Friday, December 15, 2006
CNN Likely To Carry Cussing Case
Source: Broadcasting and Cable CNN will likely air the Wednesday, Dec. 20, oral argument on broadcast profanity that could help set the stage for a Supreme Court challenge of the FCC's power to regulate language and sexual content on TV.
That's according to a source who said the news desk has indicated it will most likely run it.
C-SPAN asked for and got the rights to televise the oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York. Other news operations could either separately petition the court, or ask C-SPAN for access to its coverage, which the cable net generally agrees to share.
Fox lawyers will square off against the FCC over swearing by Nicole Ritchie and Cher in Billboard Music Awards broadcasts from 2002 and 2003. The FCC says the broadcasts were profane and indecent and that variations of the words "fuck" and "shit"--in the context of prime time awards shows on at times when kids can be expected to be in the audience--are off limits. I made a similar call on NBC's Golden Globes telecast that become the template for its crackdown on cussing.
Fox, NBC and others counter that the FCC's policy is arbitrary and capricious, unconstitutional and essentially indefensible.
C-SPAN plans to air a taped version of the arguments on a delayed basis--at 9:15 p.m. Wednesday--and in a Saturday-night show about courts, but has yet to decide whether to air the arguments live. The editorial side favors live coverage, says a source, but that is apparently balanced by some technological challenges with feeding live out of New York.
At press time, nobody has contacted C-SPAN about gaining access to the footage--which it would almost certainly make available--but a C-SPAN spokesman says that may be because the news nets and broadcast-news divisions have yet to plan out their daybooks for Wednesday.
That's according to a source who said the news desk has indicated it will most likely run it.
C-SPAN asked for and got the rights to televise the oral argument before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York. Other news operations could either separately petition the court, or ask C-SPAN for access to its coverage, which the cable net generally agrees to share.
Fox lawyers will square off against the FCC over swearing by Nicole Ritchie and Cher in Billboard Music Awards broadcasts from 2002 and 2003. The FCC says the broadcasts were profane and indecent and that variations of the words "fuck" and "shit"--in the context of prime time awards shows on at times when kids can be expected to be in the audience--are off limits. I made a similar call on NBC's Golden Globes telecast that become the template for its crackdown on cussing.
Fox, NBC and others counter that the FCC's policy is arbitrary and capricious, unconstitutional and essentially indefensible.
C-SPAN plans to air a taped version of the arguments on a delayed basis--at 9:15 p.m. Wednesday--and in a Saturday-night show about courts, but has yet to decide whether to air the arguments live. The editorial side favors live coverage, says a source, but that is apparently balanced by some technological challenges with feeding live out of New York.
At press time, nobody has contacted C-SPAN about gaining access to the footage--which it would almost certainly make available--but a C-SPAN spokesman says that may be because the news nets and broadcast-news divisions have yet to plan out their daybooks for Wednesday.
# posted by ATN @ 5:50 PM 
Gupta to File Reports for CBS
Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN’s chief medical correspondent, will contribute as many as 10 reports to the CBS EVENING NEWS WITH KATIE COURIC over the next year, it was announced today by Sean McManus, President, CBS News and Sports. Dr. Gupta will continue his full-time work with CNN. The arrangement begins immediately."I’m very pleased to be able to add Dr. Gupta’s contributions to the CBS EVENING NEWS’ expanded coverage of health and medical issues," said McManus. "Our viewers are the winners with a hopefully greater knowledge and understanding of the latest developments in the field in ways that may affect their lives. I appreciate CNN’s cooperation in allowing us to utilize Dr. Gupta’s expertise on the EVENING NEWS."
"I’m honored to have the opportunity to report for the CBS EVENING NEWS," said Dr. Gupta. "By having reports featured on CNN and CBS News, we expand our ability to inform viewers about the medical and health issues most important to them."
# posted by ATN @ 12:38 AM
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Paula Zahn Now Explores Racism in America Tonight at 8 p.m.
Source: CNN Press Release In a special airing tonight at 8 p.m. (ET) anchor Paula Zahn devotes the full hour of Paula Zahn Now to explore racism in America with guests including Whoopi Goldberg, the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, among others.For “Skin-Deep: Racism in America,” Zahn will examine the Michael Richards incident and its repercussions. Zahn will profile the town of Vidor, Texas, reporting on racial tensions there. Also, Zahn talks to multicultural ten-year-olds about racism and reports on the results at the end of the special.
Delivering an in-depth look at the most pressing issues of the day, Paula Zahn Now offers a wealth of opinions and viewpoints nightly through interviews with key newsmakers, substantive debate and discussion, and analysis from experts in their field. Paula Zahn Now airs on CNN/U.S. from 8 to 9 p.m. weekdays (ET).
# posted by ATN @ 5:15 PM
Lou Dobbs to Host ‘War on Middle Class’ Town Hall Live from Tampa , Fla.
Source: CNN Press Release CNN anchor and best-selling author Lou Dobbs will host a town hall meeting live from the Italian Club in Tampa , Fla. , on Thursday, Dec. 14, at 7 p.m. (ET). Dobbs will examine the impact of rising property taxes, a higher cost of living and the trade deficit for residents of Tampa as well as the rest of the country and the middle class.Dobbs will be joined by guests U.S. Rep. Jim Davis (D-Fla.) of the House Energy and Commerce Committee; Maryellen Elia, superintendent of Hillsborough County, Fla., Public Schools; and Ron Pollack, founding executive director of Families USA. Dobbs will also broadcast Lou Dobbs Tonight live from Tampa prior to the town hall at 6 p.m. (ET).
CNN Pipeline, CNN.com’s premium live news video service, will also air the town hall.
# posted by ATN @ 5:02 PM
Monday, December 11, 2006
CNN Promotes Cal Perry to Baghdad Bureau Chief
Source: CNN Press Release CNN has promoted Baghdad bureau director Cal Perry to bureau chief, it was announced today by Tony Maddox, senior vice president of international newsgathering operations. As bureau chief, Perry manages CNN’s coverage in Baghdad and throughout Iraq.“The Baghdad bureau chief stands as one of the most important and challenging jobs in journalism today and is certainly a critical position within CNN’s international newsgathering efforts,” Maddox said. “Cal has more than proven his mettle with our coverage from Iraq in recent months, and we’re eager to see his work from the region in the future.”
Perry joined the network in 2003 shortly after the initial coalition invasion in Iraq, working on the International Desk as an editor. Soon after, he was assigned as a Baghdad-based producer, a role which placed him as an embedded reporter among troops fighting in Mosul, Fallujah, Ramadi, Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq. In addition to his coverage in Iraq, Perry covered the death of Yasser Arafat and other stories involving the Israeli-Palestine conflict.
In 2006, Perry covered the war in Lebanon as both a producer and on-air correspondent. He and correspondent Karl Penhaul were the first journalists to arrive in Tyre, Lebanon, amid fighting there. Perry also created and produced the CNN Presents documentary Combat Hospital, which detailed the real-life drama inside the 10th Combat Support Hospital in Baghdad.
Perry earned his political science degree from Skidmore College.
# posted by ATN @ 11:48 AM
Sunday, December 10, 2006
White House Press Secretary Sounds Off on Reliable Sources
Former FNC personality turn White House Presidential Press Secretary Tony Snow was on Reliable Sources Sunday morning with Howard Kurtz defending the way he handles certain questions from the press. I found the interview quite interesting as is showed how Snow sometimes refuses to answer certain questions and accuses members of the press of being partisan. It looked like an FNC moment in reverse....with the press asking him the question and him refusing and accusing the press of being unfair. Working at FNC trained Snow well for the job at The White House. Looks like the same kool-aid is dispensed at both The White House and FNC. Will post a portion of the transcript later in the day.
UPDATE: 12:53pm CNN has posted the transcript of Sunday's Reliable Sources featuring the interview with Tony Snow. Below is a portion of the interview:
KURTZ: The tone in this pressroom this week has been very contentious, and really for months.
Is the White House getting a fair shake from the press corps?
SNOW: You know, I don't know. Whether they're being... KURTZ: That means you think it's not and you don't want to say so?
SNOW: No. What it means is it's not my business to be picking fights with the press corps. You've got to keep in mind that what we do have is a political season where there are a lot of highly contentious issues. And you also have a time now where you're having a debate about Iraq, where passions run high. So, you've got to expect from time to time people are going to push, and sometimes I'll push back. But I don't -- I actually don't see it as that contentious.
Maybe it's a sign of how genteel the American press or civil the American press is compared to, say, the British press, where after we did the press conference the other with British Prime Minster Tony Blair, the people in the Blair entourage were saying, "You people are so nice." So, I actually -- I view good, tough questioning of the press secretary as kind of the normal order of business.
KURTZ: Well, then we won't disappoint you here.
SNOW: Yes.
KURTZ: But when you push back, you push back hard. On Wednesday, you objected to a question from NBC's David Gregory...
SNOW: Right.
KURTZ: ... about the Baker-Hamilton report.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID GREGORY, NBC NEWS: The co-chairs say the following: "Stay the course is no longer viable. The current approach is not work. The situation is grave and deteriorating."
Can this report be seen as anything other than a rejection of this president's handling of the war?
SNOW: You need to understand that trying to frame it in a partisan way is actually at odds with what the group itself says it wanted to do. And so you may try to do whatever you want in terms of rejection. That's not the way they view it.
GREGORY: I just want to be clear. Are you suggesting that I'm trying to frame this in a partisan way?
SNOW: Yes.
GREGORY: You are? Why? Based on the fact that...
SNOW: Because what...
GREGORY: Wait a minute. Wait a second. Based on quoting the report and the chairmen and I'm asking you a straight question which you're not answering straight. You're actually -- you're trying to answer it by nitpicking it.
SNOW: No, here's the...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: He was quoting from the co-chairmen, and you said, "You're trying to frame it in a partisan way."
SNOW: Well, no. He used words that were in the report, but actually did not quote from the report. And I don't want to re- litigate this, but let me just make a simple point.
What was interesting about the Baker-Hamilton report -- and I brought my dog-eared personal copy with me which I had read at that time -- and I don't think members of the press, really, at the beginning of this briefing had had a full opportunity. It had been available to them for two hours and to me for five.
So, I'd read the whole thing. And I sat through the meeting with the Baker-Hamilton commission and I heard Vernon Jordan and Ed Meese and everybody else talk about the fact that they weren't looking back, they were deliberately not trying to have critiques of the administration performance, and they were trying to establish a bipartisan basis for working together on an issue of overwhelming national interest.
That was the whole -- that was the whole gist of it. This is a report -- I think a lot of times members of the press looked at this as the Baker-Hamilton commission having been given a baseball bat to whack the administration on the side of the head. And instead, what they said is, "No, we're here to help."
KURTZ: But when you say to David Gregory -- you're asking a question in a partisan way...
SNOW: Yes.
KURTZ: And a few months ago you accused him of asking a question that reflected the Democratic point of view.
SNOW: Right.
KURTZ: That is a really serious charge for a lot of journalists.
SNOW: Well, and I will tell you why. Because, number one, it did not reflect the stated views and approaches of the commission itself. I mean, what they had said.
Secondly, I'd only heard that particular formulation through a partisan lens as a critique of the president, rather than as a critique of -- or a characterization of the report itself. Again, if you want to take a look at this, Lee Hamilton and Jim Baker, both, it pains (ph) to say, this is an opportunity to work in a bipartisan basis, we're not here to look back, we're not here to criticize. And so... KURTZ: But you're free -- you're free to dismiss questions as you see fit.
SNOW: Yes.
KURTZ: But in this case, it seems like you're challenging the reporter's motivation.
SNOW: Well...
KURTZ: Do you think David Gregory is an honest reporter?
SNOW: Yes, David is -- very often, I think David works very hard to be fair. And I've said that to him. But it is certainly worthwhile to question motivations -- or not the motivations, the assumptions of a question. And then I proceeded to say, "OK, let's take a look."
KURTZ: The question that David Gregory asked was, "Is this a rejection of the administration's policy?"
SNOW: No, but...
KURTZ: And, in fact, the "New York Times" and the "Chicago Tribune" called it a "rebuke of the administration policy" and the "Wall Street Journal" called it a "searing critique." So you're taking a position, speaking for the administration.
SNOW: I understand that.
KURTZ: It's very different from the way news organizations are characterizing this.
SNOW: Well, yes, but news organizations were characterizing, interestingly, in direct defiance and contradiction to what the people who wrote it said. And it is worth taking into account the motive's aims and objectives rather than saying, "Ah-ha, here's a searing critique."
For instance, is it searing critique that this report says, at the beginning of its own segment on actions forward, that it says, and I quote, and this was not something I was asked about, "We agree with the goal of U.S. policy in Iraq as stated by the president."
KURTZ: The goal?
SNOW: "An Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself."
But that's important.
KURTZ: They also said the policy is not working.
SNOW: No, what they said is that you need a new policy. What they also said is, the policy of precipitant withdrawal, which had been raised in the campaign season, "would be wrong for the United States to abandon the country through a precipitant withdrawal of troops and support a premature American departure from Iraq, would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence."
KURTZ: Let me ask you about something else you said about Iraq. You said, "What I think is demoralizing is a constant effort to try to portray this as a losing mission.
Do you think that journalists deliberately portray Iraq as a losing effort?
SNOW: I don't know if it's deliberate or not, but there is a failure in narrative that tends to run through a lot. And you, I'm sure, have talked to servicemen who come back and say, "Why don't they cover what I do? This is not what I see."
And they constantly hear stories -- for instance, this week the, "Are we winning, are we losing" debate. Rather than an acknowledgement that wars are grueling and long, and they are difficult, and they are characterized by the unexpected, and that they draw upon resources of national will, blood, and treasure, and they're tough things. And the idea that you sort of do a snapshot of win/lose, rather than taking a look at broader metrics or broader things that are going on. To give you an example...
Read the full transcript HERE
UPDATE: 12:53pm CNN has posted the transcript of Sunday's Reliable Sources featuring the interview with Tony Snow. Below is a portion of the interview:
KURTZ: The tone in this pressroom this week has been very contentious, and really for months.
Is the White House getting a fair shake from the press corps?
SNOW: You know, I don't know. Whether they're being... KURTZ: That means you think it's not and you don't want to say so?
SNOW: No. What it means is it's not my business to be picking fights with the press corps. You've got to keep in mind that what we do have is a political season where there are a lot of highly contentious issues. And you also have a time now where you're having a debate about Iraq, where passions run high. So, you've got to expect from time to time people are going to push, and sometimes I'll push back. But I don't -- I actually don't see it as that contentious.
Maybe it's a sign of how genteel the American press or civil the American press is compared to, say, the British press, where after we did the press conference the other with British Prime Minster Tony Blair, the people in the Blair entourage were saying, "You people are so nice." So, I actually -- I view good, tough questioning of the press secretary as kind of the normal order of business.
KURTZ: Well, then we won't disappoint you here.
SNOW: Yes.
KURTZ: But when you push back, you push back hard. On Wednesday, you objected to a question from NBC's David Gregory...
SNOW: Right.
KURTZ: ... about the Baker-Hamilton report.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID GREGORY, NBC NEWS: The co-chairs say the following: "Stay the course is no longer viable. The current approach is not work. The situation is grave and deteriorating."
Can this report be seen as anything other than a rejection of this president's handling of the war?
SNOW: You need to understand that trying to frame it in a partisan way is actually at odds with what the group itself says it wanted to do. And so you may try to do whatever you want in terms of rejection. That's not the way they view it.
GREGORY: I just want to be clear. Are you suggesting that I'm trying to frame this in a partisan way?
SNOW: Yes.
GREGORY: You are? Why? Based on the fact that...
SNOW: Because what...
GREGORY: Wait a minute. Wait a second. Based on quoting the report and the chairmen and I'm asking you a straight question which you're not answering straight. You're actually -- you're trying to answer it by nitpicking it.
SNOW: No, here's the...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: He was quoting from the co-chairmen, and you said, "You're trying to frame it in a partisan way."
SNOW: Well, no. He used words that were in the report, but actually did not quote from the report. And I don't want to re- litigate this, but let me just make a simple point.
What was interesting about the Baker-Hamilton report -- and I brought my dog-eared personal copy with me which I had read at that time -- and I don't think members of the press, really, at the beginning of this briefing had had a full opportunity. It had been available to them for two hours and to me for five.
So, I'd read the whole thing. And I sat through the meeting with the Baker-Hamilton commission and I heard Vernon Jordan and Ed Meese and everybody else talk about the fact that they weren't looking back, they were deliberately not trying to have critiques of the administration performance, and they were trying to establish a bipartisan basis for working together on an issue of overwhelming national interest.
That was the whole -- that was the whole gist of it. This is a report -- I think a lot of times members of the press looked at this as the Baker-Hamilton commission having been given a baseball bat to whack the administration on the side of the head. And instead, what they said is, "No, we're here to help."
KURTZ: But when you say to David Gregory -- you're asking a question in a partisan way...
SNOW: Yes.
KURTZ: And a few months ago you accused him of asking a question that reflected the Democratic point of view.
SNOW: Right.
KURTZ: That is a really serious charge for a lot of journalists.
SNOW: Well, and I will tell you why. Because, number one, it did not reflect the stated views and approaches of the commission itself. I mean, what they had said.
Secondly, I'd only heard that particular formulation through a partisan lens as a critique of the president, rather than as a critique of -- or a characterization of the report itself. Again, if you want to take a look at this, Lee Hamilton and Jim Baker, both, it pains (ph) to say, this is an opportunity to work in a bipartisan basis, we're not here to look back, we're not here to criticize. And so... KURTZ: But you're free -- you're free to dismiss questions as you see fit.
SNOW: Yes.
KURTZ: But in this case, it seems like you're challenging the reporter's motivation.
SNOW: Well...
KURTZ: Do you think David Gregory is an honest reporter?
SNOW: Yes, David is -- very often, I think David works very hard to be fair. And I've said that to him. But it is certainly worthwhile to question motivations -- or not the motivations, the assumptions of a question. And then I proceeded to say, "OK, let's take a look."
KURTZ: The question that David Gregory asked was, "Is this a rejection of the administration's policy?"
SNOW: No, but...
KURTZ: And, in fact, the "New York Times" and the "Chicago Tribune" called it a "rebuke of the administration policy" and the "Wall Street Journal" called it a "searing critique." So you're taking a position, speaking for the administration.
SNOW: I understand that.
KURTZ: It's very different from the way news organizations are characterizing this.
SNOW: Well, yes, but news organizations were characterizing, interestingly, in direct defiance and contradiction to what the people who wrote it said. And it is worth taking into account the motive's aims and objectives rather than saying, "Ah-ha, here's a searing critique."
For instance, is it searing critique that this report says, at the beginning of its own segment on actions forward, that it says, and I quote, and this was not something I was asked about, "We agree with the goal of U.S. policy in Iraq as stated by the president."
KURTZ: The goal?
SNOW: "An Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself."
But that's important.
KURTZ: They also said the policy is not working.
SNOW: No, what they said is that you need a new policy. What they also said is, the policy of precipitant withdrawal, which had been raised in the campaign season, "would be wrong for the United States to abandon the country through a precipitant withdrawal of troops and support a premature American departure from Iraq, would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence."
KURTZ: Let me ask you about something else you said about Iraq. You said, "What I think is demoralizing is a constant effort to try to portray this as a losing mission.
Do you think that journalists deliberately portray Iraq as a losing effort?
SNOW: I don't know if it's deliberate or not, but there is a failure in narrative that tends to run through a lot. And you, I'm sure, have talked to servicemen who come back and say, "Why don't they cover what I do? This is not what I see."
And they constantly hear stories -- for instance, this week the, "Are we winning, are we losing" debate. Rather than an acknowledgement that wars are grueling and long, and they are difficult, and they are characterized by the unexpected, and that they draw upon resources of national will, blood, and treasure, and they're tough things. And the idea that you sort of do a snapshot of win/lose, rather than taking a look at broader metrics or broader things that are going on. To give you an example...
Read the full transcript HERE
# posted by ATN @ 10:35 AM
