Trump's Twitter Tirades

President Donald Trump's latest vicious personal attacks on Twitter are abusive, demeaning and shameful.  Yet the president and many of his supporters approve of his tactics, saying that he is just fighting back against the daily barrage of "fake media" attacks.  The president hopes to discredit his media critics with schoolyard taunts and mudslinging because he believes it will appeal to his most ardent supporters.   

The president has focused his latest assault of insults on MSNBC anchors Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, the hosts of the weekday program "Morning Joe."  Saturday he tweeted, "Crazy Joe Scarborough and dumb as a rock Mika are not bad people, but their low rated show is dominated by their bosses.  Too bad!"   Scarborough is a former Republican Congressman and Brzezinski is an experienced news anchor who is the daughter of the late Zbigniew Brzezinski, a highly respected foreign policy expert and American diplomat.  "Morning Joe" is the second highest rated cable news program in the morning, drawing nearly one million daily viewers. 

The conflict with Scarborough and Brzezinski has been intensifying since Trump took office.   The anchors have been increasingly vocal about Trump's lies and many of his actions as president.   Last week The Washington Post revealed that a fake Time Magazine cover showing Trump was hanging in the bar of his Doral Golf Resort in Florida.  The cover displayed a large headline: "Donald Trump: The 'Apprentice" is a television smash."  That cover has since been removed.

Brzezinski and Scarborough talked about the phony cover last week on their program.   Trump pounced with a series of morning tweets Thursday.  "I heard poorly rated @Morning_Joe speaks badly of me (don't watch anymore). The how come low I.Q. Crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came," he began with his first tweet.  He continued with a second tweet, "...to Mar-a-Lago 3 nights in a row around New Year's Eve, and insisted on joining me.  She was bleeding badly from a face-lift.  I said no!"

These tweets shook Washington as even many frustrated Republicans described them as inappropriate.  Scarborough and Brzezinski, who recently got engaged, delayed their scheduled vacation to respond to Trump Friday morning.  Both anchors denied Trump's account of what happened New Year's Eve, saying it was Trump who asked them to come by.  Then Scarborough revealed that the White House had asked him to seek forgiveness of the president for his critical coverage or The National Enquirer would publish an article revealing his then secret relationship with Brzezinski. The publisher of The National Enquirer is David Pecker, a close friend of the president.   Trump soon responded on Twitter to their appearance.  "Watched low rated @Morning_Joe for the first time in a long time.  FAKE NEWS.  He called me to stop a National Enquirer article.  I said no!  Bad show," Trump wrote.  

Sadly Trump's outrageous behavior is sexist and it is just the latest in a series of misogynistic attacks he has leveled against women over the years.  Last August in a debate Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly confronted Trump.   "You've called women you don't like 'fat pigs,' 'dogs,' 'slobs' and disgusting animals," she noted.  Trump interrupted, "Only Rosie O'Donnell."   "Look at that face," he said last year of his then opponent Carly Fiorina.  "Would anyone vote for that?  Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?"   Early last year his tweeted an unflattering picture of Senator Ted Cruz's wife next to one of Melania Trump, adding "a picture s worth a thousand words."  

When he feels cornered or he is getting criticized, Trump's default position is to get mean.  There are no limits to his impulsive strikes.  This is the way he has operated throughout his life.  Businessmen who have dealt with him describe what they call Trump's "punch-hug."  In intense negotiations he has yelled, used personal insults and foul language, only to later come back with a hug, as if to say "Come on, don't you see it my way?"    White House press spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters Thursday, "I don't think you can expect someone to be personally attacked day after day, minute by minute and sit back," she said.  "The American people elected a fighter, they didn't elect somebody to sit back and do nothing."  

But Americans don't want Trump to tweet.   Before his most recent spat with Brzezinski, Fox News released a poll showing just 13 percent of Americans approve of Trump's tweeting, while 46 percent disapproved.  A slim majority of those polled said they consider the president's online posts as official statements.   

The Trump White House has struggled to accomplish its agenda.   Its efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare have failed.  Its efforts for tax reform have been stalled, and its controversial immigration ban has struggled in the courts.  Meanwhile, the president has insulted allies, demeaned NATO, and he has failed to stop North Korea's nuclear program.   He is described as furious about the ongoing investigations into the role Russia played in the American elections, and whether members of the Trump campaign colluded in that effort.  He has frequently used Twitter to attack the investigations and those conducting them.  

It will be interesting to see how Trump handles Russian President Vladimir Putin when they meet next week for the first time since he took office.  Will he even bring up the Russian interference?   Will he use his punch-hug technique on Putin to insist he end Russian meddling in America's elections, to withdraw from Crimea and Ukraine, and that he end his support for Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad?   

It is probably more likely he will ask Putin what steps he would suggest to control the American press.   Then after the meeting he will tweet, "Vlad and I had a GREAT meeting! We are going to work together to make America GREAT again!"

Senator Paul on the Attack

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the overwhelming front-runner to be her party's standard-bearer in the 2016 Presidential Election, and the Republicans know it.  Even though she has not announced her intentions, Republicans are already taking political shots at her.  But their personal attacks are shrill and feeble, and reveal a party without a vision for the country.

A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll shows former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with a commanding lead among likely Democratic presidential candidates.  The former First Lady has been in the national spotlight for more than two decades.  In that time she has been a formidable political presence on the national stage, and has displayed tremendous energy and resilience.  Secretary Clinton enjoys great affection and respect from her loyalists, and endures immense disdain from her detractors.   While she is a polarizing figure, her overall personal favorability ratings are very high.  And her great political skills will make her a strong presidential candidate, should she decide to run.

Republicans fear a Clinton candidacy, in part because they do not have a clear front-runner for their party's nomination.  And nearly half the Americans polled in a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll have an unfavorable view of the Republican Party.  Nonetheless, potential GOP candidates are already jockeying for position in the nomination race.

None has been more outspoken than Tea Party favorite Senator Rand Paul (R-KY).  And Senator Rand Paul has focused his most recent attacks on Secretary Clinton.  Paul pushed back on the charges that Republicans are engaged in a "war on women." "The Democrats can't say, 'We're the great defenders of women's rights in the workplace'...when the leader of their party, the leading fundraiser in the country, is Bill Clinton, who was a perpetrator of that kind of sexual harassment," Paul told C-Span, referring to the Monica Lewinsky affair.  He continued, "Someone who takes advantage of a young girl in their office?  I mean, really.  And then have the gall to stand up and say, 'Republicans are having a war on women?'"  He concluded, "Now, that's not Hillary's fault...but it is a factor in judging Bill Clinton is history."

Senator Paul's comments got a lot of attention, no doubt as he had hoped.  It was clearly an effort to dredge up old headlines about the Clinton-era dramas in the White House.   His attack received support from GOP party boss Reince Priebus, who told MSNBC that "everything is on the table."  Priebus explained, "I think we're going to have a truckload of opposition research on Hillary Clinton, and some things may be old, and some things may be new.  But I think everything is at stake when you're talking about the leader of the free world."

Priebus is the man who commissioned an autopsy of the Republican failure to win the White House in 2012.  In announcing the results last year, he said, "The way we communicate our principles isn't resonating widely enough...focus groups described our party as 'narrow-minded,' 'out of touch,' and 'stuffy old men.'"  Well, Mr. Priebus?

But not all Republicans think that Senator Paul's approach is the way to win the White House.  Republican strategist Karl Rove told Fox News, "This can't be 'I want to run for president'-It's got to be about something bigger than that, and frankly Rand Paul spending a lot of time talking about the mistakes of Bill Clinton does not look like a big agenda for the country."  He added, "I'm not certain again that beating up on Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky is a particularly good thing to strengthen your skills for the 2016 contest."

Former Republican congressman and current MSNBC television host Joe Scarborough told his audience he'd “never bring that stuff up in a gazillion years.”  But he did pivot, saying that if Secretary Clinton attacks Republicans as anti-women it's fair game.  “Does this not compromise Hillary Clinton’s ability to bash Republicans as being terrible towards women," he said.

Perhaps that is the ultimate Republican strategy.  But it risks energizing Clinton supporters, alienating independent and women voters, and reinforcing the negative perceptions of the party as "out of touch." 

Fix the Glitches

The government shutdown was a misguided and senseless tactic that cost American taxpayers at least $24 billion and damaged the Republican brand.  But the error-plagued rollout of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, has given the GOP a way to change the conversation.

Senator Ted Cruz's reckless strategy to defund Obamacare was never going to succeed.  But he knew that.  However, the ambitious Cruz saw it as tremendous opportunity to galvanize Tea Party members behind his leadership.   And, while moderate Republicans call his maneuvers a "fool's errand," there is no question Cruz has now won the loyal support of many on the right.

Yet many Republicans are shaking their heads in frustration because the Cruz shutdown has taken attention away from Obamacare's problems.  "The fiasco of rollout has been obscured because of this internecine strife that's been going on in the Republican Party," Senator John McCain (R-AZ) said Sunday on CNN.  "Keep up the fight against Obamacare, but don't shut down the government and have so much collateral damage to innocent Americans."

However, out of the GOP wreckage will quickly emerge an all out attack against the problem-plagued launch of Obamacare.  On CBS's Face the Nation Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called Obamacare,  "The worst piece of legislation passed in the last half century...we need to get rid of it." He claimed that even if one can get on the site, they will find fewer choices and higher costs.

Democrats recognize that the faulty rollout is an issue ripe for exploitation.   Last week on MSNBC, Former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called it, "Excruciatingly embarrassing for the White House and for the Department of Health and Human Services." On ABC's This Week, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the problems "unacceptable."  She added, "This has to be fixed, but what doesn't have to be fixed is the fact the tens of millions of more people will have access to affordable healthcare, quality healthcare.  That no longer having a preexisting medical condition will bar you from getting affordable care." 

The White House and HHS have had years to prepare for the launch of Obamacare.  All along they have said that Republicans oppose it because Americans will fall in love with it once it is available.  But now the architects of President Obama's signature legislative achievement are vulnerable to attack and relentless scrutiny from Congressional Committees.  Republicans would like nothing more than to turn Obamacare against Democrats in the 2014-midterm elections.

Already Republican Chairmen Fred Upton, of the House Energy and Commerce Committee has announced he will investigate.  "It is well past time for the administration to be straight and transparent with the American people," he said in a statement last week.  For instance, how many millions of dollars were spent to design the error plagued software?  Whose fault is it that the program has failed?

President Obama is expected to address the health care glitches on Monday.  While making health care accessible for all remains a worthy goal, and millions of people have already tried to learn more about the offerings, the problems must be quickly remedied.  If the president fails to make that happen, Obamacare may damage his ability to achieve any further legislative successes.

Mr. Obama has already stated his intention to pivot onto the difficult and complex issue of immigration reform.  He has also indicated he is interested in achieving a budget deal with Republicans that will include infrastructure, tax and entitlement reform.   But the problems with Obamacare will weaken his position.

Republicans are mindful of the words once spoken by the president's former chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

CNN: "The Newsroom"

CNN's embarrassing mistake on Thursday of declaring the U.S. Supreme Court overturned President Barack Obama's health care law was unforgivable.  The rush to be first prevailed over the need to be right for the desperate and ratings challenged CNN.  The incident was also a black eye for all television news.

The Newsroom, which premiered Sunday on HBO, was an overly dramatized attempt to decry the current state of the television news business. The program, which was filled with smart dialogue, internal conflict and self-righteousness, was a bit misleading about what happens behind the scenes at a cable news network.

Nonetheless, Aaron Sorkin should be praised for raising some important questions about television news. However, on Wednesday's CBS This Morning, Sorkin said, "News shows should be exempt from having to deliver ratings." Really? If there were no news ratings how would media companies pay their news gathering expenses?

Global news organizations, such as ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and Fox, each cost several hundred million dollars to operate per year. For example, the Fox News Channel invests around $700 million annually, surpassing CNN for the first time in 2010. CNN has about 46 news bureaus worldwide, while Fox News has fewer than 20.

The idea that network news divisions were once allowed to be money-losing operations is not really true. No matter, today there is no way media companies can cover the massive costs of operating a quality and highly competitive global news organization by allocating funds from their other divisions. And why should they since the news business is a big business?

CNN and HLN (Headline News) combined make about $600 million in annual profits. The Fox News Channel makes more than $800 million in profits per year, and MSNBC about $200 million. The cable news companies benefit from two streams of revenue, advertising dollars and subscription fees. Fox News receives slightly more than CNN in advertising revenue per thousand viewers (CPM), but enjoys a huge advantage over CNN in monthly revenue per subscriber. Broadcast news organizations, such as CBS and ABC, are most heavily reliant on just advertising dollars.

In all cases news organizations are heavily dependent on ratings. Advertisers pay to have their commercials aired on newscasts based on how many viewers their ads reach. The higher the ratings the more a network can charge for its commercials. And if there is great demand for a cable news channel the subscription fees are likely to be affected.

In a report titled "The State of the News Media 2012" released three months ago, the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism highlighted the strength of the cable news business model. "One reason for the vigor is that the business model of cable news -- in which the cable channels receive half their revenue from fees bundled into monthly cable subscriptions from customers and half from advertising -- has proved over time to be remarkably resilient," the report said, "even as other sectors of the news industry continue to search for sustainable revenue streams."

But total cable news audience growth has pretty much flattened out. The news audience is increasingly more reliant on the Internet and mobile devices for information. Facebook and Twitter are impacting news coverage. And, to reinforce one of Sorkin's points, cable news programming often devolves into mindless chatter, hackneyed talking points and senseless spin. The topics are frequently predictable, the content is repetitive and news stories are often over-hyped.

NYU professor Jay Rosen wrote last year about his frustration with CNN:

"Too often, on-air hosts for the network will let someone from one side of a dispute describe the world their way, then let the other side describe the world their way, and when the two worlds, so described, turn out to be incommensurate or even polar opposites, what happens? CNN leaves it there. Viewers are left stranded and helpless. The network appears to inform them that there is no truth, only partisan bull. Is that real journalism?"

While all three of the cable news networks are facing ratings challenges, CNN has fallen and apparently it can't get up. Fox News has cornered the truly devoted conservative viewers, while MSNBC appeals to the liberals. That leaves CNN more or less in the middle trying to be all things to everybody in order to hang on to their loyal following. They seem to have lost their identity. Their programming strategy appears ad hoc, and their day-to-day production is uneven. CNN has one star, Anderson Cooper, but he is being misused. In fact, CNN only does well in the ratings when there is breaking news, but recently Fox News has been winning this category too.

Last month Turner Broadcasting President and CEO Phil Kent described some of CNN's problems as "self inflicted." CNN reports to Kent, so it was particularly noteworthy when he said, "We haven't put the best shows on the air." That's for sure, and nothing erodes viewer loyalty more quickly than poorly produced shows.

CNN can improve their current ratings performance just by increasing its original reporting, improving its writing and story-telling, focusing on more relevant stories and helping viewers understand why they should care about the issues it highlights. It can improve ratings by pursuing impactful investigative reports, challenging talking points and spin during newsmaker interviews, replacing some of its overused contributors, doing a better job of designing and executing programs, providing better teases, intros and tags, adding extra value in every report and using some imagination. These steps will give viewers more of a reason to watch CNN for longer periods of time at a sitting, and reason to return again more frequently each week.

At the same time CNN should think about a longer-term strategy. What new approach can it take to ensure its viability in the rapidly changing media landscape over the long haul? The times they are a changing.

Aaron Sorkin is a bold creator and a brilliant storyteller who produces with swagger and purpose, and casts his productions with strong and powerful talent. CNN is a fabulous news organization with many wonderful professionals. Perhaps there is a message in The Newsroom for CNN afterall.

CNN Struggles

"The news is the star," was the driving vision of founder Ted Turner when he created CNN in 1980.  And that was especially true for a fledgling 24-hour cable news channel that had no competition.  But now that news has become largely a commodity that is available instantly and distributed on the Internet, mobile devices, cable news channels, broadcast television and radio, CNN is struggling for viewers.  

Unless there is a major news event, most people are not heavy news consumers.   Those who do regularly watch news tend to be older and very passionate about issues affecting this country.  For instance, on a typical weekday about 5 million people watch cable news at 8pm.  That means about 305 million Americans are doing something else.

Cable news ratings can go up if viewers increase the amount of minutes they watch a cable news program, or they increase the number of nights they tune in each week.  A typical CNN viewer is likely to watch a program for only a few minutes, usually at the top of each hour.  Of course, many potential CNN viewers don't even tune in if there is no major breaking news to check on. 

On the other hand, Fox News has created program franchises around well-known commentators, many of whom have had successful talk radio careers.  Fox News viewers, who are most passionate about their politics, tend to be heavy viewers.  They watch Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity for more minutes each hour, and more frequently each week than typical news consumers.  Even when there is no major news, Fox News viewers tune in because the star is the news.  To a lesser extent, MSNBC benefits from a passionate audience that tunes in to hear liberals Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell and Ed Shultz. 

However, both of these networks build interesting programs around their stars.  The content is thoughtfully shaped, and the programs are well produced, to keep the viewers engaged to the end and drive them on to the following program.  Program flow between 5pm and 11pm is very important factor.  Cable news networks like to build their viewership and deliver ever-increasing numbers to the next time slot.  Prime time is the most valuable real estate for advertisers and programmers.  That's where the real money is.

When major news breaks out, a large number of viewers still tune first to CNN.  They have a global organization that consistently provides great breaking news coverage.  But major news breaks out only a few days a year, and Fox News and MSNBC are cutting into CNN's advantage.  Adding to the rating's challenge, CNN has too frequently also shuffled talent and programs, to no avail.  CNN's cable fees and advertising revenue have held up to some extent because CNN is bundled with other Time Warner properties, but there is heavy downward pressure.  For CNN, this has been an "annus horribilis."

CNN has fallen and they can't get up.  Worse, this just in, they have hired Chef Anthony Bourdain to do a weekend show.  Huh?  And there is word that CNN will increase its international news.  Noble, but the problem is that, as important as it can be, regretfully most international news fails to attract viewers.  Of course, viewers will watch the Arab Spring, the Tiananmen Square student uprising, the Iraq War or the senseless slaughter of Syrian children for a few days.  But even loyal news viewers are more likely to watch news that directly affects them. 

When it comes to revenue, morning joins prime time as the most important time periods for cable.  Daytime and weekends are much less important.  So programmers focus resources and key personnel around these time periods. CNN has many fine journalists in their employ.  But many are miscast or not used properly. 

Soledad O'Brien now anchors the latest version of CNN's morning show.  O'Brien is a smart, experienced anchor who happens to be extremely nice.  But in her new program she has apparently been coached to be more confrontational and aggressive.  Consequently, the program is very hard to watch.  Anderson Cooper is the biggest star CNN has, but he is being mismanaged.  Cooper is a terrific journalist who is great broadcasting live from the frontlines of breaking news.  But his impact has been diluted because his CNN program is rerun an hour after its first airing.  What works best are his hard-hitting investigative pieces.   What works worst is the fact that he is anchoring poorly produced afternoon talk show that undermines what is best about Cooper.  

John King and Wolf Blitzer are both great reporters, but neither is a strong anchor.  And even they are dragged down by weak program production, a problem for most CNN programs.  Their shows fail to grab viewers at the top and drive them through the full hour.  The openings are weak, the teases are indifferent, and content is too frequently repeated.  Often any sense of urgency feels manufactured and hyped throughout, making almost anything "Breaking News." 

Experts or commentators are paired in mindless "he said-she said" debates, to quote NYU professor Jay Rosen.  Last year Rosen wrote, "But too often, on-air hosts for the network will let someone from one side of a dispute describe the world their way, then let the other side describe the world their way, and when the two worlds, so described, turn out to be incommensurate or even polar opposites, what happens?… CNN leaves it there. Viewers are left stranded and helpless. The network appears to inform them that there is no truth, only partisan bull. Is that real journalism?" 

These might be some of the problems that Turner Broadcasting President and CEO Phil Kent recently called, "self inflicted."  Last month he admitted, "We haven't put the best shows on the air."  That's for sure, and nothing erodes viewer loyalty more quickly than consistently poor shows.  No matter, given CNN's mission to play the news right down the middle, it will be impossible for them to catch up with Fox News whatever steps they take.    But CNN can regain some of its viewers with more original reporting, better writing and story-telling, more relevant stories, faster pacing, impactful investigative reports, interviews that challenge talking points and spin, commentators that add value, better written teases, intros, tags—in other words, give the viewer a reason to be engaged.   And do all this while fully leveraging social media and the many platforms of Turner and Time Warner.

Clearly, CNN is about to make a management change—probably after the November elections.  But it should immediately improve the quality of its day-to-day production, and honestly evaluate its programming strategy, anchors and other key talent around a clear mission statement and purpose.  

It won't be easy, but remember thirty years ago it wasn't easy for Ted Turner and his pioneering CNN team.   

Limbaugh's Disgrace

Rush Limbaugh is a national disgrace. He is a blowhard and a bully who earns an enormous amount of money by fanning the flames of hatred and divisiveness in this country.

The tragedy is that several million people listen to his program and actually believe he is an intelligent, responsible and caring person. Even more outrageous is the fact that he has most Republicans so cowed that they are unwilling to speak out against him when he says something disgusting and maliciously hateful.

On Wednesday, Rush Limbaugh decided to take on a college student, someone's daughter, for supporting a requirement that health insurance cover contraception. He called Sandra Fluke, a 23 year-old Georgetown law student, a "slut" on his radio broadcast. On Thursday Limbaugh continued his attack.  "A Georgetown coed told (Congresswoman) Nancy Pelosi's hearing that the women in her law school program are having so much sex they're going broke.  So you and I should have to pay for their birth control. So what would you call that?  I called it what it is," he harrumphed.  "So I am offering as compromise today: I will buy all of the women at Georgetown University as much aspirin to put between their knees as they want." 

The "aspirin between their knees" was obviously Limbaugh's tribute to Santorum supporter Foster Friess who left MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell stunned when he outrageously made the suggestion as an alternative to contraception on her program last week. But Limbaugh was not done with his tirade.  "So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. We want you post the videos online so we can all watch."

 Later on Thursday 75 members of Congress sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner expressing their anger at Limbaugh's remarks and calling for Republican leaders to speak out.  But the Republican Party appears to have a tin ear when it comes to women's health issues, especially contraception. 

Leading Republican candidates are against having the federal government require employers to provide access to certain health care coverage including contraception.  An attempt by Republicans to pass such an amendment in the Senate on Thursday was defeated.  The Republicans are trying to spin this an issue of the federal government trying to interfere with religious freedom and the Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church has forbidden the use of contraceptives for 50 years.  However, most Democrats say the underlying issue is giving women access to the health care they need.

Now this debate has become central in the Republican presidential primary.  Candidates Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney (after a brief flip-flop) supported the Republican amendment that went down to defeat.  And Santorum, a Catholic, has been very clear about his view on contraception.  "One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country," he has said.  "Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that's okay, contraception is okay. It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." 

  

But it appears that Santorum has staked out a position on contraception at odds with most women.    99% of all American women, and 98% of all Catholic women in the United States, have used contraception at some point in their lives according to published statistics.  For most of them it is a health issue. 

However, don't try telling that to Rush Limbaugh.  He is having too much fun harshly attacking a young lady for speaking her heartfelt opinion about an issue of concern to all women.   But how can his advertisers support his debasing rants? This world would be so much better off if Limbaugh put two aspirin between his lips and he kept them there!

Keith Olbermann Suspension

The fact that Keith Olbermann is a progressive liberal Democrat should come as no surprise to American news viewers. Nonetheless, NBC News policy, which also applies to MSNBC, clearly says that donating money to any candidate is a violation, as, "these activities jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a conflict of interest.”

Olbermann's political contributions reflect badly on all of NBC News. Therefore, his suspension without pay is necessary. It sends an important message to the public, as well as to the entire NBC News organization that they must adhere strictly to the organization's news standards. It also underscores that Olbermann’s violations were the act of one man and not representative of NBC News, NBC Nightly News or the Today Show.

It is paramount that each news organization avoids even the appearance of a conflict of interest when reporting the news. If a story presentation is unfair, without all sides of the argument, or takes a political point of view, viewers may no longer trust the news organization. A news division's credibility is its bond with the audience.

Most major news organizations have a book of "standards and practices" that is distributed to each employee. It is more of a bible than a handbook. It covers conflict of interest, staging, production standards, use of anonymous sources or third party material, investigative reporting and other important questions. Most organizations require that their employees read the book, and many, like NBC News, hold regular seminars to maintain awareness.

However, in an era of dueling 24–hour news channels, objectivity is often tested and frequently blurred. Opinions and political punditry have become a primary source of content for cable news channels. It is less expensive than covering news stories around the world, and it attracts viewers who are heavy news consumers.

Is there any question where Fox News comes from politically? The daily denunciations of President Barack Obama and Democrats are on overdrive. For Fox News two sides of the story may be “he’s incompetent” versus “he’s totally incompetent.” Not to mention that Fox News’ parent company, the Rupert Murdoch led News Corp, donated millions to Republicans this last election.

But MSNBC has found success appealing to progressive and Democratic viewers. Its anchors frequently go into temper tantrums over Republican tactics and Tea Party candidates. At times it gets downright mean, with regular vicious personal attacks on people like former President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. “Idiot,” “clown” and “fool” are adjectives that are frequently heard during “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.” Of course, the word “civility” seldom appears in news standards books.

Most “news” organizations work hard to be fair and preserve balance in their reporting. Yet truth is often in the eye of the beholder. And even the most respected news organizations will come under attack for bias, especially if a candidate or cause can gain favor with his or her base. “The lame-stream media” is one of Sara Palin’s favorite talking points. And Delaware GOP candidate Christine O’Donnell blames the media for her downfall. These are volatile times.

As for Olbermann, he has worked for news organizations most of his professional career. He knows the rules. He knows campaign contributions are disclosed. One can only conclude that his political donations were a selfish and arrogant act. Perhaps during his self-inflicted "time out" Olbermann should reflect on the words of James Thurber, "We all have faults, and mine is being wicked."

Dysfunctional Democrats

Congress is fleeing Washington for their local districts to campaign for the upcoming Midterm elections. But an overwhelming majority of Americans are not likely to vote November 2, despite the fact that the outcome will have serious consequences for them.

Republicans are counting on the Tea Party movement to put them over the top in many key races. They are embracing so-called Tea Party candidates who believe evolution is a myth, float "second amendment remedies" to win back government and talk of repealing the Civil Rights Amendment. "The political class is really dysfunctional," former Florida Governor Jeb Bush observed in an interview on MSNBC. Well governor, if Democratic voters sit out this Midterm election, the young, Hispanic, African American and blue-collar workers, you haven't see anything yet!

Should Republicans gain control of one or both houses of Congress they will set about to dismantle President Obama and all of his legislative achievements. They will work to unwind regulatory reform and oversight so that Wall Street firms and the banking industry can return to their profitable practices of the past.

Republicans will immediately attempt to repeal the historic Affordable Care Act and bring and end to health care reform. That means insurance companies will again be able to set lifetime caps, will be able to deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions, and will be able to bar parents from keeping their children on their health care policy until they are 26. That also means that more than 30 million uninsured Americans will have no health care coverage, other than the local emergency room. And it means that health care costs will continue to skyrocket for all Americans.

Republicans will bring a halt to stimulus spending, much of which went to help states keep teachers, policemen and firemen employed. And Republicans will attempt to make major cuts in education spending, just at a time when America's students are falling behind many of those in other countries.

How will Republicans turn the American economy around? Start with extending all of the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of the year. Doing so will add $4 Trillion to the US deficit over the next decade. President Obama proposed not extending the tax break for the wealthiest 3% of Americans, families with more than $250,000 in income, which Republicans opposed even though it would have saved $750 Billion over the decade. Yet the GOP continues to blame Democrats for the deficit. Meanwhile, Republicans have proposed building an expensive missile defense system which would set off another costly arms race with the Russians.

Republicans will roll back more than just banking reform. They will work to overturn government supported environmental regulations and initiatives, as well as efforts to develop alternative fuels. Instead, it will be "drill baby drill." They will also seek to restrict or overturn social reforms, including such controversial issues as immigration, civil rights, "don't ask-don't tell" and Roe vs. Wade. And many Republicans are on record for privatizing Social Security and altering Medicaid and Medicare.

If that is not enough incentive for Democratic voters, GOP control of the House will lead to several expensive committee investigations into a whole range of issues. For instance, whether President Obama was actually born in America, whether the 14th Amendment should be repealed and whether Congressman Joe Sestak was offered a job to stay out of the Pennsylvania senate race.

For sure, President Obama has made some mistakes. But he has also had several meaningful legislative victories. Some in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party are unhappy that President Obama's reform measures did not go further, so they have threatened to sit out the Midterms. This spurred Vice President Joe Biden to ill advisedly call them "whiners." But if these dysfunctional Democrats fail to vote this Midterm, they will only have themselves to blame for the chaos that will ensue to the detriment of the American people.