RELATED: Arizona Man George Lindell Crashes Into A Pole… And Right Into Our Hearts

Given the state’s rich history and diverse Latin American population, state Rep. Richard Miranda, a Democrat, proposed a Latin American day for the state on the legislature floor this week. State Rep. Ash challenged his proposal, saying in jest, “I’m supportive of this proposition… I just want them to assure me that when we do become in the minority you’ll have a day for us.” Given that many people were not that happy about the idea (though one lady interviewed suggested a white analog for Cinco de Mayo, apparently ignorant of Massachusetts’ Patriots’ Day), he had to clarify his comments. He made them somewhat worse by admitting to the local CBS affiliate that he was joking but, come to think of it, he doesn’t think it’s that bad of an idea:

“Yes, I think it was appropriate. It was appropriate for the mood that was in the House and I think that if and when the Caucasian population becomes a minority, they may want to celebrate the accomplishments and the contributions of the Caucasian population the same way,” Ash said.

No word on whether Ash is actually drafting legislation to make this happen, but one could imagine it would be an even bigger deal if he found he liked the attention he is getting for these comments and tried to follow through.

The interview where he explains via CBS 5 Arizona below:

The program noted that President Barack Obama had praised Panetta during last week’s State of the Union address, praising him of having done a “good job tonight.” What as that about? As it turned out, The Navy’s SEAL Team Six had earlier rescued two hostages, including an American woman, in Somalia.

On his mind currently, the interview revealed, is Iran’s nuclear capabilities, and what would happen if that country were to build just one nuclear weapon. “The United States — and the President’s made this clear — does not want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon,” he shared. “That’s a red line for us.” And the U.S. would take whatever measures deemed necessary to stop this from happening. “There are no options that are off the table.”

RELATED: CIA Chief Leon Panetta: U.S. Elected Not To Work With Pakistan On Bin Laden Raid

Panetta still lives on the farm where he grew up, and jokes that his father told him he was ready for life in Washington thanks to his ability to “dodge all the nuts” he’d shake down from the family’s many walnut trees.

Panetta remembers being as surprised as anyone when he was tapped to oversee the CIA as its Director, particularly since much of his focus before had been on balancing the national budget. The President, he remembers, had told him that he’d needed someone who could “restore the credibility of the CIA.” One way of doing this, evidently, was ramping up efforts to find Bin Laden.

What’s remarkable is how little was actually certain when Panetta and the President decided to launch the SEAL Team Six mission into Pakistan. But Panetta was decisive about one aspect: Not working with Pakistan on the mission. “I personally have always felt,” he shared, “that somebody must have had some sense of what was happening at this compound.” There had been, he adds, Pakistani military planes seen flying over Bin Laden’s massive suburban compound, adding to his fears that, were the U.S. to loop Pakistan in on the mission, they would give the terrorist leader some sort of “heads up.” That said, Panetta is very careful to note that he doesn’t have hard evidence to back up his misgivings.

Have a look at the interview, via CBS:

She’s currently contending with “latent PTSD,” which, she says “manifests itself in different ways,” unpredictably.

She said her family, including her husband and two very young children, have been instrumental in her ongoing recovery, although she still relives the trauma of the event in her quiet moments. “When I’m lying there, waiting for my daughter to go to sleep,” she shared,” I have time to think about things. Those can be dark moments. You ranger through, you have to. You’re aware of how much you have and it’s so much more than what you’ve lost. You have a responsibility. Life is not about dwelling on the bad.”

Her employer has also been understanding, allowing her to return to work at her own pace. “CBS is not holding me back,” she said, “but they’re not forcing me forward.”

RELATED: Lara Logan Reveals Details Of Her Attack On 60 Minutes

But that doesn’t mean that it’s “back to work as usual.” Since the attack, Logan has been more careful about the implications of taking certain stories or traveling to certain places:

One interview she’d been working on with a Taliban commander was deemed too risky for her to make the trip. She understands why those decisions have to be made, but doesn’t like the change.

“It burns my ass, it does,” she said. “I’m also okay with it. I know that’s the right decision. Life is full of frustrations. You can’t do everything you want.”

the attack has, however, allowed Logan greater insight and access into the experiences of women around the world who have also overcome rape and/or extreme violence:

She recalled one woman in Africa who was raped and disemboweled, who said she had to live because she wasn’t going to give her attackers everything.

Lara Logan knows exactly how that woman felt, and that’s part of what drives her today. She refuses to be defined by the attack.

“Goddamnit,” Logan said, “I’m not going to give them everything.”

h/t NY Daily News

She ventured a guess as to why people have tried to paint her as “angry” or even, perhaps stereotypically and overly broadly, as “a strong woman.”

“I guess it’s more interesting,” she said, “to imagine this conflicted situation here and a strong woman and a, you know… But that’s been an image that people have tried to paint of me since, you know, the day Barack announced; that I’m some angry black woman.”

She deals with that, she added, by simply trying to be herself and holding out hope that people will take the time to know her before jumping to conclusions.

Obama, who told King she hadn’t read The Obamas, also took a moment to address allegations that White House adviser Robert Gibbs had “cursed her:”

That was one of the things from the book that I heard. Robert Gibbs is a trusted adviser. He’s been a good friend and remains so. And I’m sure that we can go day to day and find things people wish they they didn’t do to one another other or said. [...]

That’s why I don’t read these books. Because it’s, you know, it’s a game in so many ways that doesn’t really get, you know… I mean, who can write about how I feel? Who? What third person can tell me how I feel? Or anybody, for that matter.

RELATED: Matt Lauer Grills Controversial Obama Book Author Over White House Pushback

Have a look at what the First Lady had to say, via CBS:

(Ed. note: We tweaked the original headline and language in the story, after some readers pointed out that the Michelle Obama quote implied that her husband had announced she’s “an angry black woman.” Listening to the interview again, we added a semicolon to better show the true intent — that after her husband had announced he was running for President, people started seeing her as an angry black woman. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused.)

Report: Charlie Rose And Gayle King Set To Join CBS’ Early Show

The new ensemble cast of Charlie Rose, Gayle King, and Erica Hill performed ably together, but the tagline “the news is back in morning news” felt a little insincere, as lengthy segments were done on Princess Kate Middleton‘s 30th birthday and Beyonce‘s baby. It was surreal, for instance, to hear Rose refer to the pop star and Jay-Z as “American Royalty.”

To his credit, earlier in the program, the anchor had a stellar interview with Newt Gingrich, in which the Republican candidate flattered the morning host by saying he was running “almost a Charlie Rose-style campaign.”

However, as the show wore on, viewers began to notice his eyes were beginning to look a little irritated. “Someone hand Charlie Rose some Visine!” one Twitter critic chirped.

Rose’s serious, workman-like newsreading and King’s bubbly persona made for an odd pairing, with one person in the Twitter peanut gallery comparing their combination to Elton John and Eminem.

When the three gave a round-table interview of The Good Wife‘s Julianna Margulies, it offered a foreboding window into the future. Will Rose be able to mesh with King’s more pop-culturally savvy stylings, and will Hill be boxed out?

With their first show in the history books, I’m not quite sure how the three anchors will ultimately pull it off; they obviously have the talent, but whether that will be enough for successful morning news chemistry is another question.

Watch the three interview Julianna Margulies below via CBS:

But what about the giant media conglomerates? Well, we know where they stand. OpenCongress lists all the big companies that support the bill, including the following:

• NBC Universal
• Comcast
• News Corporation
• Time Warner
• Disney
• CBS Corporation

Et cetera. The list goes on. But what’s particularly notable about these companies is that they own news organizations. And with SOPA being the big story that it is, one would expect news organizations to start picking up on it. And to a certain extent, you could say they have.

A CNN.com search for SOPA reveals the site has run two stories about the bill, and the bill is mentioned in a third one titled “Doh! The top 10 tech ‘fails’ of 2011.” But in none of these stories is it disclosed that Time Warner, parent company of CNN, supports the legislation. MSNBC.com covered the bill in a November article, which did not disclose its parent companies’ support of the bill. FoxNews.com features more coverage of the bill than its two rivals, and in one article it does mention News Corporation’s support of SOPA.

Now, it’s quite possible the authors of these articles were not aware they had any such disclosure to make. But all the media companies listed above attached their names to a letter sent to members of Congress in September, urging them to pass the SOPA bill into law. And what about the on-air presence on these networks? Surely this important piece of legislation must have warranted at least one story on the nightly news.

Well, apparently not, because according to a study conducted by Media Matters, there has been a virtual media blackout on the airwaves over the past few months in regards to SOPA. The study used LexisNexis figures to calculate just how many times the bill has been reported in the primetime hours on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, CBS, and NBC. None of these networks gave any nightly news coverage to the bill, with the exception of CNN, where it was brought up briefly during a segment on The Situation Room. Media Matters notes the study does not, however, take into account these networks’ daytime programming, nor is Shepard Smith‘s nightly broadcast factored in.

RELATED: I Can’t Haz SOPA? GoDaddy.com Withdraws Support Of Online Piracy Bill After Threats Of Boycott

A quick perusal of statistics from the website TVeyes also finds that in the past week, the biggest networks to give any mention to SOPA were Bloomberg and CSPAN. In fact, the co-founder of Reddit (a website that has quickly mobilized SOPA opposition) was interviewed on Bloomberg just a few days ago. But still, the major news networks are silent on the issue.

And before you start crying foul that this is a Media Matters study, keep in mind that SOPA not only has bipartisan support, but bipartisan opposition. In fact, RedState’s Erick Erickson proposed a bipartisan coalition to take out any member of Congress who supports the bill. As Erickson succinctly put it:

This battle is so important — and is one of those rare fights where the left and right are united against Congress — that I suggest the left and right unite and pledge to defeat in primaries every person named as a sponsor on H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act.

Normally, this is the kind of legislation that might rile up Rachel Maddow or Bill O’Reilly, so why is there such a deafening silence on this issue that both liberals and conservatives have found common ground in hating?

There are one of two possibilities at play here. Either the network brass is pressuring the news division to not cover the legislation at all (the more conspiratorial point of view), or news anchors are simply avoiding their stories so as not to put their jobs on the line. Some will argue that, perhaps, news anchors are avoiding the story because there is so much more on their platter– why spend an entire segment explaining the serious consequences of a convoluted bill when you have a ten-second soundbite of Rick Santorum maybe saying the work “black“? Whether the possibility exists or not, it does not exonerate reporters from their responsibility to report. And so, of the first two, the latter seems to be the more realistic one. As Eric Boehlert explained to The Register on Media Matters’ findings:

“I don’t think there’s been a top-down edict on this, but the data is interesting… People are smart when it comes to their careers, and may feel that raising the story isn’t a good way to get along with their parent companies.”

Fox News’ lack of coverage is particularly remarkable, because last week Rupert Murdoch personally came to Capitol Hill last week to lobby members of Congress to pass SOPA and its Senate counterpart, PIPA. One might then, logically, expect Fox News to cover SOPA with the best positive spin since, as its critics say, the network gets its marching orders and sticks to it. But what we’re witnessing here is complete silence on the issue. I suspect the networks are smart enough to understand that no matter how much you try to put a smiley face on it, alarm bells go off in people’s heads when they hear the phrase “regulate the internet.”

Luckily for those of us who care about media dissemination of critical information, several big websites are considering a one-day complete blackout to raise awareness about the bill so more people can be informed about it. Now, you might be asking yourself, “Well, what are the chances a few websites are going to make a big impact on public opinion?” Actually, quite large. Here are the companies on board for a possible blackout:

• Google
• Facebook
• Twitter
• Wikipedia
• PayPal
• Zynga (creators of Farmville, Mafia Wars, etc.)
• eBay
• LinkedIn
• IAC, which owns these websites:
  • Dictionary.com
  • Ask.com
  • Dictionary.com
  • Match.com
  • CollegeHumor
  • Dorkly
  • Dictionary.com
  • Vimeo

If all those sites were taken away from people for a 24-hour period, you’d better believe there will be riots in the streets to stop SOPA from passing.

But I’d bet that if the mainstream media had been doing their jobs on this from day one, there would be zero talk of a blackout. Earlier today, I wrote about Rick Santorum‘s comments on the SOPA bill and online piracy. The YouTube video of Santorum was posted two days ago. A Google News search shows Santorum’s remarks were picked up by only two websites: NewsOK.com, which only mentioned SOPA in passing, and Death & Taxes, which uses over half the article to connect the story somehow to Santorum’s Google problem.

RELATED: Rep. Paul Ryan Becomes Latest Target Of Anti-SOPA Activists, Democratic Opponent Gets Fundraising Boost

Media organizations no longer have the luxury of pretending certain stories don’t exist. More and more people get their news via online news sources, and avoiding a story because the people that own you wouldn’t like it gets noticed these days. Absence makes the heart grow more pissed off, basically. These people in the media who gladly embrace controversy on a regular basis (hell, Lawrence O’Donnell hasn’t had a problem with ruffling a few executive feathers before) need to explain why they’re staying so silent on this issue. There’s nothing wrong with having an honest debate on a topic like this.

But then, perhaps you have better things to do, like insulting people you disagree with and laughing at viral videos of confused animals. You know, news.

When asked by CBS’ Early Show whether his recent comments “scolding” Romney “and his friends” for their involvement in a super PAC indicate that the former Speaker believes Romney is a liar. Gingrich’s reply was simple and to the point: “Yes.”

RELATED: Newt Gingrich On Romney Super PAC Ads: ‘Give Us A Break, Mitt, Just Be Honest!’

Well, you seem shocked by it. Yes. I mean, what else could you say? This is a man whose staff created the PAC, his millionaire friends fund the PAC, he pretends he has nothing to do with the PAC. It’s baloney. He’s not telling the American people the truth. It’s just like his pretense that he’s a conservative. Here’s a Massachusetts moderate who has tax-paid abortions in RomneyCare, who has Planned Parenthood in RomneyCare, raises hundreds of millions of dollars of taxes on businesses, appoints liberal judges to appease Democrats, and wants the rest of to believe somehow he’s magically a conservative.

I just think he ought to be honest to the American people and try to win as the real Mitt Romney, not try to invent a poll-driven, consultant-guided version that goes around with talking points.

RELATED: WSJ Uncovers 2006 Newsletter That Shows Newt Gingrich A Romneycare Super-Fan

“Do you really want a Massachusetts moderate” to run against President Barack Obama, Gingrich asked, noting that, as he sees it, Romney would be “torn apart” by the President.

Watch, listen. Clutch your pearls:

h/t HuffPost

Paul defended his dad’s chances at the nomination and explained why he would be a formidable candidate to run against President Obama.

“Ron Paul is the only one getting significant independent vote and Democrat vote and people say you need independent vote to win the election,” the younger Paul told CBS’ “Face the Nation. “You can’t win with just Republicans.”

“Ron Paul is having these big huge crowds in Iowa and really exciting a lot of young people and new people,” Paul added. “I think there is a lot of momentum. i think he could win by bringing in the independents.”

Watch Rand defend his father’s electability below via CBS:

I don’t want to ruin what happens but be warned; there’s a good chance you’ll end up like Pelley who had to end tonight’s broadcast reminding viewers that “anchors aren’t supposed to cry.”

Watch the clip from CBS below:

RELATED: Counter-Point: Can We Stop Focusing On Whether Or Not Herman Cain’s Seen His Wife?

“He’s not running for pope. He’s not running for saint. He is running for president. We’ve had lots of presidents who had girlfriends. We had President Kennedy who was a great president, he had girlfriends. President Roosevelt who was with his girlfriend when he died, he was one of the greatest presidents that’s ever been. Thomas Jefferson had a very well-documented affair. I’m not saying it’s a great thing; I’m just saying people are human. We can’t judge people by super-human standards.”

Alright! So that means Cain has a sweet new endorsement, right? Eh, maybe not. Stein then explained that, when you actually look at policy, he isn’t much a fan of Cain, deriding the candidate’s 999 plan. Instead, Stein argued that his beliefs were much closer to President Obama’s, claiming a need to raise taxes on the rich.

“I live in Beverly Hills part of the year. Practically every person has at least one Bentley. That those people can’t pay a few thousand more in taxes is hard to believe. Many of them have two or three Bentleys! If they can’t afford to pay a little more in taxes, something is wrong.”

This was all very interesting but was completely overshadowed by a moment at the end of the interview when Stein revealed that his 24-year-old son had built special steel grating on his house to keep out zombies.

Wait, what? What the hell does Ben Stein’s son know that I don’t?

Watch the clip from CBS below:

RELATED: Ron Paul In Statistical Tie For Lead In Iowa Poll; Does He Have A Shot?

“What is it about his message that has captured their loyalty?” O’Reilly asked Hume, who responded that his popularity was a result of his consistently libertarian policies. “He is the heir to a certain core of loyal supporters,” Hume argued, because of his persistence politically as “pure a libertarian as you’ll find in American politics today.” O’Reilly responded that he did not understand the appeal of his foreign policy. “There is no way on this earth that Iran responds to somebody being nicer to them if that somebody is an American,” he noted about Rep. Paul’s demands for more diplomacy rather than sanctions on the potentially nuclear nation. “It’s dangerous stuff if you have power to think that way,” he argued, with the caveat that he did not think Rep. Paul would ever have the power to be dangerous.

RELATED: Bob Schieffer Confronts Rep. Ron Paul: Do You Think Americans Caused 9/11?

“Libertarians are deeply distrustful of government action in many measures,” Hume responded, arguing that this sort of talk had an appeal for those who did not want America to be a military superpower. O’Reilly wasn’t convinced. “You believe a slice of the American electorate would be not concerned if a country like Iran had a nuclear arsenal?” he asked, while Hume tried to defend the libertarian position while noting that he did not agree with it. “It snaps my head back that anybody would buy it,” O’Reilly concluded.

The segment via Fox News below:

RELATED: Ron Paul In Statistical Tie For Lead In Iowa Poll; Does He Have A Shot?

Schieffer began by asking whether Rep. Paul thought “9/11 happened because of actions that the United States took.” “I think there’s an influence, and that’s exactly what the 9/11 commission said,” Rep. Paul replied, “there is a connection.” That said, Rep. Paul opposed the attitude that terrorists “want to do us harm because we’re free and prosperous.” That, he said, was a “very dangerous notion, because it isn’t true.”

Schieffer then asked directly: “What you are saying is that it was America’s fault… you’re saying Americans caused 9/11?” Rep. Paul clarified that that wording made it sound like all Americans were responsible, and that “the average American didn’t cause it,” “but if you have a flawed policy, it may influence it.” With that he added somewhat defensively that “you’re supposed to be able to criticize your own government” without being accused of being on the terrorists’ side. Schieffer continued asking whether he thought it was “the government’s fault,” which Rep. Paul corrected to “the policymakers.”

RELATED: Sarah Palin Sticks Up For Ron Paul: Media Treatment Has Been ‘Unfortunate’ And ‘Unfair’

The conversation became more tense as they discussed the Iranian nuclear threat, which Rep. Paul thought could be resolved with diplomacy. “Iran doesn’t have a bomb, there’s no proof… and for us to overreact and talk about having a bomb,” he argued, was faulty. He used Libya as an example for that argument. Schieffer corrected Rep. Paul on the claim that anyone was contemplating the bombing of Iran, thought Rep. Paul noted he meant Republican candidates, not White House officials. The conversation turning more general, Schieffer asked Rep. Paul whether there was a single place on earth he thought the United States should have a military base. Rep. Paul responded that “a submarine is a very worthwhile weapon,” and that “this whole idea that we have to be in 130 countries” was outdated compared to the technology.

The segment via CBS below:

Letterman admitted he doesn’t quite understand what the plan is all about… right before informing Cain that “you don’t even know what it means.” We believe the political term for this is “Awkwaaard:”

RELATED: Morning Joe Crew Flummoxed By Herman Cain’s ‘Leader Not A Reader’ Comment

Cain:You put in an economic growth plan called… 9-9-9! Have you heard of it?

Letterman: I’ve heard of it; I don’t know what it means.

Cain: [Laughs] 9-9-9! It’s bold-

Letterman: -I know it’s bold. But you don’t even know what it means. I heard somebody say to you “how would so-and-so and so-and-so be handled under 9-9-9?” and you said, “I don’t know!”

Cain then described the question as having been “obscure,” prompting Letterman to note that presidents often “have to deal in obscurity.” To their credit, the two men remained cordial, even trading jokes about making “9-9-9″ a hotline for free pizza (America needs this, gentlemen) and about whether or not Letterman was trying to talk Cain out of running for president.

So. Is this a case of Letterman out-journalizing more respected journalists? Was he badgering Cain with “gotcha” questions? What’s your favorite pizza topping?

Have a look at their exchange, courtesy CBS:

RELATED: Jerry Sandusky Tells Bob Costas: ‘No, I’m Not Sexually Attracted To Young Boys’

CBS News’ Armen Keteyian approached McQueary at his home, where he had been staying since being put on indefinite administrative leave after the scandal broke. He tells Keteyian that he will not elaborate on any of the allegations because “the process has to play out,” but did say that he felt “all over the place” and “just kind of shaken, like a snowglobe.” Keteyian elaborated that he said off camera he had fears for his personal life and safety, but that he at some point expect to speak on the matter.

RELATED: In Defense Of Penn State’s Mike McQueary

The interview from tonight’s CBS News below:

The candidates addressed issues of foreign policy and national security ranging from Iran to Pakistan, and even the long-debated issue of torture that proved to be a wedge issue in the Republican audience.

Watch the full debate below, courtesy of CBS News:

Moderator Major Garrett began by asking (co?)frontrunner Herman Cain for his stance on torture. After a long pause, Cain responded, “I do not agree with torture, period. However, I will trust the judgment of our military leaders to determine what is torture, and what is not torture.”

Garrett followed up by asking Cain if he believed that waterboarding is torture, or simply an “enhanced interrogation technique.”

“I agree that it was an enhanced interrogation technique,” Cain replied, to a mixture of laughter and light applause. “I would return to that policy, I don’t see it as torture, I see it as an enhanced interrogation technique.”

Rep. Michele Bachmann then weighed in, saying that as president, she would be willing to use waterboarding, to rousing applause, but also the odd jeer. She went on to claim that President Obama is “losing the War On Terror,” despite the President’s soaring terrorist body count.

Major Garrett, citing his “Spidey sense,” then tossed the question to Rep. Ron Paul, who received loud applause for saying that “waterboarding is torture,” and noting that “it’s illegal under international law, and our law. It’s also immoral.”

Even former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman got a loud cheer for saying that he opposes torture.

The explanation for this seeming schism in audience reaction to torture is likely contained in the debate intro. Congressman Paul is known for having an extremely loyal, intense following, and they were vocal during his introduction tonight. The applause for opposition to torture was loud, but localized, as an audience reaction shot shows.

Here’s the clip, from CBS:

The debate, the 19th so far, will begin at 8pm EST and be moderated by Wolf Blitzer. It is being hosted by CNN, the Republican Party of Florida and the Hispanic Leadership Network.

***THIS LIVE EVENT HAS ENDED***

The Washington Post reports that this leaves a coalition government led by economist Mario Monti in charge of rebuilding the nation:

The resignation ends a political era punctuated by headlines of Berlusconi’s “bunga bunga” sex parties and colorful gaffes. Ultimately forced out of office by a debt crisis instead of personal scandal, the flamboyant billionaire’s departure appeared to pave the way for a staid, serious economist, Mario Monti, to attempt to form an interim government and try to pull Italy back from the brink.

According to CBS News, he was jeered repeatedly by some in the crowd:

“Shame!” and “Get Out!” the crowds yelled as Berlusconi and his ministers shuttled from one government palazzo to another.

“Finally” read one of the signs held up in the crowd. “Grazie Napolitano,” said another — an indication that, like financial markets, many ordinary Italians had come to the conclusion it was time for Berlusconi to go.

The reports on the ground in video corroborate this, as CNN reports Rome was full of “wild celebrations,” with people taking to the streets and cheering for the transition, which comes on the tail of a serious economic problem gripping the entire Eurozone and for which many Italians blamed Berlusconi.

The CNN report below:



[Photo via Washington Post]

The show is being given a complete makeover, with a brand-new set and a focus on hard news rather than the fluffier fare normally associated with morning talk shows. In addition, as The New York Times reports, the show will be “employing a conversational approach like Morning Joe on MSNBC and The View on ABC.”

RELATED: Cynics Beware: OWN Works As A Concept and Network

The two will make their debuts with the show early next year, joining current co-hosts Erica Hill and Jeff Glor.

The plan, according to the NYT, is to have the show forge its own way rather than repeatedly attempt, and fail, to replicate the success of its early morning rivals:

Privately, executives say that because the network has forever failed to beat NBC’s “Today” and ABC’s “Good Morning America” by imitating those shows, it is instead going to try something wholly different.

The plan is already the talk of the tight-knit, gossipy New York television news industry. But will it be talked about anywhere else?

Some speculate that Rose will appeal mostly to an older crowd, while King — whose name has been closely linked to that of best friend Oprah Winfrey — may do well with female viewers. While neither name is a proven ratings draw, their contributions to the show and it’s new, newsier format are sure to at least draw in some initial viewers curious to see whether such a formula and format will translate into ratings.

h/t NYT

Rooney’s final essay for 60 Minutes was a classic example of his trademark blend of clarity, humility and gracious wit. He concluded his last essay by giving thanks to those who had reached out to him over the years:

This is a moment I have dreaded. I wish I could do this forever. I can’t though. But I’m not retiring. Writers don’t retire and I’ll always be a writer.

A lot of you have sent me wonderful letters and said good things to me when you meet me in the street. I wasn’t always gracious about it. It’s hard to accept being liked. I don’t say this often, but thank you. Although if you do see me in a restaurant, please, just let me eat my dinner.

Watch Rooney’s final commentary below via 60 Minutes:

“I’m someone who doesn’t believe in playing the race card on either side,” Rice told Norah O’Donnell, who asked her to comment on the possibility that black conservatives face more criticism than liberal minorities. She noted that it was “not good for the country” to play the race card and that the right course of action would be for everyone to “take a step back and let Herman Cain answer the questions.” She added that she did not say this exclusively for conservatives, as “I don’t like the race card when people say that people are criticizing President Obama because he is black.”

The segment via CBS below:

There is little question of legacy of Steve Job on the still very nascent digital age, but his passing saw near universal recognition that he was a visionary the likes of which the world has not seen since Edison, Curie and Ford. So hearing the voice of Jobs in broadcast television so soon after he had passed was both moving and eerie, but mostly enlightening and oddly consistent with Jobs vision. It seemed almost by design that Jobs would have the last word, via the open and candid interviews with Isaacson.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Chidester broke the news with the Manchester, New Hampshire Union Leader, which the newspaper dubbed a “mutiny” in the campaign. He told the paper he had resigned last week, and that he was one of at least four in New Hampshire who felt the national Bachmann campaign machine had been too frustrating a system for them to work within. At press time for the Union Leader, a spokesman for the Bachmann campaign claimed they had not been notified anyone was leaving.

Meanwhile, according to Politico, Rep. Bachmann herself seemed to toe the same line as her spokespeople. She called into Radio Iowa to comment on the subject yesterday, where she called the allegations “shocking” and incongruous with the status of her campaign as she knew it:

“That is a shocking story to me,” Bachmann said. “I don’t know where that came from. We have called staff in New Hampshire to find out where that came from and the staff have said that isn’t true, so I don’t know if this is just a bad story that’s being fed by a different candidate or campaign. I have no idea where this came from, but we’ve made calls and it’s certainly not true.”

Speaking to CBS, Chidester noted that he had notified people he believed were close to the candidate a week ago, and noted it would be “unfortunate” if they had not relayed the news. Rep. Bachmann and her team have refocused her efforts mostly in Iowa, where the candidate has the strongest chance of making a dent in the campaign due to that state’s more socially conservative politics. The staff shakeup is seen by some as signs that the campaign is losing momentum, though it would not be the first time that rumors of an end to a campaign due to staff losses have come up. Jon Huntsman recently had his staff conduct a reverse move to that of Rep. Bachmann, relocating entirely to New Hampshire, which Newt Gingrich is several months removed from his own “mass exodus” that was considered one of the final nails in his political coffin at the time.

RELATED: Bill O’Reilly Spars With Tavis Smiley And Cornel West Over Wall Street Corruption

Are O’Reilly and Letterman arch enemies? Of course not. But in O’Reilly’s ongoing description of what he calls the “culture wars” he has often mentioned Letterman as an example of a different side than his self-described “traditionalist” movement, and in last night’s interview, it seemed that both were genuinely happy to chat with one another, as the conversation was spirited though affable.

RELATED: David Letterman And Bill O’Reilly Talk The View, Palin’s Prospects, And Whether Or Not We Can Still Blame Bush

After the two agreed on wasteful spending by the Government, especially with regards to what now both saw as an unjustified decision to go into Iraq, Letterman raised his hand for an agreeable high-five. O’Reilly, playing the part of the comically curmudgeon, first left Letterman hanging, even sort of dissing his host by telling him to “sit down!” Fortunately for us, O’Reilly eventually relented and gave Letterman a meaningful hand-slap, after which Lettterman called O’Reilly a grouch.

Watch the entertaining segment below, courtesy of CBS:

“I mean, one of the best things about Americans is we don’t really resent other people’s success,” said Clinton. Letterman didn’t miss a beat: “Well, what about Leno?” he asked dryly, referring to his longtime late night television rival. When he’d seemed to realize what he’d said, Letterman laughed and said sorry. But the crowd had already lost it over the joke.

RELATED: Bill Clinton To David Letterman: Occupy Wall Street Needs To Be For Something

OoOOOOooooh, Letterman! Bringing shade to the late night game.

Have a look, via CBS:

That instance occurred during a conversation about Rick Perry. Letterman pointed out the cheer after Williams’ death penalty question to the candidate and connected it with how Perry had to apologize after seeming too soft on immigration.

Unlike Letterman, Williams saw nothing surprising about it.

“In a Republican primary, you run far to the right. And then, when general election season comes around, you run right up the middle. You have to appeal to a broad population. Right now, it’s the party stalwarts. You can’t say something shocking enough to these crowds. You have to keep tacking to the right of your opponent. This will all settle down though comments last forever. They will all be held accountable for what they’re saying.”

It seemed like a fairly straight forward response although some Conservative blogs are already all over him for daring to use words like “accountable” and “shocking.” Still, those angry should remember that, switch a few words around and everything he’s saying could apply and would apply to a Democratic primary. Still, Williams is unpopular with that crowd so it’s likely that’ll get looked over.

The closest we got to a real opinion from Williams was after Letterman’s whole-hearted support of the Occupy Wall Street protests. After Letterman explained his belief that no changes got made without demonstrations, Williams agreed that “we certainly saw it in the 1960s.” Not exactly an endorsement but as close as a nightly anchor is likely to get.

Watch the clip from CBS below:

RELATED: CBS’ Andy Rooney Signing Off ’60 Minutes’ After 33 Years

Goldberg began his critique by noting that Rooney was “an American icon, he’s beloved by millions of Americans,” but that “I saw a weakness in him that I didn’t think was attractive.” He then told the story of the release of his book Bias a decade ago, when he still worked at CBS. The book detailed how many people in the CBS newsroom pushed a liberal agenda in their reporting and got Goldberg into significant trouble with his superiors, and Rooney wasn’t particularly sympathetic. According to Goldberg, Rooney quipped, “Bernie’s always had a knack for being a jerk,” though later noted that colleagues like Dan Rather did have liberal agendas, but that he shouldn’t have said that out loud. For having argued that “dishonesty is the best policy,” Goldberg argued that “he wasn’t a stand-up guy” and could have been more forward.

RELATED: Andy Rooney’s Final Essay: ‘I Wish I Could Do This Forever’

O’Reilly didn’t agree with Goldberg being so harsh on Rooney, though he noted that he would have not backtracked on his comments. He also had his own comical run-in with Rooney. “I was in the elevator with him,” O’Reilly narrated, when Rooney turned to him and said “you’ll never make it.” “He was right,” O’Reilly joked, “I didn’t make it at CBS.”

The segment via Fox News below:

47% of Americans, according to Gallup, thought the media was too liberal; only 13% found it too conservative. At 19%, Fox News was by far the most watched news source, with local news at 16% and MSNBC at 6%, which O’Reilly reveled in by calling those viewers “Fidel Castro supporters.” He turned to Goldberg and opened by asking about the latter’s former employer, CBS: “What happened over there?” Goldberg noted that the turnover in the anchor chair had hurt, but the downturn was not limited to that one station and had one particular origin: “its relationship with Barack Obama.” He elaborated that the media had always been biased, but “they moved from old-fashioned media bias to something new, media activism.”

This Goldberg equated with judicial activism– attempting to have a political impact from a pulpit that has no official political capacity– and the American people noticed. “There’s a price the media has to pay for [activism],” Goldberg concluded, “and they pay with their most valuable asset– their credibility.”

The segment via Fox News below:

Lucky for them, Ryan Storms, the man who found the passport at a gas station where he had been stopped for directions by a different Race team, is an busy Twitterer.

“So #Thelife gets crazier,” he tweeted immediately. “So after being randomly filmed for ‘The Amazing Race,’ I see that one of them dropped there [sic] passport!!!” This caught the attention of an avid Race fan who had already begun tracking the show on Twitter, and they replied, instructing Storms to get to LAX ASAP if he wanted to save the girls chances.

“Her dream was going to die right now if I didn’t get her this passport,” he said, and so he rushed to the airport.

Meanwhile, producers in Taiwan also caught the tweet and told the team in Los Angeles — who had rushed to the airport after being tipped by the camera crew that the girls might be facing some immigration troubles — to wait on the elimination ceremony.

Close call!

Watch the excited return below:

H/T MediaDecoder