Patriotism is a strength. We’ve earned the right to be proud of this country. But patriotism and entitlement are different things. Exceptionalism can be a form of entitlement, a way of excusing selfishness and self-centeredness. America is the best, therefore, whatever we do is right. Or: therefore, we don’t need to be concerned with others.

In yesterday’s Times Frank Bruni outlined “The Affliction of Comfort” – the worry that those who are taken care of will put taking care of themselves above resolving the problems of others. His essay is farmed in the context of governments making decisions about the long-term welfare of citizens from a position of safety and comfort.

The piece doesn’t deliver on the promise of its title. The affliction of comfort. The inertia of the heavy. Bruni dusts the surface of Italian politics and dips a toe into the American budget mess, but there’s deeper angst at work.

America is deeply afflicted by its comfort. We are to the world what the Italian upper caste is to the average person in that country. We call the shots; we work to maintain our lead, which is already at a distance it would take enormous measures to close.

Our desire to stand astride the world is most obvious to the casual observer in foreign policy, but it is increasingly apparent in other international fights. Economic policies. Or the fight against climate change. I mean, we’re comfortable. We like things the way they are. Those rising ocean levels will, what? flood Battery Park? Parts of Miami? This isn’t the Maldives. We’ll survive. We can deal. And, besides, we are exceptional. We are our own bosses. We’ll listen to you, but at the end of the day, we’ll do what’s best for us.

This is a problem. But the bigger problem is that this same dichotomy – the established, privileged leader considering the pleas of the underprivileged – is echoed in our national economy. The upper tier – that top ten percent of income-earners who control two-thirds of the wealth of the country or the more rarified 1% who none of us are and who none of us will ever meet – are America’s wealth exceptionalists. They may not have been the ones to earn their fortunes and social position, but one of their predecessors did at some point. And that makes them special.

Like America internationally, the top tier carefully weighs the extent to which they’ll relax some small margin of their lead. Heavy hangs the head that wears the crown, I suppose – an affliction of comfort in its own way. Should any sacrifice be made to help those outside of the gates who might soon be drowning? In this moment, the decision appears to be theirs.

Having a lead doesn’t exempt you from leading. It wasn’t America’s beginning that made it exceptional, any more than it was Steve Jobs’ birth that made him an exceptional business leader. How we nurture America molds the country more than our exceptional nativity. America grows and changes.

The moment of America’s genesis, it’s worth remembering, was one in which colonists were frustrated with their unseen and untouchable rulers, sitting comfortably in London – the English empire, upon which the sun never set. In our Constitution, we explicitly rejected titles of nobility, the contemporary demonstrations of class distinction. Egalitarianism doesn’t recognize a Lord.

As the nation evolved, we inadvertently created a class system based on the bank account. Today, wealth exceptionalists lead the country. We are afflicted with comfortable leadership.

America is exceptional because we don’t pander to the exceptional. Our uniqueness stems from the idea that any of us can be President – that we all lead through our voices and our votes. The President isn’t empowered to do what he wants without consequence any more than America is. We must choose to be a nation that doesn’t treat its exception as entitlement to be selfish, nationally or internationally. It often takes courage to do what’s best for someone else.

West Wing Report‘s Paul Brandus points out that it was on this date in 1862 that President Abraham Lincoln laid to rest any doubt about the right of states to secede. Politifact concedes that point, yet ignores it in analyzing the accusations against Perry.

In defending Perry, Politifact stipulates that the Texas Governor (whether he believes it or not) has advanced the notion that Texas can legally secede, and has not backed down from that. They also concede that this notion is false, citing a constitutional scholar. But aside from the fact that the Supreme Court has since ruled that secession is unconstitutional, it was 149 years ago today that Abraham Lincoln weighed in, with little subtlety:

As to the policy I “seem to be pursuing” as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I don’t believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be error; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of Official duty: and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

Bottom line: Texas cannot legally secede. We fought a war over it, and the Supreme Court ruled on it for good measure. The folk belief in such an ability doesn’t change that, and whether Rick Perry truly believes Texas can secede, he knows that the notion appeals to many voters in his state.

That fact greatly changes the character of Perry’s statements. Rather than an academic discussion of a particular policy option, Perry’s remarks were in reference to an illegal act that would be harmful to the United States. In case you missed them, here they are:

Cast in that light, let’s see how Politifact’s defense of Perry holds up. On the charge of “threatening to secede,” Politfact found that “In a politically theatrical moment, Perry edged toward a secession threat. Then or since, however, he hasn’t said Texas should quit the United States. (You wudda read all about it.)”

But if we replace secession with some other illegal, harmful act, say, burning down the White House, does Perry’s statement constitute a threat? “We’ve got a great White House. There is absolutely no reason to burn it down. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what may come out of that?”

It may have been empty, and it certainly was “politically theatrical,” but a threat, it was.

Politifact also rated “false” a statement made by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, to the NY Times‘ Maureen Dowd:

Obama batted away the Texan, as did Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, who told me: “We may disagree with our political opponents, but we certainly think they’re all patriots — even those who wanted to secede from the union.”

There’s an argument to be made that reserving the right to do something (“I don’t want to smack you, but I can if you keep it up”) is similar to wanting to do it. But in the second clip, Perry announces, in the first person plural, that “we can leave any time we want, so we’re kind of thinking about that again.”

The totality of Perry’s statements can fairly be interpreted that he prefers not to secede, but in claiming the unilateral right to do so, and the possibility of its exercise, Perry (and Texas) would be seceding of their own free will. Ergo, they would have to want to do it, and as Perry said elsewhere, he thinks that other states would want that same right:

A day after the rally, the Statesman reported, Perry called potential secession a “side issue of Texas history. … We are very proud of our Texas history; people discuss and debate the issues of can we break ourselves into five states, can we secede, a lot of interesting things that I’m sure Oklahoma and Pennsylvania would love to be able to say about their states, but the fact is, they can’t because they’re not Texas.”

Finally, Politifact defends Perry for abridging his own statements, in an attempt at a walkback. They rated “mostly true” Perry’s explanation that he said “there’s ‘absolutely no reason’ for Texas to secede,” explaining that the “mostly” part was due to a selective omission:

All in all, does Perry accurately revisit his original comments on secession that day?

For the most part, yes. However Perry doesn’t get to his assertion that Texas has the right to secede or his speculation about “who knows what may come” from people angry about actions in Washington.

Those omissions, though, completely change the meaning of what Perry said. To use Rachel Maddow‘s frequent example, it’d be like quoting an extortionist as saying, “Nice place you got here,” while leaving out, “It’d be a shame if anything happened to it.”

Although they didn’t weigh in on it, I doubt Politifact would have been so charitable to Ed Schultz over his smaller Perry omission.

To be clear, while I disagree with Politifact’s findings, and believe that their deployment of red lights in Perry’s defense obscures the truth, I don’t believe for a second that Rick Perry wants to secede from the United States, or that he even thinks he can. Clearly, his remarks were intended to appeal to those who do believe in such a right, and take pride in it.

Furthermore, neither Jay Carney, nor President Obama, nor Perry rival Jon Huntsman, believe that. While their statements, as I’ve shown, have been accurate interpretations of Perry’s words, Perry’s opponents have been using them to hold him accountable for his own words.

Former Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs raised the issue of Perry’s secession remarks in response to Perry’s suggestion that President Obama doesn’t love America, and when I asked him if he thought Perry really did love America, Gibbs mimicked Perry’s passive/aggressive rhetoric by telling me, “You need to ask him. I’m saying, you’re a good reporter, go ask him.”

At worst, Gibbs, Carney, and Huntsman are guilty of a greenish-yellow “too cute” ruling.

Politifact’s string of red lights gives the impression that people are just picking on poor ol’ Rick Perry, but the reality is that Perry is simply being held accountable for some Ex Lax-loose talk.

Buffett’s politics have become a bit of an enigma for the free-market set; he has been a supporter of President Barack Obama going back to the beginnings of his 2007 campaign, which flies in the face of the anti-regulation flat-taxers who have long held Buffett (and his ilk) as examples of their policy. This notion has “trickled down” to the many lower and middle class voters who also oppose any tax increase, perhaps because they don’t see lower tax rates for their particular tax bracket, but because they perhaps consider themselves to be unrealized or unlucky millionaires. Either way, Buffet’s words matter.

So with a public debate looming over ways in which the U.S. can control federal debt –especially reconsidering current federal revenue and ending the Bush Tax Cuts — Buffett’s Monday morning op-ed in which he asks that he “stop being coddled” by the current U.S. tax code, is at worst an effective way to drive the weekly news narrative. Particularly in the very populist manner in which he opens the piece:

OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

To fully appreciate Buffett’s thesis, one should read the entire piece (here), but either way, now that the super rich are talking about increasing taxes on the super rich, perhaps it is time to take note?

All cable networks intend to broadcast the live testimony of Murdoch and his son James, as well as his recently resigned News International deputy Rebekah Brooks, who was just arrested on Sunday by London authorities looking into the scandal. While media outlets typically cover other media outlets with a tacit omerta, this story is so explosive that it has been a cause celebre on both sides of the Atlantic, thus the live coverage on all cablers.

Writing for the NY Times, Bill Carter explains:

All three of the all-news cable channels in the United States plan to carry the appearances of Mr. Murdoch, the chairman of the News Corporation; his son James, the top executive of the company’s BSkyB outlet in Britain; and Mr. Murdoch’s former top executive in Britain, Rebekah Brooks, live beginning at about 9:15 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time.

CNN and the Fox News Network have committed to covering the testimony, without indicating any limitations on duration. A spokesman for MSNBC said the network would not cover the appearances “gavel to gavel” but would stay with the coverage “depending on the content.”

CNN said it would simulcast the event live on both its United States network and its international channel, CNNI. A Fox spokeswoman said that its sister channel Fox Business would also offer live coverage of the event.

Unconfirmed rumors have been floating on Twitter that Murdoch’s consultants are privately concerned with the 80 year-old’s preparation for testimony, which could make for some dramatic television moments. You will can watch the entire proceedings live on Mediaite via live stream starting at 9:30AM EST.

Carr has since apologized. Time will tell if Beck follows suit for his Godwinian infraction, but I’m prepared to issue a ruling that they’re both losers in this feud.

Carr’s appearance on Real Time seems to be part of a larger publicity tour for the NY Times documentary Page One, in which he is featured rather extensively. Alas, the rather tiresome publicity campaign reminds even Carr’s most ardent fans that the scarcity of his product is one of his greatest assets. The comment he made on Maher’s show illustrates what many already think of the Minnesota-raised (and imprisoned) writer, who is known for an earthy, neo-folksy wisdom, from a regular guy perspective. His “age of realism” journalistic style would make even Gustave Courbet blush. (Yeah, I just referenced Courbet. It happened. Deal.)

Here’s the clip of Carr’s remark, from HBO’s Real Time web-only “Overtime” segment:

Disclosure: I worked with Mr. Carr at the offices of Inside.com back in the late 90′s, where he and I smoked many a cigarette in the stairwell of the Sterrett-Lehigh building where we worked. He was brand new to NYC then, having just moved up from his job at The Washington City Paper, and I found him to be remarkably friendly, and proud of his own Midwestern heritage. I like to imagine that the attention he’s received from his job at the Times, and the movie, of course, hasn’t changed him at all. Alas, his comments on HBO belie that. His subsequent Twitter apology perhaps demonstrates an inner struggle for his geographic soul:

to all of America, at least the middle place that I come from, I apologize for saying something so, so dumb on Bill Maher last night. #choke

Second disclosure: I grew up in the state of Kansas, and remain close to many friends who still call it home. I know that Carr wasn’t really calling out Kansans and Missourians (mostly because everyone knows that its impossible to lump the two together: Missouri was a slave state, Kansas, a Free state). While Carr’s apology, along with my inclusion of the fedora-doffing photo that I know he hates, go a long way toward penance, a smart, fun to read column explaining the dangers of being overexposed would earn my forgiveness.

As for Beck’s comments, it’s tempting to dismiss them as simply his latest attempt to make partner at Godwin’s Law Firm, but to compare what Carr said to the sort of violent rhetoric that leads to mass death, or death camps, is more than absurd. It is offensive.

Clearly, Carr was making a joke, or was using hyperbole to deride red state vs. blue state politics. Yes, what he said was offensive and dopey, but to immediately compare it to death camps not only trivializes that tragic chapter in world history, the greater offense, but it infantilizes Midwesterners. We’re a hardy lot, and not so thin-skinned that an ill-advised wisecrack is going to send us to the mattresses, ready for the coming cow-pocalypse.

Both Beck and Carr are guilty of using irresponsible hyperbole to make larger, ironically detached points. When levels of irony build upon one another like this, the whole thing because so disposable that it inevitably disappears into the ether, completely devoid of meaning. That’s what I expect to happen with this brief kerfuffle between Mr. Carr and Mr. Beck.

But until then, please listen to the audio clip of Beck tearing down Carr:

(H/T MMFA via HuffPost)

A source close to the situation tells Mediaite, “There is a strong indication that Glenn Beck has bigger plans for his TV future than anyone thought, as it looks like Joel Cheatwood, SVP of Production/Development at Fox News, will be joining Mercury Radio Arts very soon to work closely with Glenn on his next creative idea.”

While no deal is officially done, indications are that Cheatwood will soon be joining Mercury.

Two weeks ago, David Carr wrote a thoughtful-yet-pot-stirring column that openly asked how Fox News might be preparing for life without their mercurial star at 5pm Glenn Beck. The piece suggested that back-to-earth ratings, combined with some notable neo-conservative backlash, had made Beck’s standing at the cable news network vulnerable. Cheatwood’s impending hiring seems to indicate how Beck might handle–or even benefit from–a post-Fox News career.

So who is Cheatwood? By at least one account, he is considered number three at Fox News programming behind Michael Clemente and Bill Shine (though numerically ranking influence and power within any work environment is an often flawed method). Prior to joining Fox News as a Vice President in 2007, Cheatwood served as the executive director of program and talent development at CNN, where he created and launched both Beck’s program and Showbiz Tonight for Headline News, where he also oversaw the launch of Nancy Grace. Cheatwood is known in local news circles for creating tabloid local news with splashy graphics, over the top sets, and that sort of thing.

By bringing on a senior television executive with Cheatwood’s track record, Beck seems to be telling to the television world (and perhaps his current employer) that his vision for his future in broadcasting is not entirely reliant on Fox News, the cable network that undoubtedly helped bring Beck from a lackluster 0.4 rating, while on HLN, to a robust 1.5 rating. Yes, Beck’s ratings have come back to earth from the astronomical (unsustainable?) numbers of late August of 2010, yet the number of viewers he regularly gets at 5pm is still impressive. Not only has Beck developed a loyal following, but his ratings have an enormous promotional effect as lead-in to the shows that follow him (though to be fair, Bret Baier at 6pm has been improving on Beck’s ratings of late.)

Regardless of how you feel about his politics, there are very few personalities in the news and information arena with as high a profile as Glenn Beck, and now more than ever, established brands are crucial to breaking through the mass media clutter, and attracting viewers. Add to that Beck’s radio, web, publishing, and stage reach, and it’s not unfair to say that Beck enjoys a significant marketing platform that would certainly be attractive to a wide variety of networks and programming services looking for a cornerstone — a rising tide that would theoretically lift other boats. Beck and Mercury have often been ahead of the digital curve, and have already built a robust subscription streaming business with Insider Extreme, something that would certainly hold appeal to the next iteration of video consumption a la Netflix. Further, Beck has already started building programs to his network in which he doesn’t star, such as other programming on Insider Extreme, like the 4th hour with his radio co-stars Pat and Stu, as well as the new online show featuring S.E. Cupp, and let’s not forget our good friends at TheBlaze.com.

The hiring of Cheatwood makes the most sense in a scenario in which Glenn Beck is no longer on Fox News, an indication that all of the smoke surrounding this relationship reveals a deeper fire suggesting that the relationship is coming to an end. Beck’s status at Fox News is markedly different than that of his on-air peers; he arrived at the cable news network as an established personality, and likely feels less a debt of gratitude to the powers that be, which in turn makes him more of a free spirit/loose cannon. While it’s likely that a “Beck-less” Fox News would not miss a beat, this move by Glenn Beck seems to show that he also has no intention of going gently into the night.

Regardless of what ends up happening in this specific relationship, one thing is very clear. Neither Glenn Beck nor Fox News is taking the future for granted, and this unfolding story is likely to get more interesting as time progresses. Will Beck and Cheatwood be the next recipients of Fox News’ well wishes? Stay tuned.

First, some background. Last Thursday, Keller remarked to an audience at CUNY Graduate School of Journalism when asked about Fox News. Keller called viewers of Fox News “among the most cynical people on planet Earth,” before adding “I cannot think of a more cynical slogan than ‘Fair and Balanced.’” The next day, NY Magazine writer Gabriel Sherman asked via Twitter “Wonder if Keller’s comments trashing Fox News will hurt his reporters’ ability to cover Fox and Ailes.”

This was the subject of Kurtz’s piece in The Daily Beast, the heart of which is excerpted below:

I emailed Keller to ask whether those strong words could suggest a biased approach to Fox, which has had more than its share of complaints about the Times’ coverage (and that of other news organizations as well).

“First of all,” he responded, “the question of whether Times reporters can write fairly about Fox is answered by the fact they do it, over and over. Tim Arango, Dave Carr, and Brian Stelter have set the standard for fair, tough, incisive coverage of Fox, its business, and its on-air personalities.

“As far as I can tell, they are professionally indifferent to that fact that Fox maintains a stable of commentators who make a good living bashing the Times.”

Kurtz gives Keller somewhat of a pass, pointing out that the beat reporters at The NY Times most likely don’t want their work to be seen as having a similar viewpoint as that of the NYT‘s editorial page, just as the reporters on the news side of Fox News probably wouldn’t want to be viewed as sharing the same opinion as Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity for example.

But it’s more that that. Keller oversees all of the editorial output at the NY Times. So it is not unreasonable for those at Fox News to wonder whether one of Keller’s writers could now write anything positive about Fox without thinking about how it might affect his or her standing with the guy at the top of the masthead. Further, if Michael Clemente, Fox News’ SVP of News were to claim that readers of the NY Times were among the “most cynical people on earth,” or came out and attack the very subjects that his reporters are covering, there would likely be criticism.

It is also not unfair to say that Keller’s comments puts his media reporters in somewhat of a precarious and compromising position by speaking so candidly about as controversial a subject as Fox News. At the very least, it will lead people to scrutinize their stories more closely. Last year David Carr and Tim Arango wrote a lengthy profile of Fox News chief Roger Ailes for the NY Times that was seen by most as fair and accurate. NY Times other media writer Brian Stelter seems willing to share his own nuanced opinions about Fox News via his Twitter feed.

The crux of the issue may be that Fox News now seems more comfortable in it’s own political skin, defending its news side coverage as objective, while admitting that most of their prime time hosts lean right. Has the NY Times come to grips with the political bent of its editorial team? Regardless, Keller’s comments are certain to fuel public perception that the NY Times is at odds with Fox News. This isn’t an issue of a cable news outlet taking a shot at a competitor for being “fair and balanced”. The NY Times news reporters cover Fox News, which puts Keller’s comments in a different light. Nor is this an opinion issue; Fox News’ prime time lineup sell a lot of soap ripping the NY Times on a nightly basis, but they are the equivalent of the NY Times op-ed team of Gail Collins, Frank Rich, and Nicholas Kristof ripping Fox News. It seems fair game for the participants of the opiniotainment racket to take shots at one another. But this seems more like a “news on news” battle, one that appears to ratchet up with each passing week.

When reached by Mediaite, NY Times‘ Media editor Bruce Headlam had no comment on Keller’s statements or Kurtz’s piece. Keller’s critique of Fox as a news organization is well within his field of expertise, and many Fox News detractors will see his comments as not just substantive, but accurate. Slate’s Media reporter Jack Shafer doesn’t have a problem with Keller’s comment and its affect on objective reporting, telling Mediaite “I care about accuracy and fairness, both of which are more easily measured than objectivity.”

But Keller can’t have it both ways: he can’t criticize one news organization for a predisposition without coming clean about his own paper’s political leanings. And while Headlam refrained from commenting on any repercussions, it will likely make his job harder. Thanks boss!

Earlier today we reported that Olbermann and partners were announcing big new plans tomorrow during a conference call. Given the reported non-compete clause on any television network, we surmised that Olbermann might be announcing some sort of Internet project. This theory was somewhat supported by a tip that pointed out that a simple whois search reveals that the domain names “theolbermannshow.com” and “thekeitholbermannshow.com” were registered January 19th, 2011, just two days before his last appearance on MSNBC. Turns out that it now looks like Olbermann will be returning to television, albeit one with a much, much smaller reach than MSNBC.

Writing for the NY Times Bill Carter and Brian Stelter report:

Keith Olbermann, the former top-rated host of “Countdown” on the news channel MSNBC, will announce his next television home on Tuesday, and people familiar with his plans pointed Monday to a possible deal with the public affairs channel Current TV.

Neither Mr. Olbermann, his representatives, or executives from Current TV would comment on the move, but they did not deny that the channel, which counts former Vice President Al Gore as one of its founders, will become at least one partner in Mr. Olbermann’s future media plans.

One of the people with knowledge of the plans said Mr. Olbermann would have an equity stake in Current TV. The people insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized by their employers to comment in advance of the official announcement.

On Monday a public relations agency hired by Mr. Olbermann scheduled a Tuesday morning conference call for an announcement about his next job. “He and his new partners will make an exciting announcement regarding the next chapter in his remarkable career,” the agency wrote in an e-mail.

Read the full report at the Media Decoder blog at NY Times.

Legend has it that the editors at Washington Post and the NY Times communicate each day to confirm that they have different lead stories/images on their front page. Well, it appears that the communication lines between Marcus Brauchli and Bill Keller were not open last night, as both venerable newspapers lead with the same image from the tragic Cambodia stampede from yesterday. (H/T Patrick Gavin)

“A growing number of viewers tell me they time-shift the news,” Mr. Williams wrote. “Loyal viewers used to say ‘we watch you every night.’ These days, an increasing number make a point of saying ‘We RECORD you every night.’ ”

Williams concedes he does a lot of time-shifting at home, catching his favorites (Friday Night Lights, The Office, 30 Rock and–yes kids, he has access to non-NBC content–ABC’s Modern Family) via DVR.

Klein took over as president of CNN six years ago, a period that coincided with a steady and significant decline in ratings at the cable news network. In March of this year, this reporter suggested that CNN’s ratings tailspin made Klein vulnerable, though at the time, Walton voiced his support.

Walton’s memo to the CNN staff reads below:

To: CNN Staff

From: Jim Walton

=======================================================

I have some news to share with you about our executive leadership and
how our programming teams are going to work together to ensure we’re
prominently featuring CNN’s quality journalism across our multiple
platforms. Two accomplished CNN executives whom most of you know and
have worked with are stepping up to new roles, effective immediately.
A third senior leader will be brought on in the role of managing
editor to help leverage our newsgathering resources across multiple
platforms in a more collaborative way.

Ken Jautz is moving from HLN to CNN/U.S. to run the network as its
executive vice president. Ken is a rarity-a working journalist who is
an even better news executive. The reinvention of HLN is the latest
in a string of successes he has led at CNN. Ken has launched, made
profitable and turned around businesses for our news organization,
Turner Broadcasting and Time Warner literally around the world. To
his new assignment he brings deep experience as a reporter, both
overseas and in the US; a CNN-wide perspective; and relationships from
multiple positions within Turner. Most importantly, he has a
demonstrated ability to collaborate and lead strong teams, and a
track-record of programming successes.

Scot Safon assumes the executive vice president role at HLN and will
run the network. Scot and HLN are in my view an inspired combination.
He is an innovator; HLN is an ideal news and information laboratory.
He is an expert in audience targeting and development; HLN’s audience
is young, engaged and growing. And he is a charismatic leader who is
passionate about journalism, storytelling and our brand. As Chief
Marketing Officer of CNN Worldwide, Scot has led a dynamic team that
has done award-winning marketing, advertising and promotion for CNN,
HLN, CNN International and CNN.com.

Additionally, to put our multi-platform advantages more fully to work,
we will be naming an executive vice president and managing editor of
CNN Worldwide to lead collaboration across all platforms and elevate
CNN’s unique journalism and analysis. A managing editor, with full
access to our journalism resources and my mandate to shape and connect
our newsgathering across networks, shows, and websites, is a new role
for the organization. Ultimately, the goal is that the kind of
front-page reporting and analysis that captures a news event,
translates its meaning and shapes the dialogue about the story will
continue to emerge in even more prominent and more accessible ways to
CNN’s audiences. The search for this person is currently underway.

Our colleague Jon Klein is leaving CNN. Jon’s six years as head of
CNN/U.S. are reflected in the quality of our coverage of signal news
events during his tenure: the tsunami in South Asia, Hurricane
Katrina, the 2008 election cycle and the Haiti earthquake, as well as
shows like Anderson Cooper 360, The Situation Room and Fareed Zakaria
GPS, all of which bear his imprint. Jon has made important
contributions to the CNN story, and he leaves with our respect and
friendship, and with my sincere thanks.

We are going into a busy fall and winter with November elections and
two new prime time shows on CNN. Ken, Scot and the new managing
editor will impact these and all of the other events ahead, as will
you. My expectation is that our leaders and our new operating
discipline will put CNN’s advantages to work where they matter most:
for our audience. Our coverage will be relevant and resonant; will
have meaning for millions of people around the world; and it will
reflect the qualities that CNN is rightfully famous for: commitment to
truth, respect for facts, service to no political agenda and passion for
journalism and analysis done right and well.

f

Image courtesy of Mario Piperini

Flagging polls and a looming mid-term election have understandably caused alarm within leading Democratic political advisers. An article published in today’s NY Times reports that White House strategists are considering a campaign to “tie the G.O.P. to the Tea Party” in hopes of both energizing a democratic base of voters who fear some of the rhetoric coming from the Tea Party movement. While David Axelrod denies such an effort, there does appear to be some legs to this idea.

Writing for the NY Times Jackie Calmes and Michael D. Shear report:

White House and Congressional Democratic strategists are trying to energize dispirited Democratic voters over the coming six weeks, in hopes of limiting the party’s losses and keeping control of the House and Senate. The strategists see openings to exploit after a string of Tea Party successes split Republicans in a number of states, culminating last week with developments that scrambled Senate races in Delaware and Alaska.

“We need to get out the message that it’s now really dangerous to re-empower the Republican Party,” said one Democratic strategist who has spoken with White House advisers but requested anonymity to discuss private strategy talks.

Democrats are divided. The party’s House and Senate campaign committees are resistant, not wanting to do anything that smacks of nationalizing the midterm elections when high unemployment and the drop in Mr. Obama’s popularity have made the climate so hostile to Democrats. Endangered Congressional candidates want any available money to go to their localized campaigns.

The article continues to suggest that President Obama will be taking a more visible part in the Fall campaigning season, opposed to the more limited role of fundraisers and small events. However, regardless of how often and where we see Obama, the White House is faced with a bit of a dilemma when it comes to the Tea Party movement. Ignoring and dismissing an angry and energized base has not weakened them, and painting them as unreasonable extremists is just as likely to backfire as well.

Perhaps Obama should take a page from the last Democratic president and participate in a summit in much the same way that Bill Clinton sat down with Newt Gingrich and his “Contract With America.” The only problem is, with whom should Obama sit down?

Update – Politico is reporting that White House officials claim this story to be completely wrong. “The White House is pushing back hard against a New York Times report that the president’s political team is considering a national ad campaign that would cast the GOP as taken over by tea party extremists,” the article opens, continuing “The story is “100 percent inaccurate,” a White House official told POLITICO.”

Read the full post at Politico.

In today’s New York Times, he writes: “As the president conducts his scheduled reappraisal of his war policy this December, a re-examination of 1971 might lead him to question his own certitude of what he is fond of calling “the long view.” But of course, what Rich really means is that it’s maddening to him that this disclosure of information is -not- having that sweeping effect. “Last week the left and right reached a rare consensus. The war logs are no Pentagon Papers,” Rich wrote ruefully. So there began Rich’s effort to equate two very different leaks of information about two wholly different wars.

It is a nice narrative and an interesting read, but when Rich leaps on the rhetorical springboard here, the dive becomes somewhat disastrous. About Daniel Ellsberg (who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971), Rich writes: “What Ellsberg’s leak did do was ratify the downward trend-line of the war’s narrative. The WikiLeaks legacy may echo that. We may look back at the war logs as a herald of the end of America’s engagement in Afghanistan just as the Pentagon Papers are now a milestone in our slo-mo exit from Vietnam.” This hardly veiled effort by Rich to piggyback on Ellsberg’s widely lauded efforts fall flat after even a cursory examination of the two situations.

The Pentagon Papers were drafted in response to a request from the Secretary of Defense seeking definitive conclusions about the war he was overseeing. The Vietnamese conflict was dragging on and secretary Robert S. McNamara wanted answers to the most fundamental of questions: how did we get here and why are we there at all? The answers, provided in the form of the Pentagon Papers, demonstrated that five administrations had at best shaded the truth, and at worst completely obscured it. The Wikileaks documents, on the other hand, were military documents written by those in the field describing primarily military assessments and sometimes embarrassing setbacks that both the Bush and Obama administrations had not made public. They provide specifics as to certain failures, what can be best characterized as anecdotes. The Pentagon Papers, on the contrary, offered a historically rooted response to the ultimate question: Should we be there at all?

Sure, both were about wars, and both revealed information that administrations did not want made public. But its obvious why both sides of the political spectrum have, in Rich’s words, reached a “rare consensus.” Because, unless one is seeking to use this leak as a sword to end all American military involvement in Afghanistan, as Rich clearly is, the comparison fails. Think about comparing a dossier of private emails to a researched essay. While they are ostensibly both written documents, they hold very different reasons for being and play very different roles in the communication of ideas.

This, of course, does not change the reality that serious questions must be asked about our ongoing effort in Afghanistan. The disclosures expose military setbacks and additional problems with Pakistan, in particular. As troubling as that is, it does not change the fact that, unlike the Vietnam War, there is no question about -why- we are in Afghanistan in the first place. Every major political figure of both parties has long agreed that military action had to be taken in Afghanistan after 9/11 as the Taliban continued to protect those directly responsible for the attacks on the United States. Nothing similar can be said of the war in Vietnam.

Does that mean that nine years later we must continue this level of military involvement there? Of course not. The extent of our military commitment is a separate and distinct question but it is disingenuous to appear almost baffled about why we are there at all. And even more so to then compare it to a war that was, at best, an effort to thwart a highly theoretical threat as opposed to one that was a direct retaliation for acts of aggression against the U.S.

In fact, seen purely through the prism of the leaks themselves, this one is far more perilous. While these Wikileaks documents were deemed “secret” as opposed to “top secret,” the Pentagon Papers were an already three year-old historical review when leaked. The Wikileaks documents are from just last year and it now publically names names. Taliban leaders have already threatened to retaliate against those Afghans mentioned in the documents who helped the U.S. effort. Furthermore, in 1971, The New York Times and Washington Post took great care when publishing the Pentagon Papers to work with the administration to retract particularly sensitive information that could threaten national security. While the Times appears to have done so this time around as well, the full documents are now readily available on the web.

Rich wrote that it was time to “inject a little reality into the garbling of Vietnam-era history,” but in the process he conflates two dissimilar leaks about two even more dissimilar wars and himself ends up garbling the very reality he sought to illuminate.

This week marks the one year anniversary of the launch of Mediaite, and what a year it has been. As Dan Abrams notes, predictions of Mediaite’s doom were greatly exaggerated, and as Mediaite columnist and White House reporter from Day One, I have viewed the site’s successful first year from a unique perch. When Rachel Sklar pitched the site to me, I have to confess I was a little bit skeptical, but it didn’t take long for me to see that she and Dan were on to something.

Among other early worries about the site, Rachel and I wondered, at the beginning, what a media blog needed with a White House reporter. By the same token, in hiring me, Mediaite found itself with one, so they needed to find a use for me.

My previous work covering the White House tended to be much heavier on policy and politics than on the media, so it was a challenge, at first, to adapt my style to the new site. In fact, my first-ever question as Mediaite’s White House reporter didn’t even make it onto the blog. For posterity’s sake, here it is:

Luckily, I adapted to covering the media, and the media obligingly adapted to me. The Summer of Health Care provided lots of fodder that was in my wheelhouse, and gave way to an ever-shrinking news cycle that thrust the media into the center of almost every story. It also didn’t hurt that Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was rarely shy about pushing back against all manner of media outlets (including Mediaite) and memes. There were also ample opportunities to cover the view from behind the scenes, as with the Inside the White House Press Corps interview series.

When I returned to the White House as a Mediaite scribe, I noticed one difference right away. When I was with AOL, I used to always get this reaction: “AOL does news?”

With Mediaite, though, there was instant recognition, despite people’s trouble with the name (Media-lite? Media-ate?). Early on, this was due mainly to the participation of Dan Abrams and Rachel Sklar, and more importantly, to the ingenious Power Grid.

Pretty quickly, though, I began to hear less about the Grid, and more about our site as a whole. We developed a reputation for fair, even-handed reporting and commentary, and the people I spoke to in Washington took notice. After a few months, it became common for someone to walk up to me at the White House and say, “You’re Tommy Christopher, right? From Mediaite?” This was a pleasant shock to me. When I was with Politics Daily, people would recognize me despite my outlet, not because of it.

While some people still have trouble with our name, the people we cover in politics and the media sure don’t anymore.

It’s a poorly-kept secret that I can be a little bit temperamental, and coupled with gun-shyness at my well publicized firing from my last job (I note, with satisfaction, our decent lead over my old employer on the Technorati 100, with no help from a parent network), it’s not always great fun being my editor. At the beginning, I was very suspicious of even the most mundane editorial note, certain that there were hints of my doom in every one. Mediaite allows me a great deal of freedom, but as a writer, I have a tendency to be protective of my words, as though each Road House reference were a brush stroke on the Sistine Chapel.

My temperament required such special handling that Managing Editor Colby Hall and I even have a running joke that I’m Hannibal Lecter, and he’s Agent Starling, and I should be handed nothing but soft paper. There’s also the knee-slapper “You’re fired,” to which I sometimes reply “Too soon!” Over the course of the past year, Colby and I have traded many an earful, and in the process, he’s earned my trust, and hopefully, I’ve earned his.

Personally, this has been an incredible year. Much of my first 6 months with Mediaite are detailed in my 2009 Year in Review, but here are some highlights that, if you had told me about them last June, I would have thought you were nuts:

Getting Blacklisted by the Senate Finance Committee: This was one of the most frustrating, yet proudest, moments of the year for me. I had become such a pain in the ass to them in trying to get to the bottom of the lousy PHRMA deal, they just dropped all pretense and admitted they were just lying to me. Proud, because it meant I was doing my job well, and frustrating because I would much rather have gotten answers to my questions.

The Public Option: To the extent that a public health insurance option ever had a chance, I did everything I  could to get the White House to clarify its equivocal, and eventually fruitless, support for it.

Shooting the Shit With Dan Rather: For some reason, we held a launch party 5 months after our launch, and while there were lots of luminaries there, I was blown away by the time and attention given to me by broadcasting legend Dan Rather. It was just another surreal experience for a guy not 2 years removed from being a cubicle drone.

CPAC 2010: What an intense couple of days that was. Aside from getting to see my good friend Ed Morrissey, I also met Rachel Maddow for the first time, had an infamous run-in with Andrew Breitbart, a surreal confrontation with James O’Keefe pal Christian Hartsock, and got to do karaoke with about 10 Redstaters.

Briefing in the Rose Garden: Sometimes, it’s the simple pleasures. I sure am glad Gibbs isn’t doing that now, though.

Meeting Alan Colmes: For some reason, my job usually ends up putting me together with conservatives, so it was nice to be able to sit down and talk to a guy I agreed with for a change.

Chuck Todd’s Star Wars Impressions: Of all the interviews I did with White House reporters this year, Chuck’s still makes me laugh out loud.

Nancy Pelosi Protest Video: This might be my favorite piece of video this year. Aside from being funny, infuriating, and poignant all at once, I felt it really captured some essential truths about our politics, and how poorly served we can be by a two party monopoly.

Helen Thomas: I couldn’t call Helen’s sudden retirement a “highlight” of this past year, but working with her certainly was. The lightning speed of that story’s arc was perfectly illustrative of the shrinking of the news cycle this past year.

Hollering at Colby Hall in the White House Rose Garden: As I said before, it’s not always great fun being my editor. Never was this more the case than on a hot day last November when, as I waited with the assembled press for the President to make remarks in the Rose Garden, I got into a heated shouting match with Mediaite’s managing editor, Colby Hall. I walked about a hundred feet away from the media, but apparently, not far enough. You know how everyone suddenly gets quiet while you’re yelling something embarrassing? Yeah, that happened just as I was yelling my loudest, and cursiest. I turned, and every eye was on me.

It wouldn’t be the last time Colby would have to talk me down, but it was the first time I considered that, maybe, he was in my corner after all.

Meeting Hillary Clinton: This is a story that I haven’t told in print before, and I won’t tell the whole story now, either. Let’s just say that a series of events occurred that ended with me unexpectedly passing Hillary Clinton on a staircase that I wasn’t supposed to be on. As I approached her, I ran through several greetings in my head, and though I decided on “Hello, Madam Secretary,” what actually came out of my face (along with my best officious nod) was “Hi, Secretary!”

I don’t mortify easily, but I still bury my face in my hands at the thought of it.

Getting in Tony Hayward’s Grill: While Jake Tapper‘s zinger at the end makes this clip awesome, it was the sight of my camera, inches from Hayward’s face in a wire service photo, that really took this thing to 11 for me. At first, I was just pissed off that Hayward had fled without answering any questions, but later, I realized that his silence spoke volumes, as did our lack thereof.

The Kevin Jennings Story: Of all the stories I wrote this year, this is probably my favorite. Debunking the barrage of smears against Kevin Jennings was such a heavy lift, many in the mainstream media didn’t bother to try.

I don’t know what this next year holds, but it’s off to a bang-up start. Meet you back here next July.

Alas, it’s hardly surprising that we were met with a tepid reception. We are, at times, reviewing the reviewers and, well, let’s just say that — shockingly! — some in media don’t appreciate being reviewed. Fortunately for us, despite those early pokes, most leaders in media have come to embrace us. We truly appreciate that so many of you have made Mediaite a regular part of your daily web diet.

Mediaite is now welcoming between 1.3 to 1.5 million unique visitors per month to the site. That already puts us ahead of the name-brand media industry websites, significantly ahead of most of the best-known political blogs, and obviously far above what I could have anticipated when we launched. Even more important, the quality of the news we report has quickly made Mediaite a significant player in the national debate. Mediaite is cited regularly in many of the most prestigious traditional publications, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, Time, Forbes, NPR, USA Today, The Atlantic, The Week, and the National Review, as well as routinely being cited by the outlets leading the digital revolution, including Yahoo! and AOL as well as leading political sites like Huffington Post, Drudge, Hot Air, Raw Story, Salon, and others (“others” includes regularly and proudly getting blasted by media watchdogs Media Matters from the left and Newsbusters from the right).

Our team has also broken many of the major media stories of the past year, ranging from the launch of new websites to the sale of existing ones, from television shows coming and going (including CNN’s Campbell Brown leaving) to mass layoffs at networks. Plus, we have been at the forefront of web video as this medium reaches new levels of popularity. That includes our exclusive series of interviews with members of the White House Press Corps, as well as curating news clips from the most exciting moments on cable news.

Despite our tiny staff, we have more than achieved the goal I set forth in my original note one year ago, when I hoped it would become “a unique property that will quickly become a must-read for anyone interested in media, the business of it and the personalities behind it.”

Mediaite is also now the proud parent of three other thriving sites, Geekosystem.com, Styleite.com (which launched in March) and Sportsgrid.com (launched in May). Geekosystem, which examines the online world through the “geek prism,” is rapidly approaching the one million uniques per month mark after just six months in business. Including sister site Gossipcop.com (which has also vastly exceeded expectations in less than a year) and our syndicated content, our sales team is selling over five million unique visitors per month. After all, what is a content site these days without that ultimate proof of viability: advertisers? Last month alone, Mediaite had, among others, Yahoo, Bing, Mercedes, Vespa, Showtime, Syfy, and Bravo as sponsors. In the months to come we will be announcing a variety of additional revenue generating endeavors, as well as additional sites. Even so, this is is still a work in progress, and we look forward to trying to take it to new heights in year two.

So here is to the Mediaite team. They deserve all the credit for nimbly avoiding “doom,” for somehow making even certain skeptics care about “the business and personalities behind the media,” and for admitting they work for a site that was once compared to a diarrhea remedy — even before it was cool. And of course, a big thank you to all of you who have read us, written for us, and advertised with us.

In the meantime, here is a little video look-back at the year that was. (Special thanks to Kevin Gotkin and Video Jon for their terrific work on the video below!)

Perhaps this gives the news media a new angle on which to report the recent news that Al Gore and Tipper separation? An AP report outlining the basics of the story has been published in numerous news outlets, including the NY Times:

A lawyer for the woman contacted the police in late 2006, said the Multnomah County district attorney, Michael D. Schrunk. Mr. Schrunk said the woman, who has not been identified, had refused to be interviewed and did not want the investigation to proceed.

But in January 2009, she contacted the police and gave a statement in which she said Mr. Gore had tried to have sex with her during an appointment at the Hotel Lucia. The National Enquirer first reported the accusations on Wednesday.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Gore, Kalee Kreider, said he had no comment. Mr. Gore and his wife announced on June 1 that they were separating.

The growing scandal was first reported by the National Enquirer, an outlet with a varying reputation regarding scandal stories. In their initial web report, the tabloid makes specific claims regarding the veracity of these potentially damning allegations:

We have verified the 62-year-old former VP was in Portland at the time of the alleged incident – Oct. 24, 2006 – and we saw the $540 massage bill.

No criminal charges were brought against Gore, but the Portland police prepared a document marked “Confidential Special Report” – which records the explosive allegations of “unwanted sexual contact” by Al Gore “at a local upscale hotel.”

The ENQUIRER is withholding the name of the 54-year-old woman making the stunning accusations because she is potentially a sex-crime victim.

According to the AP report, the Portland police spokesperson interviewed for this story claimed that the alleged victim had “contacted detectives this month and asked for a copy of her statement” and that the woman, according to the spokesperson, “said she planned to take her case to the news media.” This small but significant note raises questions about whether the complainant may have sold her story to the National Enquirer.

Portland’s Local News has also reported on this story as KGW’s Anne Yeager filed the following report last night:

The bizarre exchange can really be viewed as an abject lesson in insinuation and innuendo. Some might even call it a smear. As O’Reilly throws questions around the Kagan nomination, he also questions both the Kagan family values (as well as the White House) by looking at Irving Kagan’s resume and deducing that he’s “a big time donor to Democratic causes” as well as a teacher at Hunter College High School in Manhattan. After which, O’Reilly can only chide “we know what that’s about.” No Bill, we don’t. Teaching at a High School does not equate to being a “left-wing radical.”

However, the thrust of the the criticism is really directed towards the White House, which is a fair point. After the Times was denied access to Kagan’s family, the White House released an interview with Elena Kagan that the WH had produced themselves (a move that has received mixed reviews.) This administration has pledged to operate an open White House, though as O’Reilly exclaims “except when it comes to Irving Kagan.”

As if the segment couldn’t get any slimier weirder, O’Reilly concludes the discussion by raising the issue of softball photos, claiming that, even though he hasn’t seen any pictures, “he assumes Irving is a softball player as well.” As the two devolve into giggling adolescents, O’Reilly gets in one last smear at Kagan by jokingly asking Goldberg if he’s a lesbian. “You aren’t are you?”

The scale of this story raised significantly when @nytimes made the following tweet:

Since then, the story remains fluid, with few tangible details emerging.

The Daily News has the following report:

Police evacuated New York’s Times Square Saturday night after a dark-colored sports utility vehicle was found to be smoking and a small “flash” was observed by firefighters on the scene.

Officers at the scene said the evacuation order stemmed from an “emergency investigation” and dozens of officers blocked access to the busy central Manhattan square, which is popular with tourists and theater-goers.

New York Police Department spokesman Paul Browne said a vehicle had been left in Times Square, with smoke seen coming from it.

There was an unconfirmed report that someone was seen running from the car, Browne said. A bomb squad responded and a small fire was extinguished, he said.

“We’re just trying to determine if it was anything other than a car fire,” said Browne. “We don’t know yet if it’s anything more than that.”

Insiders say Ford’s plan for stepping out of the ring began to be hatched late Sunday evening with a feeler to the NY Times Op-Ed page, gauging their interest in a piece from Ford on why he would not be running for Senate. It wasn’t until Monday morning that Ford would make the final decision not to run, and the Times subsequently agreed to run his piece at 9pm Monday evening. Further, Ford’s office planned a coordinated outreach at 8:30 PM with both New York and national media outlets, so that everyone would be made aware of the imminent NYT Op-Ed at the same time.

So much for that plan.

Earlier on Monday evening, Ford made some political courtesy calls, including one to Brooklyn Democratic Chairman Vito Lopez, who had been been a big supporter of the native Tennessean. Somehow Lopez got word to the NY Post, who at 7PM exclusively reported that Ford would not run (citing Lopez as the source.) At that point, Ford’s office agreed that the NY Times could publish the Op-Ed piece that had originally been planned for 9 PM. Minutes later, the NY Times Metro section published a story quoting from the Op-Ed, and by 8PM Ford’s original piece was up on the New York Times website.

Ford will appear on MSNBC’s Morning Joe tomorrow to discuss his decision in greater depth.

News Corps planned to upgrade their New York Post printing press in the South Bronx and combine it with the Wall Street Journal press, which currently operates in South Brunswick, N.J, by the time the New York edition was set to debut in April. But as we all know, nothing ever goes according to plan. Several delays have put News Corp behind schedule, and now they’re looking to outsource some of the printing of The Post.

The Daily News, which has plenty of resources in its plant in Jersey City, told them no. And so, “despite Mr. Murdoch’s stated intent to compete with The Times and weaken it,” News Corp has, in fact, turned to The Times for help.

This could turn out to be a great deal for The Times. “Industry executives said that at typical printing rates, the work would yield The Times no more than $200,000. But people briefed on the discussions said the price was likely to be significantly higher.”

Yeah. Some might call that bribery.

Remember, kids! Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer.

This piece by the New York Times’ Bill Carter suggested an NBC windfall:

Retaining Mr. Leno will undoubtedly be seen as a coup for Mr. Zucker, who has faced some serious questions about the wisdom of guaranteeing “The Tonight Show” to Mr. O’Brien and possibly losing Mr. Leno to another network.

Via a recent interview with Entertainment Tonight, here’s what Carter is saying now:

The question, really, is Conan. What they’re doing to Conan, you could really say is kind of a stab in the back because he was promised ‘The Tonight Show’ and he didn’t really get it clean because they moved Jay in front of him anyway.

The Huffington Post AP’s David Bauder noted (rightly) the low cost of the show, but didn’t foresee the high cost in credibility:

Leno’s deal also has the potential to be a big cost savings for NBC. A talk show is considerably cheaper to produce than the dramas that usually air at 10 p.m. Eastern.

Entertainment Weekly praised the network for holding on to Leno:

Most important for NBC, though, it keeps Leno, a proven ratings earner, in its stable at a time when it needs him…

Boston.com’s TV blog was more effusive in its praise of the decision (and only the decision; writer Matthew Gilbert said he’s “not a big fan” of Leno):

This is the kind of bold, experimental move that network TV needs right now. Is there a rule somewhere that says a nightly talk show won’t work at 10 p.m.?

Now, Gilbert says O’Brien should ditch NBC (and any other network that might want to bring him in):

Network TV is no longer the only game in town. I’d love to see what he’d do on Comedy Central, in the company of talents like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert and the “South Park” guys.

Perhaps the most glowing initial review of the Leno-to-primetime move came from the Kansas City Star’s Aaron Barnhart, whose opinion was made clear by the headline on his first post on the issue:

Jay Leno in prime time: This is a win-win-win situation

So what does Barnhart think now?

After insisting for all of 2009 that its “revolutionary” plan to put “The Jay Leno Show” in prime time was a two-year experiment and that it was reinventing the 9 o’clock hour of network TV, top executives for NBC admitted today that the experiment was over.

Barnhart’s latter piece has a much more formal, “traditional” tone than his glowing blog post, but putting “revolutionary” in quotes there suggests a touch of snark.

Additional reporting for this post was brilliantly provided by Glenn Davis.

With Art Of The Trench, Scott Schuman of Satorialist fame has teamed up with Facebook to create a social networking fashion blog bizzarely centered solely around the Burberry trench coat. The site features a colorful grid of photos of street walkers – all non-generic, beautiful and photogenic - sporting the renowned and timeless trench. Many of them have tattoos, some are riding their bikes, and others have scarlet red hair. When you click on one of them, their snapshot becomes enlarged and the Facebook influence becomes clear – you can “like” or “leave a comment” and “share” the image. You can even sort the images by popularity, or weather!

The site has media and fashion junkies (and even the Financial Times!) buzzing. And we’re not surprised – the interface is pretty flawless, and the design itself is attractive. But as timeless as the Burberry trench is (and as good looking as these supposed non-models are), will the new site actually affect sales, as NYT Fashion speculated in its tweet yesterday?

The full New York Times article, which appeared in the Global Business section, reported yesterday:

“Those raincoats, a 95-year-old fashion icon, remain Burberry’s best-selling item, and Ms. Ahrendts — who now runs the company — is hoping to move the quintessentially British brand into the age of the Internet to attract a new generation of shoppers.”

We don’t doubt that Art Of The Trench will be bookmarked and thrown in our fashion blogs folder, among the likes of The Sartorialist and Garance Doré, but will we ever revisit it? However iconic, the revolving of a website – a social networking one no less – around a singular piece of clothing is a risky move. While it has caused a sudden buzz from a wide array of media outlets, Art of the Trench just doesn’t have the repeat user pull that it needs to be a sustainable campaign. Unless of course, this is just one part of a grander plan. Perhaps the site will expand in a LookBook-ish type way. But to maintain the hold on the web attention they’ve managed to attain so quickly, Burberry will have to deviate from only focusing on the trench. Which was sort of the site’s manifesto to begin with. It’s a Catch-22 that’s relevant in a day and age where anyone can start a blog or create a website on a whim.

There’s no doubt that the trench will stick around, but only time will tell if the Art of it will.

GE, which currently owns 80 percent of NBC Universal, would keep the other 49 percent and contribute about $12 billion in debt to the new entity, according to the paper. The paper added that GE is likely to eventually sell its ownership interest in NBC Universal over several years.

Michael J. de la Merced and Andrew Ross Sorkin reported for the NY Times:

General Electric and the cable giant Comcast have moved closer to a deal giving control of NBC Universal to Comcast, and a formal announcement could be made sometime next week, people briefed on the talks said Sunday.

After a series of meetings last week, the two companies reached a tentative agreement on Friday over the main points of a deal, these people said. Comcast would own about 51 percent of NBC Universal, contributing several billions of dollars in cash and its own stable of cable networks to the new venture.

G.E., which currently owns 80 percent of the entertainment company, would retain the other 49 percent and would contribute about $12 billion in debt to the new entity, though it is expected eventually to sell its ownership interest over several years.

Talks with Vivendi SA, which has to agree to sell its 20 percent stake in NBC Universal, for the deal to happen, are centered around reaching an acceptable valuation of the entertainment company, the people told the paper.

Nieman Labs introduces the video and text of the speech with the following intro:

It’s not an earth-shattering speech, but it’s a peek at a large organization that, like its competitors, is trying to best integrate its print and digital operations. Keller describes prioritizing the web at the Times as “our Manhattan Project.”

Video of the meeting, which Warren declared “off the record,” was posted on an internal Times server and provided to us. Here’s a transcript of Keller’s remarks:

In truth, the headlines from his speech are few and far between, though Gawker pointed out the nifty revelation that NY Times was working with Apple on their much ballyhooed and game-changing “Tablet” device that might save/ruin the publishing industry as we currently know it.

Bill Keller speaks to the digital group at The New York Times from Nieman Journalism Lab on Vimeo.

If you missed it, here’s the ad:

It’s annoying because it makes an empty, stupid argument. Pennies add up. Genius, you saw Superman 3.

My knee-jerk response to the chilly mom’s declaration that “Pennies add up when you’re trying to feed a family,” was “Well, don’t feed your family crap, then.” The heart of this issue is that (non-diet) sodas and “juice drinks” are really, really bad for us, and a tax would rein in consumption while funding health care programs.

So, what the frak is a “juice drink?” For purposes of this kind of tax, it’s any beverage that contains added high fructose corn syrup, and less than 70% fruit juice. The ad makes it sound like congress is attacking all fruity goodness.

The New York Times gives the issue the famously useless “balanced” treatment by presenting, equally, both the New England Journal of Medicine’s finding that HFCS drinks contribute greatly to obesity and related illnesses, plus the American Beverage Association’s finding that “all calories count.” Who can say which is true?

The tax proposed is a 1-cent-per-ounce levy on the targeted drinks, with the goal of reducing consumption and funding health care programs.

So far, I’m sold. I love the refreshing 1 calorie goodness of Pepsi One, and my 4 year-old makes up for his narrow diet by drinking loads of V8 Fusion. The tax also excludes milk, water, and lots of other healthier alternatives. Why doesn’t commercial mommy love her family that much?

The problem is, V8 Fusion, for example, costs $4.39 for a 2 quart bottle that lasts 2 or 3 days. $4.39 will buy you a kiddie-pool full of juice “drink.” Just ask Dave Chappelle about that difference.

So, while this tax removes the option of serving your kids cheap crap, it does nothing to help them afford good, healthy alternatives. If you grant that the government should be doing something about this, maybe they should also create incentives for real juice and dairy producers to make their products more affordable. That would go a long way toward bolstering their motives beyond raising money to plug budget holes by saying “Eff the fatties!”

The new-look news website, dubbed Fast Flip, will pull in content from more than 40 publishers and aims to make reading articles online a more “engaging” experience, said Google.

The Telegraph reports:

Revenue generated from the adverts served alongside the article will be split between Google and the relevant publisher, with content providers taking the “majority” of the revenue, according to a Google spokesman.

Josh Cohen, a business product manager at Google, said that Fast Flip, which will be available as a test service from the Google Labs section of the search giant’s website, will aggregate content from dozens of US websites, newspapers and magazines that have opted in to the service, including the New York Times, the Washington Post and Newsweek.

Users can either browse through articles based on the most recent, most viewed or most recommended stories, or search for articles by topic or keyword. Clicking on an article takes the user directly through to that publisher’s website. Fast Flip will also be available on Apple’s iPhone and handsets running the Google Android operating system, enabling users to continue reading features, opinion pieces and news stories while on the move.

A preview of the service can be viewed at Google Labs “Fast Flip” Section.

While the NY Times is not the first website to be afflicted by a virus-spreading advertisement, AllThingsDigital’s Peter Kafka says that one “generally have to travel farther down the Internet publishing food chain to find these kind of bogus ads–go hunting for porn and/or illegal downloads, for instance, and you’ll find plenty of this stuff.”

He goes on to :

But Web advertising is still a wild and woolly place, and this type of thing still plagues high-end publishers too. Sometimes it’s the fault of ad networks the publishers use to move their unsold inventory; sometimes the bogus ads are bought directly from the publishers themselves.

I’ve asked both the Times PR staff and ad tech team for additional information about the ads, but haven’t heard back yet. Still, you have to give the paper credit for flagging this on their front page at all.

Apart from the original note the NY Times has released no more information about the potential computer attacks that appear to be coming from their website.

The New York Times appears to bury their editorial at the bottom of the page, which starts: “The horrors of Sept. 11, 2001, are still vivid for many Americans, especially the families of the victims. So it is tragic that on this Sept. 11, when family members, politicians and visitors go to the ceremonies at ground zero, they will be gathering at an unfinished place.” However, the NY Times home page promotes the moving slideshow “Showcase: The World, as of 9/10/01,” a collection of images from the World Trade Center as it existed the day before the tragic events of 9/11.

Apart from a Charles Krauthammer Op-Ed titled “Van Jones, 9/11 Truther,” The Washington Post opinion page appears to be 9/11 free. However, the front page story is “For Students, 9/11 a Lesson, Not a Memory,” which is about high schools deal with the challenge of teaching events that are too recent for the history books to a generation that’s too young to recall them.

The Wall Street Journal saves their coverage for Peggy Noonan, who offers a piece somewhat similar to the WaPo article “The Children of 9/11 Grow Up,” which opens: “It is eight years since 9/11, and here is an unexpected stage of grief: fear that the ache will go away. I don’t suppose it ever will, but grieving has gradations, and “horror” becomes “absorbed sadness.” Life moves on, and wants to move on, which is painful for those who will not forget and cannot be comforted.”

Shockingly, the New York Post did NOT put a 9/11 image on the cover, focusing on the NFL and the missing Yale bride instead. But they do have an opinion piece that leads with, “Eight years ago today, Islamic radicals carried out the worst attack ever on US soil, igniting a full-bore war on terror. But America’s willingness to keep up that fight faces a huge test. At Ground Zero, the now-annual ritual will be conducted: Moments of silence will be observed, and a list of the names of those who died will be read.” Otherwise, the NY Post (proudly?) treats this as a local story, championing how “victims’ families will take their first steps on the long-awaited Memorial Plaza at the World Trade Center — a move that planners hope will allay fears that the project won’t be done by the 10th anniversary.”

Finally, America’s Paper USA Today has 9/11 as their lead story, but goes against the grain with “For Flight 93 memorial, long-awaited progress,” which focuses on the bureaucratic malaise that has held up the development of the Pennsylvania 9/11 Memorial. They also offer a brief opinion piece that stresses the need for justice, titled “9/11’s unfinished business.” Here’s how it ends: “Yet amid all the success in weakening the al-Qaeda network, vulnerabilities remain, and one gaping piece of unfinished business stands out. Osama bin Laden and his partner, Ayman al-Zawahri, remain at large.”

Given that local newspapers are bleeding red ink and fighting for survival, the market appears to be a prime target for national outlets. The NY Times reports:

Over the last few years, newspapers around the country, bleeding circulation and advertising, have sharply reduced their news staffs and the amount of original content they offer, typically cutting back on national, foreign, business and arts news while trying to preserve local coverage. That may create an opening for national papers to exploit, with a marketing campaign to attract new subscribers for a regional edition, and regional advertisers who would not be interested in a nationwide buy.

Both The Journal and The Times seem to be betting that the Bay Area is the place to try first. Its biggest newspapers, The San Francisco Chronicle and The San Jose Mercury News, have suffered through some of the sharpest downsizing in the industry, and a very high percentage of the region’s residents moved from elsewhere, which usually means less attachment to the local paper.

Gossip Cop reports:

The “Highway 61 Revisted” singer told listeners that he had spoken with auto manufacturers, and that he would warble directions like, “Left at the next street. No, right. You know what? Just go straight.” Dylan then said, “I probably shouldn’t do it because whichever way I go, I always end up at one place – on Lonely Avenue.”

First, listen to the actual audio. It sure sounds to Gossip Cop like the “Jokerman” singer is, well, joking, as he routinely does on his show.

Second, the clip that news agencies clamored over is actually old news – from December 2008. The “recent broadcast” that sparked the GPS gossip was just a repeat.

This wouldn’t be the first time that reputable sources published something that, upon further review, didn’t pass the sniff test, nor will it be the last. But its somewhat shocking that a simple listen of the audio clip clearly reveals that Dylan was being facetious. Perhaps all the senior edit staffers that catch these sorts of things are all at the beach.