Deggans Pundit Alert: Explaining Media's Toughness on Obama and Network TV's Post Strike Blues

Howard Kurtz must be trying to turn me into a star.

That's my admittedly self-centered conclusion after noting how much the Washington Post media critic has quoted me in his latest story, a look at how the media has gotten tougher on Obama. Frankly, this is a trend I talked about way back in February, when a Saturday Night Live sketch poking fun at the media's adulation of Obama seemed to spark a raft of negative stories about the candidate.

Unfortunately, many media outlets' idea of incisive coverage includes stories about whether Obama wears a flag pin and how long he's known that Jeremiah Wright is a loose cannon. Now Howard has weighed in, concluding that Obama has "been brought down to earth by the same media organizations that fueled his meteoric rise."

Another element at work here is something I've also written about before: The news media's love for a tight Democratic primary which has fueled TV ratings, boosted the visibility of myriad reporters and given declining newspapers a reason to argue for their relevance. Big media loves this fight and wants both contenders to stay in the game as long as possible -- which means that whenever one of them pulls ahead, the other will take a few hits.

Another friend in media, reality TV expert Andy Dehnart, did me the honor of calling while he was assembling a story for MSNBC.com on why ratings for network TV shows have dropped since their return after the writers' strike.

Andy presents experts who argue that the viewership dip isn't solely caused by the strike. But as I noted a while ago, the strike allowed some viewers to find new ways to occupy their time -- and the spate of returning shows will last just a few weeks before we're back to reality TV and reruns for summer.

What's more worrisome than viewership drops is the trend of complex scripted shows migrating to cable. Increasingly, the best scripted dramas are found in the wilds of cable, where ratings demands and content restriction are lower. So what will happen to network TV's upscale, educated audience when all you can find on broadcast is Deal or No Deal and Celebrity Apprentice?

Keep your eye on this blog, and you'll read the answers before my quotes wind up in the Washington post or MSNBC.com.   

White House Dinner Teaches the World Something I Already Knew: Craig Ferguson Is God

Craig Ferguson is God.

I first wrote those words back in 2006, when I was transfixed by the stream of consciousness monologues CBS' Late Late Show host would spin every night. In the same way that David Letterman and Conan O'Brien were more interesting when the world wasn't paying attention, Ferguson was spell-binding back then, occasionally using the monologue for serious statements on his relationship with his dad or how he felt, as a recovering addict, the time had come to stop making fun of Britney Spears.

I wrote a story about Ferguson last year that seemed to be reprinted all over the place, based on spending a half hour with the unassuming Scotsman and hanging out for a show taping. He shared about his love for South Florida and let slip that he might walk away from the show when his five years contract expires.

Now, everyone loves Ferguson because he hit a home run over the weekend as the keynote speaker for the White House Correspondents Dinner, tweaking President Bush and Dick Cheney with the right mixture of deference and sass (on Cheney: "He's funny for an evil guy."), while paying tribute to his own new status as a recently-approved citizen and even dinging the New York Times for passing up the dinner after Jayson Blair and Judith Miller already ruined their journalistic reputation.

Watching Craig dissect the dinner last night, it's obvious he's not as freewheeling as he used to be. The set's nicer, the jokes a little more predictable and his ratings have risen above media darling O'Brien's for the first time in his tenure. See a take from Europe here.

I think America's finally about to discover what I've been preaching for years, and Ferguson may find leaving the late night gig as he's peaking tougher than he anticipates.

Check out his dinner speech here:

After Pennsylvania's Primary It's Obvious: Big Media's Only Political Bias is Toward A Continuing Democratic Fight

It may be blasphemy for a TV critic to articulate this, but I've reached the point where I would rather watch American Idol than another minute of cable TV primary coverage.

Mostly, its because I'm tired of the pretense. Last night, Clinton scored a victory in Pennsylvania every reasonable pundit in America predicted six weeks ago, and the newschannels reacted like it was a major revelation. A 10-point win in a state where some polls showed her with a 20 percent advantage six weeks ago does not feel like a revelation, but on cable TV last night, it seemed so.

The coverage also solidified something I've felt for a while: that journalists are biased in favor of a continuing contest.

This election fight has been a huge boost for ratings, particularly at the cable TV news channels, where the interest in election news has fueled the creation of at least three shows. It has made some journalists' and pundits' reputations and produced debate ratings for ABC that rivaled prime time TV's viewership champ, American Idol. (the Atlanta Journal Constitution noted Tuesday that CNN's prime time ratings in March for key viewers jumped 87 percent over last year's level)

So I think some news executives were praying Clinton would do well, because that would keep the contest hot for two more weeks. If Obama seems in serious danger of slipping, I bet a new media narrative will rise to keep him viable as well.

Supporters of both sides have accused the news media of helping the opponent at key moments. But I think most outlets are seesawing between basking in the audience that comes from covering such a notable contest and striving to be the news organization that decides the election by delivering the journalism bombshell that blows up someone's campaign.

What seems obvious here is that the Democrats have two strong candidates, each of whom have cornered the market on key Democratic constituencies. Obama has black people, educated whites, new voters and young people; Clinton has women, working class whites, Latinos and seniors. It's an almost even split, and they both have major constituencies that will consider defecting to the Republicans if their candidate loses.

Barring a major calamity that destroys either politician's campaign, there's two big questions left: Can someone in the Democratic party broker a settlement here, after the primaries, that unites the party?

And will the media avoid its own, pro-conflict biases enough to let that happen?

Cable TV's Election Coverage: The More They Talk, The Less We Learn

I have a simple theory about cable news, developed after months spent consuming its endless coverage of this endless presidential election: the more attention they pay to a subject, the less viewers actually learn.

I tested my notion recently by tackling a marathon assignment: spending a day watching the shows cobbled together by each cable news channel to capitalize on the nation's electoral interest -- Fox’s America’s Election HQ, MSNBC’s Race to the White House and CNN’s Election Center.

What I found: news programs chewing over morsels of information like grazing cows, taking a sliver of reported fact and massaging it with bursts of analysis and supposition until viewers had a tough time separating actual fact from assumption and opinion.

I call it the high “noise to signal ratio” of cable news; the way punditry and strategy often overwhelms the meat of reportage. Unsurprisingly, the show with the highest noise to signal ratio on this day was found at Fox News.

America’s Election HQ is a chummy, vibrating hour packed with flashy graphics, made-to-order partisan conflicts, Fox’s trademark general friendliness to conservatives and two gleaming, youthful hosts in anchors Bill Hemmer and Megyn Kelly.

The day I watched, Hemmer led the show with “breaking news”: former Clinton aide Dick Morris heard from an unnamed source that Bill Clinton had recommended to Columbia’s president in 2007 that he would only get a trade agreement with the U.S. by convincing Democrats to support it. According to Morris, 10 days later, Columbia hired the consulting firm led by Mark Penn, the recently-resigned chief strategist of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

“Are you reporting that Bill Clinton got Mark Penn the gig?” Hemmer asked urgently.
“Yes,” said Morris, before thinking better of his allegation. “I don’t -- I can’t prove it. I wasn’t there.” So what exactly was he reporting? That Clinton told Columbia’s president last year that Democrats control Congress thanks to their success in 2006’s midterm elections? That’s breaking political news?

Another urgent panel discussion centered on acampaign worker assembling a crowd to stand behind Michelle Obama at a Pittsburgh rally, who yelled for “more white people.”

Fox’s high velocity election program was a clear contrast to MSNBC’s Race to the White House, a vehicle for rising NBC News star David Gregory that seems tailor made for Hardball-weaned political junkies.

What irked me most here was the continuing presence of pundit Pat Buchanan, who has written at least one book implying America’s success lies in its identity as a white Christian nation. Why MSNBC and NBC News continue to allow this guy to denounce people like Jeremiah Wright as bigots with no mention of his own tangled history remains a mystery to me.

Indeed, it wasn’t until I turned on CNN’s Election Center that I felt the media noise subside a bit. On a day when there wasn’t much real campaign news, Brown’s CNN show focused more on the news of the day, spending the first 15 minutes or so dissecting the protests in San Francisco and the likelihood that any president could implement a quick troop withdrawal from Iraq.

At a time when Americans are still struggling to make a historic electoral choice, don't we deserve election coverage which cuts  through the noise instead of adding to it?

Jailed Trucker Jean Claude Meus Gets New Trial: Did TV Help Make It Happen?

Score another win for media-savvy attorney John Trevena.

It has taken years, but Trevena has finally won a new trial for the 44-year-old Haitian immigrant truck driver, who started a 15-year prison sentence in 2003 after his conviction on vehicular homicide charges after an accident in which prosecutors alleged he fell asleep at the wheel.

I wrote about Meus and Trevena back in 2005, when Trevena tipped WTVT-Ch. 13 investigative reporter Doug Smith to the seeming disparity. At the time, Jennifer Porter, a 29-year-old, part-Cuban woman widely perceived to be white, had received three years of probation, two years of house arrest and 500 hours of community service after leaving the scene of a car accident in which she struck two children, who died.

Didn't hurt that she was represented by the most powerful criminal lawyer in town, Barry Cohen.

I wrote about how national media outlets were surprisingly indifferent to Meus' story, despite its parallels with the Porter case and questionable outcome. Trevena and Smith stuck with the case, however, and saw their efforts pay off Tuesday. See Smith's story from last night here.

Meus, who stayed at the scene and cooperated with investigators, was charged with homicide in Hardee County for the accident, which killed a 40-year-old woman and her daughter. His case was striking enough that two sisters of the woman killed in the accident took up his cause, arguing that the trial wasn't fair.

Smith's story, along with a later piece in the St. Petersburg Times, suggested Meus may have faced tougher charges and received a stiffer sentence because of his race and lack of wealth (Trevena didn't represent him in the original trial). Smith noted, for example, that another trucker, Thomas Smith, had a similar accident in 2002 in Hardee County which killed a man, but that driver admitted falling asleep at the wheel and got a traffic citation for it as his only punishment.

The difference between Smith and Meus? Smith is white and Meus is not.

But it sounds like justice may finally be at hand, thanks to a persistent lawyer and TV reporter. 

 

Coincidence of Don Imus and Martin Luther King Anniversaries Bring Bitter Thoughts

I didn't realize it until I was in the final stages of researching my media story today about the one-year anniversary of Don Imus' "nappy-headed hos" comments about Rutgers University's women's basketball team. But today also marks the 40th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King's assassination in Memphis, Tenn.

And as I watch a cavalcade of TV news reports and documentaries looking at King's life and legacy, I'm struck by the way Imus' example shows both how far we have come, and how far we have to go.

As I note in my Floridian story today, Imus suffered a singular humiliation after calling the women of Rutgers University's near-championship basketball team "nappy-headed hos"; a week-long media frenzy in which pundits and reporters chewed over his comments (and his long history of making similar race-based jokes) before the uproar forced MSNBC and CBS Radio to fire the 67-year-old shock jock.

But Imus wasn't about to go quietly. Instead, he negotiated a multi-million-dollar settlement to his CBS contract, and then earned a new gig with ABC Radio and RFD-TV. One year later, he's leading a show his fans say is more energized and relevant -- getting better ratings in New York than he did before his firing and more than halfway back to rebuilding the network of radio stations which aired his show when he was fired.

(Imus fans have sent links to clips from his show today, in which he interviewed Jeese Jackson about King's death. They quite rightly point out it's the kind of racial discussion I've been calling for. Here's the clip)

So did we really learn any lessons?

The continuing battle over issues like the words of Rev. Jeremiah Wright suggests to me that our soundbite-focused media culture isn't well suited to the serious, complex debate we need to have on race in America.

Instead, we have disaffected sides playing gotcha -- trying to catch their opponents in telling gaffes rather than attempting to reach an understanding. And this dynamic has often been exacerbated by the media coverage I've seen so far of King's anniversary.

TV is often more comfortable looking back than looking forward, to be sure. So it's easier to recall the awful days before King's death, when segregation was still a reality and black folks struggled to exercise their hard-won right to vote, especially in the south.

Yet, even as we're prepared to make a biracial man a serious candidate for president, we still struggle with the kind of institutional racism (and classism) that allowed the Jena 6 controversy and Hurricane Katrina debacle to shake our faith in each other. And we still struggle with huge pockets of media -- cable TV and talk radio, specifically -- that are not nearly as diverse in staffing and subject matter as they should be.

It's an odd day for those of us who follow race in media. In Dr. King's honor, I'm going to try and focus today on how far we've come, and spend a little less time obsessing on how far we have to go.

   

New York Times Notes Pundit Diversity, But Whiffs on the Reason

   

UPDATE: An original version of this blog post said there were no women anchors working afternoon shows on the three cable TV networks. That was an error; Fox News has several female anchors working in the afternoon and the post has been corrected. 

The New York Times had an interesting story yesterday on the diversity of pundits deployed by the TV networks and cable TV channels to discuss this year's historic presidential election.

Penned by Felica Lee, it was an informative and interesting take on a trend which has helped ignite the career of folks like Roland Martin, Amy Holmes and Eugene Robinson, as TV news departments grapple with the reality of a landmark run for the presidency featuring a popular woman and biracial male. (I've even gotten a taste of this, with appearances on CNN, NPR and Fox News over the past year).

Unfortunately, I think it also brushed aside the reason why these outlets have developed such a diverse palette of experts: their field of anchors is amazingly devoid of that same diversity.

Indeed, as cable TV begins to more closely resemble talk radio as the voice of the Angry White Male, you have a list of TV news shows which closely resembles the talk radio universe -- mostly middle-aged white guys with a few women sprinkled in.

I've already noted in a previous post that, with the exception of Campbell Brown and Greta Van Susteren, white males host every program in prime time on CNN, Fox News and MSNBC. Katie Couric breaks up the testosterone among the evening news anchors, but her ratings are a distant third in a three-person race. And there seems to be little diversity among the press gaggle following the candidates, as well.

Contrast that with the morning shows on network TV and cable, where gender and ethnic diversity are tremendous. It seems apparent, that programmer have concluded that diversity only works in mornings, and they've leveraged a diverse field of reporters and pundits to mask the unrelenting lack of diversity among their highest profile name anchors.

It will be interesting to see, if we eventually inaugurate a President Clinton or Obama, whether the anchor lineups will change, as well. Or, if we welcome a President McCain, whether cable networks will still feel the need to have such a diverse slate of pundits.

Deggans PunditWatch: NPR's Barbershop and Florida This Week

As if bloviating on CNN weren't enough, I'm flapping my gums in two more places this week, which you can enjoy at the comfort of your own computer screen through the magic of the Internet (sounds like some late '90s instructional film, I know).

Click here to check out my first-ever participation in The Barbershop, a regular feature on former ABC News reporter Michel Martin's National Public Radio show Tell Me More. Every Friday, a group of brothers gets together to razz each other and talk about the week's events. I was a last-minute addition, but I had been wanting to join this crew for a while, so this was fun (for those of you who know, it's one step below the hang late night in the hotel lounge at an NABJ convention. Nuff said).

As Michel describes it: "The guys in this week's Barbershop — Arsalan Iftikhar, Nick Charles (VP of BET.com), Roy S. Johnson (Editor-in-Chief of Mens Fitness magazine) and Eric Deggans (Media Critic for St. Petersburg Times) — have a lot to say about Sen. Hillary Clinton's conflicted account of a trip to Bosnia, Chelsea Clinton's snappy response to a question about Monica Lewinsky during a recent campaign stop, the latest song release by the "Obama Girl" and the NCAA's March Madness.

If THAT weren't enough, you can also catch me on Rob Lorei's public affairs show for WEDU, Florida This Week. This time, I'm appearing with former Florida Senate president Tom Lee, Democratic consultant Vic DiMaio and leadership director at USF Sarasota, David Klement. What do I know about Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the state's apology for slavery and the teaching of intelligent design in the state's schools? Tune in at 8 p.m. tonight or 12:30 p.m. Sunday to find out!

Hillary Clinton Can Make Insensitive Racial Remarks, Too

I almost hate to put this up, because I really don't want to contribute to the sound bite culture that has gotten a stranglehold on our political process these days.

But I was rooting around on a different story today, and stumbled on this YouTube clip of Hillary Clinton making a joke four years ago, comparing noted east Indian independence leader Mahatma Gandi to a gas station owner. This a remark for which Senator Clinton has already apologized.

This wasn't something said by a pastor or a friend. This was a scripted joke she delivered while introducing someone at a public event. I don't think it's evidence of some closet racism on her part. But I do think it's evidence that anyone can say something racially insensitive in public, and the sensible thing to do is find out whether it reflects their consistent feelings about these issues or if they are just errors in judgement.

And its also evidence that we all should be careful about judging people too harshly on these issues.

Why Did It Take Sinbad to Expose Hillary Clinton's Bosnia "Misstatement"?

As I've been watching coverage of Hillary Clinton's attempt to explain why she characterized a visit to Bosnia years ago as much more dangerous than it actually was, I've been struck by network reporters' attempts to insert themselves into the story.

Both CBS's Sharyl Attkisson and NBC's Andrea Mitchell have pointed out during their reports that they were actually with Clinton on that Bosnia trip and recalled no sniper fire, rushing crowds or exagerrated danger. Since headlines have been filled with the news, other journalists who took that trip 12 years ago -- including former MTV News reporter Tabitha Soren -- have weighed in.

So why did it take comic Sinbad to blow the lid on the whole deal?

The idea that Clinton may have been fudging the truth about her Bosnia story first came from a March 11 interview Sinbad gave to The Sleuth, a behind-the-scenes Washington blog produced by WashingtonPost.com writer Mary Ann Akers. The former Jingle All the Way co-star, last in the news denying widespread rumors he was dead (just the career folks, rimshot!) accompanied Clinton on the 1996 trip with singer Sheryl Crow and said it wasn't so dangerous.

His best line: "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

Unfortunately, Sinbad also declared himself an Obama supporter during the interview, which probably   cost him credibility. And Akers basically presented the story as a he said, she said, with a Clinton spokesman providing quotes from stories published at the time noting the danger. Journalists acknowledge Clinton has told the Bosnia story at least since December on the stump; relating it so many times, reporters who regularly cover her had begun to joke about how often she'd drag out this old chestnut.

The Post ran a snarky blog item on Clinton's use of the story Dec. 29 and the conservative media watchdog site Newsbusters noted March 18 that no reporter covering the Bosnia trip in 1996 mentioned sniper fire.

But the truth of the Bosnia visit didn't resonate in the mainstream press until Attkisson's story this week (what's funny, is that Attkisson's original report plays up the danger of the visit a lot more than her latest story).

But shouldn't Mitchell and Attkisson, who have filed more than a few election stories this year, have remembered the truth before now?

Now it Can Be Told: Cheney Would Rather Spread Democracy Than Practice It

Jon Stewart said it best on The Daily Show, when he lampooned Dick Cheney as a "dealer, not a user" of democracy. But it is interesting to see how the Bush administration is dropping many of its past pretenses as its lame duck status advances.

In this interview, with ABC News' Martha Raddatz, Cheney admits he couldn't care less about the nation's opinion of his five-years-and-counting war...

Chris Rock on Why a Black Woman Can't Be President, Among Other Things

Leave it to Chris Rock to jam his fist down the throat of America's zeitgeist and pull its beating heart forth, still pulsating. Rolling Stone was smart enough to send celebrity profiler extraordinaire Bill Zehme out to capture Rock in the middle of a stand up tour he's taking while a white woman and black man are fighting for a serious chance to be the next President.

It sounds an awful lot like one of Rock's last starring movies, Head of State, and he knows it. Here's an amazing excerpt from that profile, courtesy of Rolling Stone Online:

"Bush has f%**ed up so bad," (Rock) will posit to any and all congregants in braying loops of oratory, "that he's made it hard for a white man to run for president. 'Gimme anything but another white man, please! Black man, white woman, giraffe, anything!' A white man's had that job for hundreds of years — and one guy f****ed it up for all of ya!"

And: "Each candidate tells you how humble they are. No, you're not humble! Do you know how big your ego has to be to say you wanna be president of the United States? Do you know how much Puff Daddy juice you have to drink? How many Kanye injections you have to take?"

And: "I actually think America is ready for a woman president. But does it have to be that woman? . . . She's gonna work in the office where her husband got blow jobs?! There ain't enough redecorating in the world she can do to change that! . . . There's one thing Hillary Clinton's better at than everybody else, and one thing only — and that's forgiveness! Hillary Clinton is the greatest forgiver in the history of the world. Even Jesus knows: 'You really good at fo'giveness. I mean, I talk the talk, but you walk the walk!'"

And: "Barack Obama — he's a black man with two black names! Barack. Obama. He doesn't let his blackness sneak up on you. As soon as you hear Barack Obama you wonder, 'Does he have a spear?' . . . He's so cool, too, man. I don't think he realizes he's a black candidate! When you're the only black guy doing something, people expect you to take it up a notch. If you're the only black playing basketball with a bunch of white guys — they expect you to dunk! . . . Barack has a handicap the other candidates don't have: Barack Obama has a black wife. And I don't think a black woman can be first lady of the United States. Yeah, I said it! A black woman can be president, no problem. First lady? Can't do it. You know why? Because a black woman cannot play the  background of a relationship. Just imagine telling your black wife that you're president? 'Honey, I did it! I won! I'm the president.' 'No, we the president! And I want my girlfriends in the Cabinet! I want Kiki to be secretary of state! She can fight!' "

Think I can guess what magazine I'll be hunting down at Barnes & Noble tomorrow morning....Here's another cool Rock interview

Rev. Wright Debate on CNN But Not in Tampa

I was disappointed to hear that Rev. Jeremiah Wright was not coming to Tampa. I was hoping his appearance here might bring the debate over his words to the Tampa Bay area in a way which might help broaden the debate a bit.

I've been pretty disappointed in how media outlets have been unable to present a quality debate about some of the issues Wright's speeches have raised. Instead, we're stuck in soundbites and snarky comments, with longtime closet racists such as Pat Buchanan using the controversy as an excuse to air their awful comments in the guise of serving as elder statesmen.

I wonder how it is a guy like Buchanan can write books and columns admiringly quoting white supremacist William Pierce and the white supremacist organiztion the New Century Foundation without any rebuke from mainstream media. And yet his he is indignant that journalists haven't hammered Obama harder for his ties to Wright?

Here is a video of my vain attempt to bring some perspective to this debate on Howard Kurtz's Reliable Sources show. The video is provided by left-leaning media watchdogs Media Matters, which have also criticized CNN's Kurtz for not covering the excesses of conservative pastors more:

Can Watching a Fictional Black or Female President Help Americans Elect the Real Thing?

Since Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama began making waves in their quest for the presidency, it’s a question us pop culture critics have asked with growing frequency:

Can watching a fictional person of color or woman serve as president prepare people to elect the real thing?

Turns out, TV and film have been presenting us with a diversity of fictional presidents long before we were ever poised to elect an actual non-white or non-male. But even Hollywood had trouble believing America could look past its own prejudices to choose such people, with many of these presidents achieving the job by accident or presented as jokey punchlines (even Ernie Hudson, the black guy from Ghostbusters, has played a President).

I put together a story for today's Floridian looking at the various minority and female commanders in chief, with a indication on our Inspiration-scale™ just how much each portrayal might have prompted us to accept the candidates we see today. Here's an excerpt, with some clips so you can judge yourself:

BLACK PRESIDENTS

James Earl Jones as Douglass Dilman in The Man (1972)

How did he get the job? A little-known congressman made president pro tempore of the Senate when the vice president has a stroke, he becomes president when the incumbent and the speaker of the House are killed in a building collapse. Inspiration scale: 3 out of 10. Could there be a more outlandish way to become president? Based on Irving Wallace's 1964 book, the movie seems tailor-made to assure '70s audiences it could never actually happen.

Morgan Freeman as Tom Beck in Deep Impact (1998)

How did he get the job? Presumably elected. Freeman shines in the same grandfatherly sidekick mode he worked in The Shawshank Redemption and Bruce Almighty, helping white folks work out their problems before an asteroid destroys the eastern seaboard. Inspiration scale: 6. He's the coolest president on film. Of course, he's leading a country facing extinction.

Dennis Haysbert as David Palmer in 24 (2002)

How did he get the job? Elected. Palmer then overcomes a mutinous vice president and Cabinet to avoid a needless war in the Middle East started by greedy multinational businessmen. The similarity to real life these days is inescapable. Inspiration scale: 9. If only our real-life president could have been this prescient.

FEMALE PRESIDENTS

Patty Duke as Julia Mansfield in Hail to the Chief (1985)

How did she get the job? Presumably elected. Duke was a particularly harried president in this ABC sitcom, saddled with a cheating husband, a sassy black secretary of state and wacky plots. Inspiration scale: 5. Fortunately, the pain lasted only seven episodes.

Glenn Close as Kathryn Bennett in Air Force One (1997)

How did she get the job? OK, technically, Vice President Bennett never becomes president; she refuses to sign a document giving her the power when Harrison Ford's President James Marshall is taken captive by terrorists on Air Force One. Still, she rallies the military and Cabinet, looking serious and barking into telephones many times. Inspiration scale: 4. Not only does she refuse power when the president is forced to release a terrorist with a gun to his head, she really doesn't come up with any plan for saving him. Good thing the president used to be Indiana Jones.

Geena Davis as Mackenzie Allen in Commander in Chief (2005)

How did she get the job? Tragedy strikes again! Incumbent Teddy Bridge dies of a sudden brain aneurysm, leaving Vice President Allen in the driver's seat. Inspiration scale: 8. Allen successfully reins in male power brokers determined to marginalize her. But producers wound up focusing more on male characters to save the show, which was canceled in its first season. The price you pay for being three years ahead of your time.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Sermon in Context

When the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons first came under fire, I didn't even want to bother arguing about them. I was raised in a black church. I knew how good preachers would use hyperbole and aggressive statements to make their point during sermons aimed at teaching bold lessons to parishioners.

But then, of all people, Bubba the Love Sponge hipped me to some postings on YouTube, where an enterprising videographer found larger clips of the most notorious sermons quoted by TV news outlets in the stories which kicked off the controversy about his speeches. And I was ashamed.

Because Rev. Wright deserved a better defender than I -- or, frankly Barack Obama -- have been during this nonsense. A look at these clips, which present much larger excerpts of Wright's speeches, shows that his seemingly damning statements came during passionate speeches about America's history of racial oppression and America's history of killing innocents while exacting military revenge against enemies.

One of Rev. Wright's most controversial comments -- the statements about "chickens coming home to roost" after 9/11 -- was his quote of a white ambassador speaking on Fox News Channel. Why didn't the TV news reporters tell us this?

It is true that Wright has also made some strident charges which aren't true. In a phrase within his GD America speech, he says the government injected black men with syphillis. Presumably, he is referring to the legendary Tuskegee Experiment, in which nearly 400 black men who already had syphillis were led to believe they were being treated for it when they were really being observed by government physicians noting the effects of the disease's advancement. (ironically, the story was broken in 1972 by Jean Heller, a former St. Pete Times reporter who was working for the Associated Press at the time)

He's also said the government has given drugs to black people, a possible reference to a widely discredited theory that the CIA helped establish the drug pipeline which first brought crack cocaine to Los Angeles, as a method of funding the Nicaraguan Contra rebels. This theory was the subject of a 1996 three-part series in the San Jose Mercury News and a book. But the newspaper backed off the story after it was published and the reporter, Gary Webb, eventually killed himself in 2004.

What is clear here, is that Wright is articulating the suspicions and cynicism of many black people about the motives of a government led mostly by white people. I think his characterizations can sometimes be simplistic and off base, but I don't think he's the raving racist some pundits have made him out to be.

Check these two excerpts of his speeches from YouTube and see if they don't make you think twice:

Deggans on CNN Sunday Talking Obama's Race Speech

Howie Kurtz must be desperate on an Easter Sunday.

How else to explain the Washington Post media critic's invitation for your truly to join him on his CNN show Reliable Sources at 10 a.m. Sunday to discuss media coverage of Barack Obama's speech on race?

I was unfortunately sidelined by the whole wisdom tooth thing when he actually gave the speech -- though watching it through a haze of Novocaine and Oxycodone was a novel experience -- and in the days since, I've been struck by a few things.

TV, of course, manages to trivialize everything. so it is no surprise that much of the TV coverage I've seen has trivialized this landmark speech. Still, much as I hate to agree with MSNBC's Joe Scarborough on anything, I do think he's right when he says this particular issue turns on anger. (Here's a great piece on that issue)

Until now, Obama has found success with many types of white voters by avoiding the Angry Black Man Syndrome. But when I think scares some white people about Obama's ties to Jeremiah Wright isn't the specifics of what he's said -- white and black preachers have said similar things about America since the days of Elmer Gantry. What scared some white voters is Obama link to a typically angry black man.

Until now, Obama has always met talk about race issues with the same kind of cool reserve William F. Buckley brought to discussions of conservative values. This is the communication mode much of America accepts best. It's the way Dick Cheney sold us all on the Iraq War; big ideas presented calmly and with an air of authority.

But Wright is all the things which scare some white voters and anger others. He's aggressive, angry, wild-eyed, full of conspiracy theories about race and loud contempt for the institutional racism which dogs our political system. If you were to bloodlessly list all of his arguments, more folks white and black would likely agree with many of his points. But it's all in the presentation, these days.

Ironically, Hillary Clinton has often suffered from Angry White Woman Syndrome in her run for the White House, disregarded and marginalized by some commentators as emasculating, shrill, shrewish or an example of the b-word because she is a powerful woman expressing opinions powerfully. Now, she's benefiting a bit from seeing that show shoved on Obama's foot.

Given that no one has suggested any of Wright's rhetoric has influenced Obama's policies or initiatives, I'm not sure what all this has to do with the job he'll do as chief executive. Instead, it says much more about our own tangled dysfunctional attitudes on race and anger than anything either Democratic candidate actually stands for.

Watching me try to fit all this commentary into a two-minute segment on CNN is bound to be entertaining. Here's an interesting clip where Chris Wallace actually takes Fox & Friends to task for its unfortunate and distorted discussion of Obama's speech on race.

   

Mark Lunsford May Not File Lawsuit in a Deal Brokered By Bubba the Love Sponge

  For weeks, the two have traded insults, criticisms and threats of litigation: the activist father whose daughter was killed by a pedophile and the shock jock who suspects him of exploiting his child's death.

But this morning, Mark Lunsford and radio personality Bubba the Love Sponge Clem seemed to bury their respective hatchets, as Lunsford's attorneys announced plans, brokered by Clem's lawyers, to sit down with representatives of the Citrus County sheriff's office next week. The hope: that they can negotiate changes to the department's procedure for investigating missing children cases in exchange for dropping plans to sue the sheriff's office over its handling of Lunsford's case.

The plan, announced on Clem's show at 7:50 a.m. this morning, could also end weeks of on air sniping in which the shock jock accused Lunsford of using his 9-year-old daughter Jessica's 2005 rape and murder to build his own personal fame.

"Mark Lunsford has already proven what he's about...all of a sudden he files notice of a lawsuit and he's an awful person?" said Lunsford's attorney, Eric "Rick" Block, who criticized Clem's producers for spreading misinformation about their efforts and not speaking with him directly about facts related to the case. Lunsford was not present in Clem's radio studio this morning, represented instead by his Jacksonville attorneys.

"I don't want to get into Mark Lunsford as a person," said Clem, who agreed to stop insulting Lunsford on air as part of the settlement. "I got 700 emails we can go through talking about what he has done and not done...(but) that would be counter-productive."

The truce seemed in danger of dissolving on air this morning as Lunsford's attorneys insisted on correcting statements Clem and his fans have made about the case, including claims that Lunsford was at a bar drinking on the night convicted sex offender John Couey kidnapped Jessica -- a claim Lunsford's attorneys denied.

Block said Lunsford waited until the last possible to day to file notice with law enforcement of his intent to sue, noting citizens have three years to file such notice or give up their right to bring suit forever. Block said that Lunsford has always maintained he would not file a lawsuit if the Citrus County sheriff would admit they made mistakes in investigating Lunsford's case and help educate other law enforcement agencies on how to handle such cases better.

Lunsford's attorneys also said they have retained the services of noted pathologist Michael Baden, who appeared on HBO's series Autopsy, in an effort to prove that Jessica was alive for days after assailant John Couey kidnapped her -- indicating that a comprehensive police search might have discovered her.

Clem began airing pointed commentary about Lunsford in February, after he revealed plans to sue the Citrus Country Sheriff's Office over its handling of Jessica's case. The conflict came to a head Feb. 27 when Lunsford appeared on Clem's show and the shock jock let go a startling statement: ""You have to wait for your daughter to die before you can start raping money from people — I understand."

Later, Clem aired a slew of parody songs criticizing Lunsford and calls from fans raising questions about his efforts to raise funds for a charitable foundation established in Jessica's name. Lunsford and his attorneys accused Clem of feeding the controversy to build his show's ratings.

This morning, Clem apologized for any insults he may have leveled at Lunsford's attorneys -- though he drew the line on comments he made about Lunsford personally. Clem credited his attorney Steve Diaco with talking to Block last week, developing discussions which let to this agreement.   

"Maybe...all of us talking, we can all take a step back," said Clem. "Let's just all agree to disagree. I'm going to shut up, you're not going to file against the sheriff...for a common goal, so this doesn't happen again."

More Deggans Punditry Than You Can Stand

One of the cool things about being a TV/Media nerd who spends most of his day glued to a TV set and computer screen: Other writers call you when they're working their stories.

So that explains why my pal Matthew Felling, most recently of CBS' now-defunct Public Eye blog, wound up calling me while pulling together a story for American Journalism Review on Morning Joe, the AM concoction MSNBC pulled together when it jettisoned Don Imus.  I'd written a long feature about Scarborough's previous program, Scarborough Country, five years ago -- even then the former Pensacola U.S. Representative resisted the way MSNBC was trying to turn him into a young Bill O'Reilly -- and I was happy to go on a bit about this, much better showcase.

The full extent of my erudition: " "Morning Joe" is not reinventing the wheel, says St. Petersburg Times media writer Eric Deggans. "The tone of the show is not a particularly groundbreaking one. It seems to be a modern-day salon." But, he adds, "It's very hard to do that well. Everybody tries to do something like that. But they've hit on a combination that works. You're hanging out with people who are knowledgeable but hip enough to be fun."

The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire blog also decided to reference the best line out of my blog post on the whole Geraldine Ferraro mess, just after praising a column by Slate's Mickey Kaus contending that she was right. "If Obama were white, he wouldn't embody hopes of a post-racial future," Kaus wrote, leaving me wondering if that's really why so many people, black and white, are voting for Barack Obama. I think people are looking for the best person to embody a post-Bush future, personally.

I've also done some talking to National Public Radio and the Los Angeles times for longer-term pieces they're doing. It's kinda nice to be appreciated -- even if these big shot outlets don't always agree with me.

Keith Olbermann Rips Clinton a New One

It's not exactly Cronkite ending Vietnam, but MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann delivered a long and passionate criticism of Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro last night during one of his occasional, murrow-esque "Special Comment" editorials.

Liberal blogs were buzzing about commentary hours before he made it, because it would be the first Special Comment to explicitly criticize a Democrat; Olbermann debuted the concept back in 2006, when then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld compared his critics to Nazi sympathizers.

Here's a look at the carnage:

Reverse Racism Argument Finally Emerges in Presidential Contest

When Obama started doing well in the Presidential primaries, I was actually embarassed.

That feeling came because I remembered two middle-aged white guy friends of mine who had told me months ago they supported Obama, drawn by the promise of a young, smart leader with good ideas who seemed poised to implement them without resorting to the same old nonsense of our political past.

I liked his approach and ideas, too. But I had a much more cynical view of race and politics. I never thought Obama would have a chance because I assumed America would never really let him compete.

So to hear so-called progressive politicians such as Geraldine Ferraro complain that Obama is only ahead in the Democratic primary race because of his race, sounds to these ears like hearing news that cats have been found on the moon.

You mean, somebody thinks being a black man with the name Barack Hussein Obama is a bigger advantage than being the wife of the most successful Democratic president since John F. Kennedy?

Then Politico.com blogger Ben Smith Tuesday unearthed a compelling nugget: Ferraro said the same thing back in 1988 about Jesse Jackson. And back then, her views were echoed by that great paragon of racial equality, Ronald Reagan.

Smith quotes Washinton Post writer Howard Kurtz's story: "former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."

Asked about this at a campaign stop in Buffalo, Jackson at first seemed ready to pounce fiercely on his critics. But then he stopped, took a breath, and said quietly, "Millions of Americans have a point of view different from" Ferraro's.

Discussing the same point in Washington, Jackson said, "We campaigned across the South . . . without a single catcall or boo. It was not until we got North to New York that we began to hear this from Koch, President Reagan and then Mrs. Ferraro . . . . Some people are making hysteria while I'm making history."- Howard Kurtz (WAPO April 15, 1988)"

Ferraro still seems amazed by the concept that there is a problem with attributing Obama's 13-million votes in this year's primary elections solely to his race. She says, instead, that people who criticize her are being racist and that she was complimenting the way black people have supported Obama.

This is the way Democrats will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in this election; allowing dunderheads like Ferraro -- whose biggest political claim to fame is being part of the team which got annihilated by the Republicans in 1984 -- to drive wedges between a coalition which was poised to unseat the Republicans in November.

This also touches on another complaint I've heard from Clinton supporters; that Obama is winning because the nation is more sexist than racist. Besides the fact that I think such comparisons don't make much sense -- black people and women are oppressed in different ways by different issues -- it also ignores some powerful facts.

There are more females than black males serving as governors, Congresspeople and cabinet members. I wonder how any of them would feel about people who said they got their jobs because they were female? (And does Ferraro agree that she got her spot on Mondale's ticket because she's female?)

If Clinton wins this way -- basically encouraging working class white people and women to turn on Obama through race-based attacks -- the young people and black folks who were so excited about this election will stay home in November and John McCain will be president.  Because nobody plays wedge issues and the fear game like the Republicans.

This is why I wound up voting for Obama when the primary rolled around in Florida. I'm tired of fear mongering, wedge politics and Democratic ineptitude. And, though I'm sure Obama cannot pull off everything he thinks he can as president, I'm desperate enough for a change that I'm willing to give him a shot.

Frankly, Ferraro's assumption that people like me voted for Obama because he self-identifies as a black man is less insulting to Obama and more insulting to me.

She better hope people like me get over our anger before November, or the Democratic party is going to pay the price.

Tucker Carlson Loses MSNBC Gig to David Gregory

It's hard to know what to make of MSNBC's latest change -- which eliminates bratty conservative Tucker Carlson's snarky mid-day show next Monday in favor of a 6 p.m. showcase for rising star David Gregory, dubbed Race for the White House.

My source at MSNBC says it is just about ratings -- Carlson didn't do so well the in the years the cable channel gave him to find an audience. But I also find it interesting that MSNBC has shouldered a lot of criticism for other hosts offering commentary insensitive to women just as the cable channel lets go of a show which had become a good example of that approach.

  If these complaints were the camel breaking straw, MSNBC is sure to offer a different tack with Gregory's Race to the White House. Gregory, who has won attention both for his aggressive questioning of administration officials as White house correspondent and his ease at filling in as a substitute anchor of the Today show, will keep covering the White House while hosting this daily show.

That means, he'll have to be careful about expressing views as an anchor which may compromise his ability to access sources in his job as a reporter. Frankly, even though a rising star like Gregory needs a showcase, I don't know how he's going to find the time to be an effective reporter and topline a weekday show. Also, with cable increasingly turning towards opinionated talkers like Dobbs, Beck and Olbermann, does it really make sense to build a show around a guy who won't be able to reveal many opinions?

That said, I have always felt that MSNBC's ties with NBC News were an underutilized asset in everyday programming. Giving a high profile NBC News face an MSNBC show helps solidify that connection at a time when interest in politics is at an all-time high.

The change also keeps intact MSNBC's string of middle-aged white guys hosting shows from 6 p.m. to 11 p.m., though foreign affairs reporter Andrea Mitchell, who has also helped out with a lot of campaign coverage, will host a hourlong 1 p.m. show.

The changes will be implemented with MSNBC's typical flair -- which means other schedule changes also take effect next Monday sure to confuse viewers.

So here's the lowdown, starting March 17:

Race to the White House with David Gregory at 6 p.m.

Hardball with Chris Matthews at 7 p.m.

Countdown with Keith Olbermann at 8 p.m.

Verdict with Dan Abrams at 9 p.m.

New rebroadcast of Countdown at 10 p.m.

Three-hour "Doc-Block" with NBC News documentaries at 11 p.m.

New rebroadcast of Countdown at 2 a.m. (11 p.m. on the West Coast, which is the audience they're shooting for)

And for a look at Gregory's softer side, here's a clip of him busting a move on Today:

 

SNL or the Red Phone Ad: Which TV Display Turned the Tide for Hillary?

I hope that legions of voters in Ohio and Texas caught the last two SNL skits featuring a Clinton-loving media and decided to teach us a lesson.

Because the alternative scenario -- that Clinton's fear mongering and negativity helped her pull out another close win in big states -- does not bode well for the rest of this primary season, or the general election.

Obama seems to have counted on a flood of generally positive coverage in days leading to important elections to help him reach voters. This time, it worked in reverse: big-time journalists, particularly stung by satires on Saturday Night Live needling them for saying too many nice things about Obama, decided to get tough.

But I was struck by the example cited by Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz in his piece on an exchange with ABC News reporter Jake Tapper which could "mark the end of a long period in which the media has gone easy" on Obama: "Tapper's litany: "That you didn't put your hand over your heart during the national anthem, that you no longer wear an American flag on your lapel pin, that you met with some former members of the Weather Underground, and now they are questioning your wife's comments when she said she hasn't been proud of the U.S. until just recently."

So, regurgitating old controversies about wearing flag pins and where his hand sits during the national anthem is big media getting tough on Obama?

What I saw that was more substantive, was an interesting piece on Obama's ties to indicted political player Tony Rezko on CBS News, Chicago reporters demanding more access to the candidate for their own Rezko stories, and some hard looks at his legislative record. But none of this work really unearthed serious questions about his abilities or background, which leads me to a niggling question:

Amid all this talk about the media going easy on Obama, what kind of coverage do people want? Is it harping on issues which aren't really substantive? Is it talk about flag pins and ceremonial dress? The Proejct for Excellence in Journalism documented the increase in incisive coverage about Obama here.

Above all, I hope Democratic voters didn't let the negativity and fear mongering of recent days push them into voting decisions (Clinton's "red phone" ad was textbook scare tactics aimed right at soccer moms concerned about national security).

Because we saw during the last presidential election how well a choice made in fear actually turns out. Here's the red phone ad, in case you missed it:  

Mark Lunsford vs Bubba: A Case Fueled by Bad Public Relations?

The response to the newspaper story and blog post about shock jock Bubba the Love Sponge Clem's public fight with Mark Lunsford has been massive and passionate.

With over 150 comments on my blog post and dozens of comments attached to the newspaper article online, it's obvious readers in the Tampa Bay area are seriously conflicted about the actions of a guy who has turned the rape and murder of his 9-year-old daughter into a national crusade.

I don't know whether there's any substance to Clem's charges against Lunsford; other reporters who have been covering the case are looking into the latest clash more deeply. But I wonder if some of the negative public reaction to Lunsford couldn't be traced to a simple tactical error.

When Lunsford and his attorneys issued their letter announcing their intent to sue the Citrus County