks users, with limited venues provided for members to substantively influence any of it. I wonder, in the age of user-generated video, citizen journalism and widespread blogging, whether this will feel like a mostly old-fashioned anachronism.   

Which is too bad -- so far, the online component of this debate series seems more like a gimmick than the CNN/YouTube event, which at least features questions asked by average people even if the actual queries are selected by CNN. As more of these partnerships are announced, media outlets will discover what works and what doesn't as pundits like me figure out whether it actually changes anything.

Click below for the official release; decide for yourself....

Anderson Cooper Sells the CNN/YouTube Debate

Like all good anchors, Anderson Cooper is a pretty good salesman when he wants to be.

And when we talked on the afternoon before CNN's last Democratic debate in Las Vegas Nov. 15, what Cooper was selling was the notion that Wednesday's GOP debate in St. Petersburg featuring questions submitted by the public on YouTube was as user-friendly as it could be. In other words, CNN wasn't going to let the Internet community choose which questions the candidates would answer.

"There was criticism that all the questions should have been voted by people online, and I think all of us wish that would be possible," said Cooper, speaking by cellphone. "It’s frankly just technically not possible because you would have campaigns basically stacking the deck, trying to … I mean, you don’t have an online voting system which at this point can fairly judge that kind of thing. You would have campaigns completely stacking the deck to try to get the questions they want asked to their candidate. And we already saw attempts at that in terms of campaigns getting particular … trying to get people to ask particular questions. We kind of pointed that out and made fun of it a little bit in the debate the first time."

Cooper makes a valid point that naysayers of this debate have had a hard time refuting. David Bohrman, CNN's Washington bureau chief and executive in charge of organizing the cable newschannel's debates, has already said many times this debate's questions will focus on intra-party issues, as opposed to grilling them on a controversial stance which every candidate accepts, like,say, gay marriage.

So CNN is choosing the debate questions from some 4,000 submitted up to yesterday's deadline -- including some solicited and filmed by the St. Petersburg Times -- and Cooper promises to try and make them better-looking and just as odd as the Democrats' lineup back in July. I asked Coop a few questions about what we might see, and since the paper only ran a small slice of our conversation on the front page today, here's a longer, but still heavily edited version of our exchange: 

Bob Hite Apologizes On Air; Issue of DUI Coverage Rises Again

Here's a clip of Bob Hite addressing his DUI arrest in the 11 p.m. broadcast Wednesday night. It was an echo of the apology Thomas Lake wrote about in his well-crafted story for Thursday's paper following up on the initial news of the anchor's trouble.

As some posters have pointed out, WFLA isn't the only local station or media outlet to have staffers who have made similar mistakes. Rival WFTS-Ch. 28 is without general manager Bill Carey because of his actions during an alleged drunk driving incident -- Carey has been suspended, likely until the legal issues are resolved.

WTSP-Ch. 10 anchor Reginald Roundtree faced DUI charges in 2006, though he denied driving drunk and eventually pleaded no contest to reckless driving. Tampa Tribune executive editor Janet Coats, former Times TV Critic Chase Squires and former Times Tampa entertainment writer Rick Gershman also have all been arrested for the same crime.

As I noted back when Coats was arrested, there are plenty of media professionals who feel news outlets shouldn't bother covering DUI arrests of local celebrities; here's a blog post from a Texas TV newsman chewing over the issue when an anchor in his community was arrested. Few have lost their jobs over such arrests, through the public shame of the media coverage is always significant.

Bob Hite DUI: What Are the Implications?

I'm vacationing with my family in Indiana, so I'm in no position to help with coverage of WFLA anchor Bob Hite's arrest this morning for driving under the influence.

Obviously, it's an infraction which couldn't come at a worse time for Hite, 60, who was prepared to cap a 30-year career at WFLA with a big send-off next Wednesday. It also comes on the heels of an arrest Nov. 6 of Hite's son Tyler for choking his girlfriend; the anchor told WFLA's Web site TBO.com that he didn't have a relationship with his son, and when I tried to ask him about it during an interview last week, Hite grew indignant and refused to comment in detail.

Unfortunately, this isn't the first time an anchor at WFLA has been arrested on such charges; former sports anchor Chris Thomas was also arrested for DUI not long before he left the station in 2002. He died of cancer in 2004.

It's an arrest which also raises lots of questions, which I can't answer from here: Is this a one-time mistake or something that could cause larger problems for his farewell? How will Hite himself deal with the questions raised by the arrest? Will WFLA still move ahead with plans to feature Hite in occasional specials on the channel? And does this have any connection to his decision to retire in the first place?

I wish I could offer some answers, but I won't be able to really work this story until I get back in town Monday. But I'm sure we'll have other reporters at the Times working to flesh out details.

 

When Anchors Get Punk'd, Who's to Blame?

Jossip has an interesting item, trying to figure out who gave prankster extraordinaire Harry Shearer a clip of CBS anchor Katie Couric fussing over her hair before a live shot, asking whether anyone in their audience might care that Rudy Giuliani pal Bernard Kerik was indicted for federal crimes.

The blog's item quotes an unnamed source saying it had to be an inside job, a notion which I find tough to swallow, given the unauthorized access so many people have to satellite signals. Indeed, Shearer himself has a long history of posting such items on his own Web site and airing them within his NPR program Le Show, so anchors should already be on notice.

Shearer had already posted a similar clip of Dan Rather obsessing for 20 minutes over whether to wear a trenchcoat during a shot or not. Judge for yourself whether journalism is being practiced here.   

Here's the Dan Rather clip as well:

Writer's Strike, Part Deux: The Basics

I was hanging out in the office with my partner in entertainment crime, pop music critic Sean Daly, when talk turned to the Hollywood writer's strike (What can I say? That's what passes for small talk among entertainment critics and reporters).

After answering a few of his questions, we both realized the average Tampa Bay-area reader doesn't necessarily know all the things I know about the implications of this strike, which began Nov. 5. Lots of information is available in cyberspace, especially at Nikke Finke's most excellent Deadline Hollywood Daily blog. But in case you haven't been keeping up, I decided to cobble together a quick Q&A column to help you sort the issues out.

With news that both sides have decided to renew negotiations on Nov. 26, let’s hope the need for this strike cheat sheet will be short-lived.

Q: What’s the point of this strike, anyway?
In stark terms, the union representing America’s TV and film writers, the Writer’s Guild of America, has been unable to negotiate a new contract with the group representing the companies which employ them, the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers. Both sides say the major sticking point remains writers’ insistence on obtaining a compensation structure for revenue from online and digital uses of products they create. And because unions representing actors and directors must also negotiate new contracts next year, some writers suspect the producers of attempting to avoid setting an expensive precedent by standing tough here.

Q: Why are stars such as Julia Louis Dreyfus and Jay Leno out on the picket lines with writers?
There’s likely four reasons most stars are showing public support for striking writers. 1) The actors’ guild must negotiate a contract next year, and will demand similar compensation. 2) Some stars involved in writing their own shows, such as Jon Stewart and Jay Leno, may also be WGA members. 3) So far, the public supports the writers, which makes taking their side now good insulation against criticism when the strike really begins to affect TV and film programming. 4) Currying favor with writers now may mean snagging juicy parts later.

Q: If the writers are on strike, why are so many TV shows still airing new episodes?
Many TV shows work on advanced schedules, so some series have small reservoirs of new episodes even after production ends. In a typical Hollywood irony, producers had writers craft as many scripts as possible to stockpile material, potentially minimizing the impact of their own strike. But since some executive producers who supervise filming -– called showrunners in industry-speak -– have also joined the picketers, production has stopped on dozens of shows and films, including most recently, the DaVinci Code sequel Angels and Demons.

Q: If TV series have stockpiled scripts, why are so many shows not filming?
See above. Showrunners are former writers and have to work closely with them, so it would make sense that some would walk out with their writing staffs. But some studios have sent breach of contract letters to executive producers, insisting they return to perform the producing end of their jobs. One of the biggest producers to obey that request is Carlton Cuse, executive producer of Lost, who told the Wall Street Journal he owed it to the show’s fans to finish production on eight filmed episodes.

Q: How long could this last?
A writer pal of mine who works in Los Angeles predicted the strike could last a year. But Hollywood veterans who have been watching viewership numbers for TV shows erode streadily over the years know what a disaster that would be. Talks are reportedly scheduled for Nov. 26, and the early pain of this walkout – falling ratings for late night reruns, paychecks halted for writers and striking executive producers, for example – should be ample inspiration for progress.

Q: What do the writers have against Eva Longoria, anyway?
Longoria, who said repeatedly that she supports the writers (and even brought them pizza) initally drew criticism by deciding to film a scene for Desperate Housewives on the strike’s second day. Because she crossed the picket line and continued working, writers disrupted filming with the lame-o chant “We write the story-a, for Eva Longoria.” No wonder producers are thinking about standing firm.

Q: How will my favorite show be affected?
Late night shows, which depend on writers for material daily, are already in reruns. But there are rumors some shows are devising ways to return to new episodes without writers, which Johnny Carson and David Letterman did back in 1988 during the 22-week strike. This means balancing the wishes of fans for new material and the need to keep 100-plus crew members employed against the impact of disrespecting the strike.

Sitcoms need writers to tweak jokes during filming, so many of them have stopped filming. And soap operas, which also use lots of material and film only a couple of weeks ahead, are likely on the verge of reruns now. Scripted dramas are insulated the best, some with enough new episodes to last until the new year, though producers of shows such as Lost, Heroes and Scrubs have spoken publicly about crafting truncated endings to their current seasons using footage already filmed.

Q: Why are reality shows unaffected by this?
The WGA attempted to unionize reality show writers earlier this year. But producers either dropped writers and hired new staffers with “Editor” in their job titles, or simply rebuffed the unionizing efforts altogether. So shows such as Dancing with the Stars and Phenomenon can go on, while production on new shows such as a revival of American Gladiators have kicked into high gear.

Q: Why did an executive at the Fox network say the strike could be good for them?
Because they can still present in January the most popular show on TV, the reality TV singing contest American Idol. With even fewer scripted shows around as competition, the network could rule an incredibly diminished field. They also have a raft of midseason shows such as the Terminator spin off Sarah Connor Chronicles ready to go.

Q: Will we have a fall TV season in 2008?
That depends on how long the strike lasts, of course. Generally, pilot episodes for new shows are cast in January and February, shot in March and April and selected for each network’s fall schedule in May. It won’t take long for a prolonged strike to upset that delicate applecart, producing a truncated slate of new shows, even if the two sides reach agreement by February or March. Even the winter press tour organized by the Television Critics Association to preview the spring TV season is in danger of cancellation.

And once viewers have been forced to subsist on a TV diet of reality shows, newsmagazines, threadbare late night shows and reruns for six or seven months, few experts expect them all to return right away. Or ever.
   
   

Thanks for the Mammaries: Another Fun News Blooper

To get you going for the pre-holiday weekend, I'm offering another fun news blooper. See if you can tell why this live shot proved a little, um, revealing before the clip ends. Hat Tip to Shoptalk, which first displayed this blooper today

George Curry's Challenge to Black Journalists: Be a Thermostat

It's hard to explain what it feels like to be part of an amazing movement.

But, facing a crowd of journalists, students and community notables gathered at the Poynter Institute Thursday for the Griot Drum Awards, it felt like standing at the crest of a giant wave.

Sponsored by the Tampa Bay Association of Black Journalists, the Griot Drum Awards featured honors for 15 area journalists who have excelled in covering people of color. We also gave away a $1,000 scholarship and gathered together a host of people committed to the idea of boosting diversity in journalism.

Our keynote speaker George Curry made the biggest impact, explaining how journalists of color must "reject rejection" and fight to excel in an industry which often seeks to marginalize them. He spoke of his longtime friend, now-deceased former New York Times managing editor Gerald Boyd, and how his career was unfairly cut short because of inaccurate rumors that he mentored serial plagiarist and fabricator Jayson Blair. Both men were black, so a connection was made and Boyd's career never survived it.

Most of all, Curry radiated confidence and conviction, recalling how he got a job at Washington bureau chief for the Chicago Tribune when the St. Louis Post-Dispatch refused to send him there. When an editor put him on the night shift to break his confidence, he wrote his first book during the days.

"Young people, I want to ask....are you going to be a thermostat, or are going to be a thermometer?" he said. "Thermometers tell you what the temperature is at any moment. Thermostats set the temperature."

Last night, I felt like a thermostat. Thanks to all the sponsors and supporter who helped make that possible.

Click below to see a full list of this year's Griot Drum Awards winners.

Jorja on My Mind: CBS Bungles Sara Sidle's CSI Exit

When I finally sat down to watch an advance copy of tonight's CSI showing the exit of fan protest magnet Jorja Fox, I couldn't help thinking of Devon Pierce.

If you're a regular blog reader, you know I wrote about Pierce weeks ago, outlining her efforts from a room in her father's Dunedin hearing aid clinic to run a massive fan effort aimed at convincing CSI producers to keep Fox's Sara Sidle character on the show.

Now, her friendship with CSI's writers have led Pierce to turn her prodigious talents to supporting the Writer's Guild of America in their strike. Fans organized through her site have sent food to picketers, flown planes overhead with supportive banners and encouraged fans to join writers on the picket line at Universal studios in Los Angeles tomorrow.

Despite all the fan furor, Fox and CSI producers eventually admitted that Sidle would be written out of the show, and tonight's episode is her last. And even though I've never liked the CSI franchise much, I made a point of watching this episode, convinced by fans like Devon to take another look at the series.

As you'll see in this review I wrote for today's paper, I found watching CSI episodes comparable to getting random pokes from a tiny acupuncture needle; jabs delivered every time something totally outlandish happens onscreen.

Which meant watching this week's episode went down like this: I see Fox’s Sara Sidle and another CSI tech are the first cops called to a crime scene by a nervous patrolman investigating a possible missing woman – no detectives or backup in sight. Jab!

After the abusive husband shows up and freaks out, the tech hanging with Sidle wonders “How are we going to handle this?...He’s obviously abusing her,” forgetting that, as a CSI tech, her job basically is to collect evidence. Poke!

Evidence in another murder leads to a 12-year-old forensics genius who attended Harvard and helped her brother beat a previous murder rap by manufacturing evidence. Stab!

It’s a tribute to the show’s feature film-level production values that such storytelling whoppers go down so easily. Tonight’s episode opens with a shot peeking inside several levels of a busy college dorm, rushing through a window to capture a girl plunging to her death in a fatal fall.

Since this is one of the most popular shows on TV, I know fans have already come to terms with the show’s biggest disconnect; that people who gather evidence at crime scenes are also shown interviewing suspects and solving crimes on their own. Like, um, detectives.

Still, as an occasional viewer, it feels odd watching Fox’s Sidle do so much: matching wits with her tween nemesis in a showdown which seems increasingly absurd, mostly because the characters take it so seriously. Drenched in shadow and creative camera angles, the visuals spark drama the text can’t match, especially when the villain seems better suited to a bit part on a Disney Channel comedy.

Considering that she recently survived a serial killer’s attack, we’re hardly surprised that an increasingly distant Sidle decides to walk away from the CSI unit to pull her life together.

Fans tried sending CBS everything from airplane banners to cash-filled envelopes to stop it. And the  actress’ departure is open-ended enough to allow a return – presuming the Hollywood writers’ strike and Fox’s problems with CBS are resolved – which may leave diehard supporters feeling a little victorious.

This casual viewer mostly felt disappointed. In the same way Sidle slips out of the CSI unit with little fanfare, producers eased Fox out of their rotation with an uninspired episode which most makes you happy this downer of a character is out the door.

I know I’m a newcomer to this party. But even I figure Sara deserved better. 

Bay News 9 Loses a General Manager, Gains a Group Vice President

For three years, Eliott Wiser has served as a vice president for Bright House Networks while also running the local 24-hour cable newschannel Bay News 9 as its general manager.

But all that changed Wednesday, following the announcement of Wiser’s promotion to Group Vice President of Local Programming for Bright House Networks. The move makes a full-time job of supervising the company’s 11 on-demand and local newschannels in the Tampa Bay area and Orlando —- emphasizing the notion that Bright House’s local content has expanded beyond its two 24-hour cable newschannels.

“I told the staff this morning, and it was a bit emotional...for a lot of people here, I'm the only GM they've ever had,” said Wiser, who came to St. Petersburg 10 years ago to start Bay News 9 and leaves as the longest-tenured general manager in the market. “There’s so many other products we’re doing, the company wanted me to spend more time on those in an expanding role…It’s an evolution.”

In Tampa Bay, Bright House also offers an all sports channel Catch 47, the Spanish-language Bay News 9 en Espanol, an all-weather channel and an array of on-demand channels. The Orlando area features the 24-hour Central Florida News 13 channel and its own array of weather, Spanish-language and on-demand channels.

Wiser, who will remain in the Tampa Bay area at Catch 47’s Pinellas Park headquarters, hopes to name a successor as Bay News 9’s general manager in the first quarter of 2008, following a nationwide search. Necessary disclaimer here: The St. Petersburg Times and Bay News 9 share material and team up on projects through a partnership agreement.

FCC Chair Martin's New Media Strategy: Slick But Not Slick Enough

From the moment FCC chair Kevin Martin's plan to relax media ownership rules first leaked to the public, I've wondered what sort of substance the new chairman might be smoking.

After all, news about his proposed changes, including relaxing the rule barring companies from owning a major newspaper and TV stations in the same market, hit the public before the commission even had its last public meeting on ownership issues. That meeting was in Seattle on Friday, leaving little doubt that it had no impact on the rules proposal Martin released today -- which was also leaked beforehand.

Presidential candidates have already criticized Martin's leaked goal of passing a rule change by 2007's end and Congress seems poised to pass legislation halting it all. Still, Martin has made his proposal officially available, and now it seems obvious how he was going to try slipping more media consolidation past a public steadfastly opposed to it.

By disguising it as a cure for what ails the newspaper industry.

"Newspapers in financial difficulty often have little choice but to scale back newsgathering to cut costs," Martin wrote in an op-ed published today in the New York Times. "Allowing cross-ownership may help to forestall the erosion in local news coverage by enabling companies that won both newspapers and broadcast stations to share some costs."

The chairman's proposal sounds modest; allow a company to own a newspaper and TV station only in the top 20 markets, only if eight independently owned TV stations and newspapers exist after the ownership change and only if he TV station is not among the top four stations in the market.

Martin's problem is that big media companies are doing the exact opposite of what hes advocating. Belo Corp. recently moved to separate its broadcast and newspaper divisions, to isolate the more profitable TV stations from the problematic newspaper companies. Wall Street loves the idea and Media General generated some controversy by announcing it would not follow suit.

I also wonder what data Martin is using to justify such a move. One of the reasons the FCC is supposed to take so much time in considering these rules changes, is that they amass a mountain of data to prove why a rule exists or should be modified. This step is crucial -- it can keep the FCC from drafting rules which are later rejected by the courts, which is what happened to the rules revamp led by Martin's predecessor, Colin's son Michael Powell.

Cynic that I am, I wonder if Martin hasn't drafted a rule with little empirical proof -- why else would his op-ed say "allowing cross-ownership may" help the problem, instead of stating the case more definitively? -- so that subsequent court challenges can knock down the guidelines he's created.

One thing is obvious: Martin wants to cast this rules change, which seems drafted mostly to benefit big   companies such as News Corp. and Media General, as a boon to press freedom -- something I don't think the public is about to swallow.

Watching him try to tapdance this past a war-weary public and election-year Congress should be more fun than watching Mitt Romney take a question from the Snowman during the next YouTube debate.   

Griot Drum Awards: Encouraging Diversity By Rewarding It

Sometimes, you get more with a carrot than a stick.

That's the philosophy behind the Tampa Bay Association of Black Journalists' Griot Drum Awards, a contest we started three years ago to encourage quality reporting on people of color by rewarding it.

It's not a revolutionary idea. The Pulitzer Prizes have done more to build quality journalism just by standing as the ultimate achievement -- a goal that galvanizes media outlets by offering a tremendous award for the field's best work. Much as we might want the work to be a reward in itself, it can't hurt to offer journalists a prize that instantly brands them as the best among their peers.

While the Griot Drum honors may never be that powerful, it is a great way to highlight some of the best work done locally on diversity issues, race and ethnicity. (former Early Show co-host Rene Syler speaks at last year's event at left) Especially since the local Society of Professional Journalists has stopped presenting its annual awards ceremony, there is no significant Tampa Bay area journalism organization honoring the great work done here which may not be recognized by the big statewide contests.

Since Don Imus was fired, I've heard from those who accuse TBABJ and similar organizations of violating objectivity or pursuing an unfair agenda. But from our perspective, we're standing up for a journalism value important as factual accuracy, freedom of speech or ethical consistency: diversity.  

This year's Griot Drum Awards are scheduled for 7:30 p.m. Thursday at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies in St. Petersburg. Newly-named Philadelphia Inquirer columnist and longtime journalism diversity advocate George Curry (at right) will serve as keynote speaker; we expect to give away a $1,000 scholarship and 15 awards to area journalists.

Join us for the event (you can email me to reserve a ticket here). Help us celebrate the best reporting on diversity the Tampa Bay area has to offer. And help produce more quality work by celebrating what has come before in the loudest voice possible.  

MySpace's Quarterlife: Sign of A New TV Rennaisance or a New Marketing Gimmick?

  Is it the dawn of a new age in television, or just another social networking-based marketing gimmick?

That's the question I'm balancing after viewing the first two episodes of Marshall Herskovitz and Edward Zwick's new series, created exclusive for MySpace (at least, so far), called Quarterlife.

The industry is paying such close attention to this project because Herskovitz and Zwick have such an amazing pedigree. As producers, writers or directors, they've worked on my So-Called Life, thirtysomething, Once and Again, Traffic, The Last Samurai, Legends of the Fall and Blood Diamond, to name just a few classics.

So when one of them stands up and says he's lost confidence in developing shows for the networks, you pay attention. "Network executives routinely tell producers to change the color of the walls on sets, routinely decide on the proper wardrobe for actors, routinely have "tone&qu