Hillary Clinton Stumbles

Democrats may be getting a little anxious.  Hillary Clinton is stumbling into the starting gate.  Since she became the prohibitive favorite for her party's nomination she has made some mistakes.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has yet to explain why she used a personal email account during her entire tenure at State (2009-2013) instead of using an official government email account.  On the face of it, this makes no sense and calls in to question her judgment.   Putting aside whether she complied with regulations, a private email server does not have the same level of security against hacking that a government managed server does.  

The Russians, Chinese and Iranians very likely could have gotten access to Secretary Clinton's email traffic.  And there was plenty of traffic, especially considering the 55,000 pages of emails she turned over to the State Department are only a portion of those she wrote while in office.  

While Clinton has not talked about the controversy, her aides are fighting back by attacking the media.  Her supporters also point out that she complied with the regulations (maybe), and that former Secretary of State Colin Powell also used a private email account.  But that was five years earlier, when the State Department system wasn't as robust.  

Leading Democrats are pressing for an explanation.  Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-CA, said on NBC's Meet the Press, "From this point on...the silence is going to hurt her...She is the leading candidate, whether it be Republican or Democrat, to be the next president."  Republicans have seized the issue with gusto.   Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-SC, is chairman for the House Select Committee on Benghazi.  He told CBS's Face the Nation, his committee doesn't have all of Clinton's emails.  "It's not up to Secretary Clinton to decide what is a public record and what is not," he said, adding: "I don't want everything. I just want everything related to Libya and Benghazi."

President Barack Obama, in an interview about the 50th anniversary of the historic march in Selma, Alabama, had to address the subject in an interview with CBS News.  He said the policy of his administration was to encourage transparency.  “My emails, the Blackberry I carry around, all those records are available and archived,” Mr. Obama said. “I’m glad that Hillary’s instructed that those emails about official business need to be disclosed.”  President Obama was referring to a post on Twitter by Clinton Wednesday night in which she wrote, “I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible."   Really, that's it?  How long will it take for State to sift through 55,000 pages of email?  

Secretary Clinton's email-capade has opened up speculation as to her motive.  The conservative National Journal reasons, "its greatest relevancy is what the emails might reveal about any nexus between Clinton's work at State and donations to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation from U.S. corporations and foreign nations."  Did the ultimate power couple leverage their positions of power for donations?  Even Saturday Night Live got into the act.  Cast member Kate McKinnon, doing an impression of Clinton, said, "Those emails are clean as a whistle. This is not how Hillary Clinton goes down." 


Senator Chuck Schumer found himself defending Secretary Clinton on CBS's Face the Nation.  "The bottom line is she's a national figure, a potential presidential candidate. People are going to shoot at her," he said calling it a “slight bump in the road six months from now.”  

Hillary Clinton is rumored to be putting her campaign team together, and she may announce her intention to run for president sooner rather than later.  However, her handling of the controversy over her use of private emails while at the State Department has exposed one of her great weaknesses: transparency.  This may well be her Achilles heel.

The 2014 Midterm Elections

With less than 10 weeks to go before the midterm Congressional elections Americans in general are frustrated with Washington.  National polls show that about three quarters of all Americans disapprove of the way Congress is doing its job.  By comparison, about half of those Americans polled disapprove of President Barack Obama's handling of his job. 

Sunday's New York Post reported that 163 laws have been passed and signed by the president since this two-year term of Congress began in January 2013.  That is far lower than the 284 laws that were passed by the 2011-2013 session, which is an all time record for fewest bills passed.  Congress passed 386 laws during the 2009-2011 session.   Former Representative Lee Hamilton (R-IN) told the Post, "I've never seen it any worse in terms of public esteem for the Congress.  I can't find anybody who says a good word about it."

Despite Congress's lack of productivity, and as outrageous as it may seem, it appears that most incumbents will be reelected in November.   Conventional wisdom is that while most Americans want to get rid of Congress, they nonetheless support their own representative.  This is especially true during midterm elections because voter turnout is often very low, which gives incumbents an advantage.  But both parties are leaving nothing to chance, as a record amount of campaign dollars will be poured into this election, surpassing the $3.6 billion spent in 2010.   

Republicans currently hold a majority of the seats in the House of Representatives, 233-199; there are three vacant seats.  The GOP expects to expand its majority in the House.  Meanwhile, Democrats currently hold a majority in the Senate.  But of the 36 Senate seats in play, 21 of them held by Democrats, while 15 are held by Republicans.  If the GOP picks up six Senate seats this midterm they will be in the majority in both houses of Congress.  Most experts, including Nate Silver, of the election site FiveThirtyEight, give Republicans a slight edge to take those seats and become the majority party in the Senate.  

The Republicans are targeting the seven Democratic seats that are up in states where Mitt Romney beat President Obama in the 2012 presidential election.  They are also going after four additional Democratic seats in states where the president remains unpopular.  Republicans will do all they can to make this election about President Obama's unpopularity. 

Domestically the president has been attacked for executive actions he has taken to bypass the blockade that Congress has become.  For example, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), who himself has presidential aspirations, has regularly attacked the president, telling Fox News "He believes somehow that he's become a monarch or an emperor that can basically ignore the law and do whatever he wants."  On the other hand, Republicans have attacked President Obama for being disengaged and "leading from behind" on foreign policy.  The president's recent comment the he does not have a strategy on dealing with ISIS in Syria was seized upon by Republicans.  Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), said on CBS Sunday,  "What I want to hear from the president is that he has a strategy to finish ISIS off, to defeat ISIS."

Congressional and Senate Democratic candidates have tried to localize their elections, but Republicans are focusing on President Obama in an effort to energize their base.  So Democrats are trying to mobilize minority voters,  especially African-Americans, who generally don't vote in midterms.  Party activists are using the shooting in Ferguson, Mo., and conservative calls to impeach the president, to mobilize Blacks.  An increase in the number of Southern Blacks helped Democrats during the 1998 midterm election, when President Bill Clinton was under heavy fire from the right.

Ironically, the one Republican Senator who is in the toughest fight to be reelected is the man who has the most to gain if Republicans win majority control.  Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky), the Senate minority leader, has done all he can to obstruct and block the agenda of President Obama since the day he was sworn in to office in 2009.  McConnell is facing a vigorous challenge from Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes.  McConnell is not popular in Kentucky, but a recent state poll shows he has the edge.  Lundergan Grimes is making McConnell's failings in Congress the issue.  But McConnell is tying his opponent to President Obama.  

Should Republicans take control of both houses the legislative process will grind to a halt.  Anything the Republicans pass, like efforts to defund Obamacare, will be vetoed by the president.  Meanwhile, congressional investigations into the so-called scandals surrounding the IRS and Benghazi will intensify.  The partisan divide will widen as Republicans try to score points before the 2016 Presidential Elections.   

Because so much is at stake, this coming election day is not a time for eligible voters to stay home.

Broadcasters Prevail

In a major win for broadcasters the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Aereo, a streaming service that provides access to programs at about the same time as they are broadcast, violates the Copyright Act of 1976.  The decision is a huge blow for Aereo, which may go out of business.  

Aereo offers subscribers broadcast television programming over the Internet for a monthly fee of $8 to $12 a month.  Its system is made up of servers and thousands of dime-sized antennas stored in a central warehouse.  Aereo's technology makes a copy of a program into a subscriber's file, then makes it possible for only that subscriber to view the program on their computer, tablet or smartphone, seconds after the broadcast begins airing.  

Aereo neither owns the copyright to the program, nor a license to rebroadcast the program.  But it argued that it is not transmitting the program, rather the subscriber is transmitting the program.  The Court's opinion, written by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, said, "We do not see how the fact that Aereo transmits via personal copies of programs could make a difference.  The Act applies to transmissions by means of any device or process."  Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito were in the minority.

Aereo launched in 2012 in its first market, New York.  Broadcasters, acting on behalf of their local New York City television stations, filed suit two weeks after the service was announced.  A federal judge ruled in Aereo's favor four months later.  Then in early 2013, a federal appeals court upheld the lower court's ruling.  Subsequently, the broadcasters petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case. In oral arguments last April the Deputy Solicitor General argued against Aereo on behalf of the government. 

Broadcast networks retransmit their programs over stations throughout the country.  They derive part of their revenue from commercials.  But cable companies pay broadcasters about $3 billion for the right to carry broadcast programming over their systems.  Aereo argued that it is not like a cable company because it is renting out antennas and cloud storage to subscribers.  Had Aereo's argument been upheld it could have undermined the current broadcast economic model.  Then the broadcasters would likely have turned to Congress for help.

Both Aereo's CEO Chet Kanjojia and investor Barry Diller, a prominent media figure, have said in the past that the service would be shut down if they lost in the Supreme Court.  A CBS Spokesperson reacted to the ruling with a statement, saying, “We are pleased with today’s decision, which is great news for content creators and their audiences.”  Nonetheless, the Court's deliberations underscore the continuing challenges broadcasters face with advances in technology and changes in viewing habits.  

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."

W's Iraq War

Ten years ago today the United States invaded Iraq with the goals of toppling its tyrannical ruler Saddam Hussein, destroying its weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and freeing its people to establish a democratic government.  Now, a decade later, Saddam Hussein is dead, but no WMDs were ever found, and the country has devolved into a de facto civil war.

In February 2003 polls showed Americans overwhelmingly favored an invasion of Iraq.  The Bush government had linked Hussein to al Qaeda, the terrorist group that launched a series of terrorists attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 Americans.   The administration had made the case to the world that Hussein was arming Iraq with WMDs, and that he was conspiring with al Qaeda to launch further attacks on the United States and the western world. 

In October 2002 the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" easily passed both houses of Congress with bipartisan support.   The resolution authorized President Bush to use the U.S. military to, "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

In February 2003 I traveled with a Telemundo news team to the White House to interview President Bush, one month before the Iraq invasion. War fever had built to a crescendo in Washington, and the White House wanted to make its case to Hispanic Americans.

President Bush entered our interview location, a room on the ground floor of the White House, with a swagger and a smile. He was imperious and proud. During the interview he went through his justifications for an invasion, but said that no final decision had been made.

Following the interview President Bush chatted with our group. I raised the issue of opposition to the pending war from the French, asking him, "What about President Jacques Chirac?" President Bush slapped me across my upper right arm with the back of his hand, cocked his head and said, "Don't worry, he'll come around." With that, he quickly said his goodbyes and confidently departed.

I turned to my team and said, "We're going to war!"

On March 20, 2003, American forces invaded Iraq and defeated Hussein's army.  But U.S. forces were not greeted as "liberators", as Vice President Dick Cheney had predicted on NBC's Meet The Press prior to the war.  The Bush administration failed to grasp how difficult, how complicated it would be to establish a unified government and a lasting peace in Iraq.  In 2007, former CIA Director George Tenet, the man who once called the evidence justifying an Iraq invasion a "slam dunk", told CBS's 60 Minutes, "We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America. Period."

To date, nearly 4,500 members of the U.S. military have died in Iraq, and more than 30,000 have been injured.  The Iraqi civilian deaths are estimated to be well over 100,000.  Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies estimates that the Iraq War has cost more than $1.7 trillion to date, not counting an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans.

The last U.S. combat troops left Iraq in December 2011. But thousands of veterans are struggling with the after effects of war, such as posttraumatic stress disorder, or PTSD.  Meanwhile, a recent Gallup poll shows that 52% of Americans think the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, while 42% still support the war. 

In Iraq, American influence is low, while violence continues daily, and tensions among the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are at an all time high.  One day, maybe, they'll come around.    

My Medicare Milestone

Today I crossed a major milestone: I now qualify for Medicare.  Yes, I am a Baby Boomer, and I am proud of it!

My first memory, I must have been two years old, was of me looking out my bedroom window watching some kids walk through the empty field next to my suburban Chicago home.  It was as if, for some reason, my brain suddenly decided to start recording at that moment.  I was briefly startled, but soon regained my composure.  From that moment the memories came flooding in. 
My first educational experience was at a Catholic school.  The nuns were very strict, and I got hit with a ruler more than once.  But my crimes were always misdemeanors, like talking out of turn in class or writing on the blackboard.

One day all of the students were administered the new polio vaccine.  Actually, some of the students got the vaccine while others got a placebo.  It was one of the earliest tests of Dr. Jonas Salk's miracle vaccine.  My parents had agreed to allow me to participate; I think I got the vaccine. 

I laugh now when I think of the air raid drills we students endured.  We would regularly practice hiding under our desks, which we were instructed to do in the event of a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union.  The school also had a bomb shelter that was so well stocked with canned foods and water that there wasn't a lot of room for humans.  To convey the urgency of the situation, school officials showed students civil defense films of atom bombs going off.  "Sir, forgive me, but are you sure we'll be safe under our desks?"

Somewhere around this time I received my first exposure to politics.  I proudly wore an "I Like Ike" button on my shirt, even though I only vaguely knew who General Dwight David Eisenhower was.  I watched a bit of the political conventions on our black and white RCA television, which occupied a prominent spot in our living room.  Our favorite television newscaster was John Cameron Swayze ("and the Camel Caravan").  Edward R. Murrow was our favorite radio newsman.  But there was no television or radio while we were eating dinner.

In the early fifties television was in its infancy, but it was quickly growing in popularity. My sister and I watched Kukla, Fran & Ollie almost every day.  It was an entertaining an endearing puppet show that appealed to children but was popular with adults too.  Then Captain Kangaroo came along, and his show would air on CBS at 8am weekday mornings for the next thirty years.  

Most of my free time was spent outdoors playing in our big backyard, or in the field next to our house.  When my dad got me a bike, I was scared to learn how to ride it.  It got increasingly tense over the course of several days as my dad became impatient with me.  One weekend afternoon he ordered me to get on the bike and said he would run along side of me while firmly holding onto the seat so the bike wouldn't crash.  As we rode along, I detected that my dad had stopped running.  I glanced back and saw him standing in the distance.  Yes, I was actually riding my bike! I loved it!

Not too long after that my dad told my mother she had to learn how to drive.  Mom was scared to death of driving and resisted mightily.  Our house was in a rural western suburb where most of the side roads were a combination of gravel and potholes.  But my dad did not want to play chauffeur every time my mom wanted to go somewhere.  So he told her she had to learn to drive or she would have to walk to the grocery store, which was two miles from the house.  She got her driver's license, but she absolutely hated driving for the rest of her life. 

Our first dog was a collie, and we named her Lady.  We did not want to name her after Lassie, the first dog with a television show named after her.  Regretfully, Lady was hit by a car and killed just down the road from our house.  It was my first loss.  By coincidence, not too long after that my father moved our family to a new house thirty miles away.  And I made new friends and I rode my bike all over town. 

But, as I look back it seems that my earliest memories are all in black and white.  This goes for the  nuns, the students, the town and even the giant garden in our backyard.  There were good guys, the United States, and bad guys, the Soviet Union.  The films of atomic bomb explosions were in black and white, as was news footage of President Dwight Eisenhower.  So too was Marshall Will Kane (Gary Cooper), who had a gunfight with the bad guys in the movie High Noon.  As were the Lone Ranger and Tonto, who helped tame the Wild West, and Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, who hosted a television show called Life is Worth Living.  Every thing seemed so much simpler then.

While I share many memories with millions of Baby Boomers, I wonder: how could time go by so quickly, where have all the years gone?  Maybe that's not all I lost.  Shakespeare said In Much Ado About Nothing, "As they say, when the age is in, the wit is out."

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.

"48 Hours" Infringement

There's a new web-a-zine on the Internet called "48 HR Magazine". But CBS is already claiming title infringement because the creators of the new site have chosen the name of CBS News' long time Saturday night news magazine "48 Hours".

Amazingly, one of the web magazine's founders, Mathew Honan, said, "To be honest, none of us even knew that there was still a program called '48 Hours", so it never crossed our mind."

Ever heard of Google? Search "48 Hours" and most of the top results are the CBS News magazine "48 Hours". (By way of full disclosure, my wife, Susan Zirinsky, is the program's executive producer, and I used to oversee the program when I was an executive at CBS News in the early 90's.)

When launched in January 1988, "48 Hours" was the innovative idea of Sony's CEO Sir Howard Stringer, who was then President of CBS News. His concept was to assign reporters and cameramen to follow a subject for 48 hours and then produce a compelling and vividly real one-hour news program on a topic. These teams would capture all the energy, drama and tension while recording dynamic and powerful video from which to produce a riveting hour. Hence, "48 Hours on Crack Street" was the premier episode. Other subjects included life in a hospital emergency room or with the police out fighting crime.

Over time the producers found the program would be more complete if they did not have to limit themselves to a rigid 48 hour shooting schedule. That is because some aspects of a story, or crucial interviews, could not be acquired in that tight a window. Having more time to produce an hour meant producers could choose from a broader array of topics and could reduce costs by minimizing overtime.

The program was originally hosted by the CBS News anchorman Dan Rather and then "60 Minutes" correspondent Lesley Stahl. An ensemble cast currently presents each hour. Now known as "48 Hours/Mystery", it is also frequently the most viewed television program on Saturday nights with about 6 million viewers.

The program has had an important influence on how video news magazines are shot and edited. "48 Hours" reruns have been appearing on cable for many years now, with a version currently on Discovery. And "48 Hours" spun off a website last year called "Crimesider". In fact, it is pretty hard to miss "48 Hours".

So San Francisco freelance writer Mathew Honan is either disingenuous, lazy or amazingly naive. However, here's a suggestion, how about calling the new site "2880 Minutes"?

By the way, CBS has just announced that "48 Hours/Mystery" will be on the schedule again next fall, for its twenty-third season, right there in its regular Saturday night time slot.

Journalism is not Dead!

In his recent column, Steve Rosenbaum, of The Huffington Post, cynically declared, "Google didn't kill journalism, Don Hewitt did."

Don Hewitt is the legendary creator of the CBS News program 60 Minutes. Rosenbaum writes, "Up to 60 Minutes, journalism wasn't a business - it was a calling." He then continues, "there was no P&L for journalism, it was what the TV networks did to 'give back' to their communities."

First of all, everyone currently working at 60 Minutes believes journalism is very much alive. So do most journalists working in the profession, whether in television, radio, newspapers, magazines or the Internet. However, there is no denying that journalism is undergoing a rapid transformation that is posing great challenges to news standards and its traditional business models.

Similar challenges have been present throughout the history of journalism. After World War II, the advent of television threatened the powerful radio industry. CBS founder William Paley regularly pressured news executives in the forties, fifties and sixties on budget matters. Back then news was not as costly to produce, salaries were relatively modest, and news organizations were small. Radio and television programs would not be green-lighted unless they had a sponsor, and poorly performing shows would be canceled.

Don Hewitt is a television pioneer who helped define broadcast journalism and he is responsible for many of the production techniques you see today. He created 60 Minutes in the late sixties, and it has been the most successful program in television history. Still today it regularly ranks in the top ten of all television programs. During its lifetime it has earned hundreds of millions of dollars in profits for CBS.

However, here again Rosenbaum is wrong when he asserts, "there was a moment when Hewitt could have insisted that 60 Minutes revenues (profits) went to the news division to fund other worthwhile and less profitable journalism." The fact is that 60 Minutes profits did always go to help cover other news division costs. Regretfully, due to higher production costs and lower revenues, the program's profit margin has declined to a fraction of what it was two decades ago.

Because 60 Minutes was so wildly successful, other newsmagazines began to appear (imitation is the highest form of television). 20/20 and Primetime on ABC, Dateline on NBC, and CBS News created West 57th, Street Stories, Eye to Eye with Connie Chung and 48 Hours. Corporate finance executives supported these programs because they are cheaper to produce than sitcoms or dramas. But entertainment executives resisted expanding the role of newsmagazines because their viewership skews very old, they earn lower rates from advertisers and they take valuable real estate away from traditional entertainment producers.

Rosenbaum recalls "being in the office of the executive producer of 48 Hours when the head of the entertainment division called - screaming...the ratings for the night before...were low...news and entertainment where supposed to be separated by a wall." This happened occasionally at 48 Hours because the entertainment division wanted to kill the program, and the show's executive producer frequently lobbied the west coast to keep the program on the schedule. The conflict existed because a news program slotted in an entertainment time period was judged by the same standards as an entertainment program. Yet more news programming meant more revenues and influence for the news division.

Today, driven by technological advancements and increased competition on multiple platforms, journalism is rapidly evolving. Old business models are dying as advertising revenue is shifting away from traditional media, such as newspapers, magazines, radio and television to the Internet and mobile.

The good news is that journalism is more readily accessible today than it was forty years ago. One challenge has been to produce high quality content more quickly while maintaining accuracy in an era of instant communications. Another is journalists find they need to offer more perspective and analysis to help people sort out the flood of information being unleashed every day. But the key to being successful in journalism still is, in Don Hewitt's own words, "great stories, well-told."

No, journalism is not dying. And Don Hewitt is my hero!