Online Journal
Front Page 
 Special Reports
 News Media
 Elections & Voting
 Social Security
 Editors' Blog
 Reclaiming America
 The Splendid Failure of Occupation
 The Lighter Side
 The Mailbag
 Online Journal Stores
 Official Merchandise
 Join Mailing List

News Media Last Updated: Dec 18th, 2007 - 01:18:06

Couric B.S. equals mushroom news
By Ted Lang
Online Journal Contributing Writer

Dec 18, 2007, 01:15

Email this article
 Printer friendly page

Sumner Redstone, founder and chairman of Viacom, who also owned and operated Viacom asset Columbia Broadcasting System [CBS], orchestrated the split-off of CBS from Viacom in 2006. CBS became a separate publicly traded corporate entity headed by Sumner broadcast associate Leslie Moonves. Redstone continues to hold the controlling interest in CBS and is one of the five richest Zionists who control well over 90 percent of the American corporate, establishment, mainstream media, or MSM.

After hitting some political bumps in the road related to issues of favoritism and bias accusations relating to political party orientation, aging Dan Rather was �eased� out of his nightly anchor position in favor of CBS veteran newscaster Bob Schieffer. Schieffer served as interim anchor until Moonves chose Katie Couric as permanent anchor and managing news editor of the CBS Evening News.

Couric, often dubbed �pretty and perky,� does have journalistic credentials, but in-depth investigative journalism isn�t one of them. Bringing a hefty dose of feminism and sexual appeal to the position is indeed her strength; but seemingly it competes unfavorably with the fatherly image created by Walter Cronkite, formerly �the most trusted man in America,� and the dependable voice and long-time fixture of the CBS Evening News, Dan Rather.

Let�s face it -- the political correctness foisted upon America by the MSM is that the feminist movement seeks to populate all formerly male-dominated enclaves with women. It is this, and Moonves� desire for immediate success and the desire to cash in on another possibly profitable media venture via Couric�s popularity, gained during her former stint on NBC�s Today show, that represented the real drivers behind her selection as CBS anchor.

Competing with male anchors Brian Williams of NBC and Charles Gibson of ABC, one would think that at least in her capacity of �managing editor,� Couric would try to come out from her weak third place position and take a meaningful stab at overcoming the competition. But this begs the question: Is there really any competitive news reporting out there in America today? And if that question appears too staggering for Couric to address at her level, then what of Moonves?

The real �Christmas� season of corporate broadcast profits is rapidly approaching and will soon be at hand. This will be the corporate MSM�s windfall of the 2008 presidential elections. Both false fronts of our single political party, the Democrat-Republican party, will be dumping millions in campaign cash donations from their duped constituents into broadcast and cable TV coffers. There will be cash from private donors, as well as all the federal cash extorted from unwilling and similarly duped American taxpayers. And all the while, electronic election fraud and vote tampering is probably by now well passed the planning stage. So why wouldn�t media competition come into play?

One can only assume a secret, private handshake. Just like the National Football League, there are no losing teams and no losing players. All a team owner has to do is spend some of the profits to win fan loyalty; and salary caps and player minimum wages put team ownership and team profits on autopilot with the help of a �share-the-pot� pool of cash derived from TV contract negotiations; a kind of George W. Bush �no team left behind� thingy is the result. All TV broadcast and cable TV MSM make out with the phony presidential elections. There will be all those nauseating TV mudslinging commercials never addressing real issues the American people should be learning about and considering. The real issues in America are just too painful for the prime time boob tube addicts; �The Insider� and �Oprah� provide more news than do the MSM media outlets that are supposedly segmented to do this. No competition is needed, and, therefore, none is desired.

And just recently, Editor & Publisher, the standard newspaper industry�s journal, has reported that newspaper circulation is dropping rapidly. And TV news viewership has also been dropping citing the report from The State of the News Media 2006�s article, �An Annual Report on American Journalism.� The report was obviously prepared before the CBS switch from interim anchor Bob Schieffer to permanent news head Katie Couric. There is an interesting section in the report which addresses the shake-up in Big Three network anchors that adds insight to the current Couric-CBS loss of viewership which seems to explain Moonves� logic in choosing Couric: �Meanwhile, �CBS Evening News with the interim anchor Bob Schieffer crept up by some 100,000 viewers, moving from 7.7 million to 7.8 million. That success under Schieffer bears note. NBC and ABC brought in younger anchors that also function as in-the-field reporters but CBS, unsure about its long term, picked Schieffer as an interim choice.�

The article goes on: �He epitomized tradition, a familiar face from the older generation of network news, someone who in the last quarter-century had anchored morning, mid-day and weekend newscasts and functioned as chief Washington correspondent. He has also been the anchor for �Face the Nation� since May of 1991. According to the biography posted on the CBS News Website, Schieffer is also � . . . one of the few broadcast or print journalists to have covered all four major beats in the nation�s capital -- the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department and Capitol Hill.��

Here�s the article�s key observation: �And it was Schieffer, not his younger rivals, who enjoyed the audience gain in 2005. What might explain that? One argument might be that being in third place, CBS was the most likely to grow after an anchor change. Another factor might be that some viewers who would no longer watch Rather preferred Schieffer and were likely to give him a try as a known commodity. A third factor could be that uncertainty at ABC with Jennings�s illness put viewers in play, and some of them might have been older viewers. A fourth factor might be change in the newscast under Schieffer, who seemed to become increasingly comfortable over time, and to interact naturally and skillfully with his correspondents, asking them probing questions with an apparently genuine curiosity. Schieffer also was the beneficiary of the success of CBS�s prime-time lineup. It is possible, too, that Schieffer�s long experience simply paid off, giving him a depth some viewers appreciated. If so, the fact that the other networks have looked to people in their 40s for their next anchors may give CBS pause as it looks to replace Schieffer, the anchor who today is enjoying the best audience trend line.� Again, keep in mind that this was written B.C. (before Couric).

Couric�s decline in ratings are easily explained: her credentials are exactly opposite of those enjoyed by Schieffer. As an example highlighting the contrast, reflect upon the 2006 report�s observations commenting on Schieffer�s interaction with his correspondents, a professional with mutual admiration and respect for the work of his associates. Here is a segment from Wikipedia�s assessment of Couric: �The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric continually finishes last in all major markets. Under Couric, several promising and popular CBS News correspondents mysteriously saw their airtime diminish significantly. Trish Regan, Elizabeth Kaledin, Sharyn Alfonsi and Lee Cowan all have departed from CBS since Couric took the reins of the Evening News, only to be replaced by a host of unknown reporters.� Sure serves to eliminate Couric�s potential competition should she fail, but tarnishes both her professionalism and her interactive assets in the form of promising and interesting associates. It also signals a lack of confidence and an isolationism, just the opposite of the professional comfort enjoyed by Schieffer.

Because of my organization�s office Christmas party, I found myself off schedule and did something I don�t usually do. Other than occasionally taking in ABC�s �Jeopardy� and the weekly creativity of the NFL�s New York Jets and the latter�s never-ending creativity in losing football games, I just don�t watch television. It�s bad for the thinking person�s mind and I enjoy deluding myself as being a thinking human being. But I had occasion to watch the CBS Evening News, starring anchor person and managing news editor Katie Couric. And of course, there simply was no news offered. Instead, propaganda for America�s one party Democrat-Republican Party was what Katie put on her agenda, with, of course, the same possible modicum of guidance and persuasion from both Redstone and Moonves.

Displaying the obvious anticipation of a soon-to-be windfall for her network, Katie the great interviewer took on a daunting task: she decided to interview the 2008 presidential candidates of The Establishment Democrat-Republican Party. The entire segment, the primary one of her evening �news� broadcast, focused on The Establishment-qualified, approved and pre-selected candidates. That, of course, excluded Dr. Ron Paul, Congressman for 22 years from the 14th District in G. Bush�s home state of Texas.

During Couric�s enlightening �investigative interviews,� three graphic support segments were offered. It showed the lineup of candidates for The Establishment. The grahics rapidly panned the faces of the candidates of the Democrat-Republican Party, displaying the familiar faces of the political stars chosen for BoobUS AmericanUS to pick from. The facial panning was rapidly done, and as said, used as a support graphic THREE times. Guess what?! Dr. Ron Paul�s visage never appeared at all in any of those slide-bys! Obviously, the desires of the executives of CBS made it universally understood that Ron Paul was not to be a factor in the network�s presidential profit-making festivities.

And the challenging question for the presidential hopefuls? �What country do you feel is the most dangerous?� Another quick graphic showed that Iran was the most dangerous. Now how�s that for an effective MSM and Israel lobby propaganda success story? And, of course, the presidential Beltway Buffoons almost universally agreed on Iran, especially Bomber Barack and John �Madman� McCain! Hillary targeted Pakistan. And are you ready? Former Senator John Edwards is ticked-off at China! That�s right, China! That very same dangerous country that Democrats Clinton and Carter gave control of the Panama Canal. That very same dangerous country that manufactures and provides us with ALL our consumer goods save McDonalds� hamburgers and pornography. That very same dangerous country that holds our government�s paper. That same dangerous country that Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein and her husband have invested hundreds of millions of American dollars in.

I would offer that the only really dangerous nation in the world today is the US! I would offer the ENTIRE world feels that way too! Of what business is it of the Beltway Buffoons to worry about the affairs of other nations when Cheney-Bush have done such a marvelous job screwing up this once-great nation? And if we need a number one enemy, then it is Israel! Our boys and girls are fighting and dying and committing suicide for that peewee nation right now! And not satisfied, they now want our boys and girls and our tax dollars squandered destroying Iran�s nuclear capability, which the latest NIE has emphatically proven to be non-existent! Which is the ONLY nation in the world that disagrees with that assessment, has purchased our government lock, stock and barrel with our own tax money, and wants us to go to war for them again.

Contrary to even the in-depth personality assessments as to why newspaper circulation and TV news viewership have fallen off, the key factor is the MSM�s revulsion for the truth. Propagandizing The Establishment�s agenda for a Zionist New World Order is all that matters. The distraction of political party labels is just that: a diversion hoping to blur out the real issues that might enable us to take back our country. For were this not the case, how easy would it be for Katie to take her ratings back? But like the NFL TV broadcast and sponsor dollar pools, everybody wins except news-hungry and news-deprived Americans. The MSM�s mission is that of the Mushroom farmer: Keep �em in the dark, and feed �em, well, you know!

Ted Lang is a political analyst and freelance writer.

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor

Top of Page

News Media
Latest Headlines
All the news that fits -- in 500 words or a graphic
Beyond media revolutions: Are Arab media truly free?
The Tibet card
For the benefit of Israel, US media stoops to trashing Carter
Economic suicide
Basra battles: Barely half the story
Toronto 18 suspects undergo trial by media
How big is the Animal Farm?
Strangulation in the dark: Palestine, Somalia, and the American corporate media
Media language and war: Manufacturing convenient realities
Are British media complicit in imposing a blackout on the siege of Gaza?
The Internet must die
Despite �good news,� Iraq is not okay
Game theory and the U.S. presidential election of �08
Oops! The media did it again
Couric B.S. equals mushroom news
Spanish daily, El Pais, seeks to use copyright law to make shut up or pay up
A people�s retort to the media�s detached �experts�
Calling all bloggers: Are you �covered� under House �reporter�s shield law�?
Anti-Bush ads refused as �too inflammatory�