I’ll get to Rick Sanchez later in this post. But first, a few words about the testimony of BP President Tony Hayward this morning before the the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. As this is written more than one hour into the Congressional hearing, Hayward has yet to utter a word about his company’s massive blunders. Instead, committee members are giving their usual speeches—posturing and politicizing.

Chairman Bart Stupak began the hearing by droning on about its purpose. We know the purpose, for God’s sake. As the Democrat’s Senate nominee in Pennsylvania, he going to need a speech therapist before heading out on the campaign trail. But Stupak is downright dynamic compared to California Democrat Henry Waxman, who continues his campaign to become the most boring person ever elected to Congress. Today, he gave an endless recitation of every news story and revelation since the spill occured 50-plus days ago.

So far, however, the leading contestant in the sweepstakes for the most stupid comments is GOP Representative Joe Barton of Texas—a state that is not far behind South Carolina, Illinois and Louisiana in electing politicians, who require zippers on their mouths. Barton today accused President Obama of shaking down BP by pressuring the mega-corporation to commit a minimum of $20-billion dollars into an escrow fund to compensate the “small people” for the loss of their livlihoods and to pay for the damage inflicted on Gulf Coast seafood industry, marshes, beaches and wildlife. The use of the term, “small people,” was a gaffe by the Swedish speaking Chairman of BP’s board. He has since apologized and promised to also compensate medium and large people.

Anyway, Congressman Barton’s remarks were so dumb he broke my stupidity measuring scale. In addition to describing  the escrow fund as a “shakedown,” he actually apologized to BP for President Obama’s insistence that a fund be established to insure that Gulf Coast residents get paid for their losses. 

The loss of my stupidity measuring device is a setback because the Louisiana legislature launched a comeback yesterday to regain its title as the nation’s stupid politics champion. Lawmakers revived a bill that will allow concealed weapons in church. WWJP. What would Jesus pack.

That brings me to Rich Sanchez time. My Sanchez obsession is not personal. He’s probably a nice guy. Then the cameras light up and he represents everything that is wrong with television news. Sanchez is not a journalist. He is a performer playing the role of a journalist. It goes back to his days in Miami at the same local station where my career as a television investigative reporter began, which was a few years before Rick’s arrival on the scene. I learned of Rick’s style in one of those “You are not going to believe this guy” phone calls from a former colleague. I didn’t believe, but now do after watching his role playing CNN antics.

Remarkably, though, Sanchez got out-done this week by a substitute anchor on his afternoon program, Rick’s List. Sitting in for the vacationing Sanchez was Drew Griffin, CNN’s Senior “Investigative” Correspondent—a position I held for ten years, ten years ago (I know I could have said a “decade ago” to avoid repetition, but I like it the way I wrote it).

It’s probably impolite to criticize my successor. So what? I will do it anyway, motivated by ”investigative” reporter Griffin’s effort yesterday to go for the President’s jugular by repeating  a story that has been around for several weeks—namely that the White House tried to discourage two candidates from opposing Obama-favored hopefuls in Democratic primary elections in Colorado and Pennsylvania. Discussions about possible Administration jobs if the guys dropped out of the races wre described by Griffin as “Chicago-style  politics.” To re-enforce the characterization, he did a live interview with the Executive Director of Chicago’s Better Government Association, a watchdog group with an impeccable reputation for holding public officials accountable. Unfortunately for Griffin, the BGA representative refused to take the bait. Like every other non-partisan commentators, he described the contacts as a routine effort to maintain the Democratic majority in the Senate. Obama is, after all, the titular head of the party. Griffin’s frustration was visible as he rephrased his questions to elicit the anwer he wanted. Bad reporting, I thought. 

My criticism of Griffin is more an indictment of CNN for the network’s failure to hold him to a higher standard of journalism. My successor has blown other stories. Drew drew (man, I’m on a roll) wrong conclusions when he joined forces with former Louisiana Attorney General Charles Foti, who tried to win votes by politicizing Hurricane Katrina tragedies. Foti first accused  Dr. Anna Pou of killing elderly patients at Saint Rita’s hospital in New Orleans. While waiting or evacuation, she prescribed pain medicine to ease the suffering of terminally ill patients. A grand jury refused to indict her.

Griffin also jumped on Foti’s bandwagon in his investigative reports of the owners of a nursing home in which 35 residents died before rescuers got to them. The operators of the facility were eventually tried and exonnerated. And finally, Griffin was responsible for erroneous reports about voter registration fraud by ACORN, the African American political activist group that went into bankruptcy defending itself on a variety of allegations.

So the old codger strikes again. I know I sound like a world class whiner in criticizing CNN and its reporters. But the network has retreated to irrelevance. And that is unfortunate in an era when responsible television reporting is so badly needed. I guess I’m living in the past.  

Back to the congressional hearings. I need a good afternoon nap.

My memoir, Odyssey of a Derelict Gunslinger, is available at amazon.com and independent bookstores. It offers much more than $19.99 worth of laughs. The book is an account of my illustrious (I choose the adjectives) career.

I must be cracking up. Or maybe my eyes and ears are deceiving me. Whatever the case, I thought Rick Sanchez asked some intelligent questions while interviewing militia gun nuts and anti-gun nuts during his afternoon CNN gig. I hesitate to call ”Rick’s List” a news show since it is more about him than the news.

My opinion of Rick’s journalistic skills has a history. Twenty-plus years ago, I received a telephone call from a close friend and former colleague during my tenure at south Florida’s then NBC affilate. “You have to see to believe our new anchor, Rick Sanchez. He is like a Saturday Night Live character,” according to the description.

My TV investigative reporting career had begun at the same station when the call letters were WCKT and I still have a soft spot in my psyche for the station. Indeed, I collected my first two Peabody medallions in Miami during the the investigative reporting heydays that followed the Watergate scandal. In 1983, seven years after I left Miami for Boston, WCKT became WSVN. The station lost its NBC affiliation after the owner, Ed Ansin, refused repeated offers to sell to a network.

Operating as an independent station prior to signing on as a Fox “News” affiliate in the mid-nineties, WSVN’s local news coverage became notorious for its blood, guts and sensationalism. It was, however, one of the nation’s most successful independents—in part, because of Rick Sanchez.

In 1984 at the age of 22, Sanchez became the youngest anchor in the Miami market. At WSVN, he developed a calculated on-air persona  of odd facial expressions, body language, and feigned empathy and/or outrage. For old traditionalists like me, he was a comical caricature of an honest-to-goodness newsman. But what the hell do I know. His age, style and Cuban heritage attracted viewers in South Florida.

After a stint at MSNBC and couple of local broadcast jobs, Sanchez was hired by CNN in 2004 for what seemed like a newly created position as a stuntman. His adventures included escaping underwater from a sinking car, wearing a stun belt that was triggered by a cop, and subjecting himself to waterboard torture. His reporter participation segments blurred the line between news and entertainment. But viewers—me included—were fascinated by this kind of stuff. Indeed, Comedy Channel’s Jon Stewart regularly shows Sanchez stunts, mainly because of Rick’s acting skills. Although the derring-do is performed in controlled circumstances, he is able portray a sense of panic that warns viewers, “Don’t try this at home.”

Anyway, given that Rick is so intent of being a performer, I’m always pleasantly surprised when he actually tries his hand at serious reporting. This week was one of those occasions. A large portion of “Rick’s List” was devoted to demonstrations in Washington,Virginia and elsewhere against gun control. The reasons are vague for organizing the protests on the 15 year anniversary of the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. There is no pending gun control legislation in Congress, nor has President Obama indicated any plans to encroach on the 2nd Amendment. As a result, Sanchez asked the proper questions. Why are these people waving placards in the nation’s Capitol and strutting around a national park in Virginia with guns strapped to their sides like a bunch of old west cowboys?

One of the guests answered that Obama voted in favor of a gun control law as a state senator in Illinois. But he could offer no specifics about the vote. In my opinion, wearing holstered guns is like driving a big SUV. It makes little guys feel like big men. I base my belief on personal experience. While playing the role of “great white hunter” years ago in California in search of Bambi’s daddy, I  used to strap on a pistol—a snake gun, I said.  The only time the gun was fired at a snake, I missed. Nonetheless, there was a warm fuzzy feeling buckling on the gunbelt. I guess SUV’s are now adequate to compensate for my masculine inadequacies. I have two.

But back to Rick. I think the guy has talent. Though not as a reporter. He would, however, make a terrific Larry King. Larry is nearing his 25th CNN anniversary, which is about five years too many from the standpoint of  the quality of his show, its guests and the dwindling ratings. Besides, the old guy may slump over dead if he continues to marry and divorce younger women. Although slow-motion reruns of his death would temporarily improve ratings, CNN needs to consider the long haul. 

So in an effort to save the show and Larry alive long enough to use his nursing home insurance, CNN should give the 51 year old “kid” a few pair of suspenders and let him play journalist in front of a prime time audience.

My memoir, Odyssey of a Derelict Gunslinger, is available at amazon.com and independent bookstores. It offers much more than $19.99 worth of laughs. It is an account of my illustrious (I choose the adjectives) career.

While I have sat at home hurriedly writing posts for this blog so I could hop in my golf cart and head for the range, 78 year old Dan Rather travels to Iraq to do a report that will air tonight HDNet cable channels. He is a survivor. Although I never considered Rather a great journalist, he does a terrific imitation.

Creating the illusion of actually being working reporters is a  job requirement for news anchors. They read what others write—a TV deception that unjustly ended Rather’s CBS career after he was held responsible for an investigative report that turned out to be based on counterfeit documents. A 60 Minutes Two story prior to the 2004 Presidential election disclosing that George W. Bush was a National Guard slacker during the Vietnam War was substantially true—at least according to members of his guard unit and material documenting the absence of the future President from mandatory assignments. However, a confidential source re-created memoranda that was provided to a CBS producer. Although one expert verified some of the material, others cited forgeries. 

Reportedly under pressure from the White House as a result of the gaffe, CBS fired the producer and demanded the resignations of two news executives. Rather also eventually resigned.  But the old dude has kept on trucking. In 2006, he signed on with HDNet, which was established by Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas, Mavericks NBA franchise.

Coincidentally, former CNN war correspondent Peter Arnett also found a temporary home at HDNet. Peter resigned from CNN in the wake of a controversial exposé that accused the U.S. Military of using nerve gas during the Vietnam War. I was peripherally involved in the story—given the task of trying to prove its accuracy following complaints by the Pentagon. As I revealed in Odyssey of a Derelict Gunslinger, testicle-challenged CNN executives didn’t wait for the outcome of my investigation. Like CBS, the “most trusted network” fired producers and forced resignations in order to make peace with the Pentagon. It was the beginning of the end of CNN’s Special Assignment investigative reporting unit.

Three months after the nerve gas debacle, I was reassigned to play golf for the remaining two years of my contract. I have continued the assignment ever since.

Occasionally, I have the urge to rake some muck. But the itch passes after hitting a bucket of golf balls.

My memoir, Odyssey of a Derelict Gunslinger, is available at amazon.com and independent bookstores. It offers much more than $19.99 worth of laughs. It is an account of my illustrious (I choose the adjectives) career. 

During a visit to Atlanta last week, I had a chance to visit with people from my CNN days. The news is not good. Network morale was already low when Christiane Amanpour annouced she was leaving to anchor a Sunday morning ABC news show. People who worked with her had nothing but kind words to say about the experience and Christiane’s professionalism. My ten-year tenure as CNN’s Senior Corespondent overlapped her rise as one of television’s best international reporters. But except for passing in the hallways, we were not acquainted. Nonetheless, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the granddaddy of television’s 24-hour news networks can ill-afford to lose high-profile personalities. Its ratings have hit a low point.

On most days, I keep CNN on my home screen throughout the daytime hours with the volume muted and the captions on. I’m reasonably certain that if news of major significance breaks, the network will be the first to report it. Periodically, some piece of video or a fragment of captioned narration will catch my attention and I will watch for a few minutes. My prayer is that big stories don’t break in the time period occupied by Rick Sanchez. I can take only so much torture.

Driving to and from Atlanta, I experienced the opposite of my daily routine. I listened to CNN on XM Radio without the benefit of pictures. It re-enforced my opinion that the network has too few correspondents and too many pundits. Sunday, in particular, was painful. In addition to commentators representing all parts of the political spectrum, there was the usual parade of Congressmen—all with repetitive remarks that I could almost lip sync. In between, Washington reporters interviewed each other. And even worse, was the scorecard. Health reform had enough votes. No, no, it was still short. Back and forth and all around.

Where were the real people? I sure as hell would not call the Tea Party protesters a cross-section of real people—especially after the idiots that shouted epithets at African-American Representatives and spat on a black Congressman. I don’t blame this on Tea Party. It was a moronic minority of racists, who reverted to the kind of crap that ended forty years ago. Really disheartening was seeing a Republican Congressman defend these idiots by blaming the Democrats for the racist comments. I wonder who elects low-life characters like him.

Fortunately, CNN displayed a bit of restraint in its coverage of the protests. But not much. As usual, context was missing from CNN’s coverage. There were charges and counter-charges throughout the day. Each side was given equal time—unchallenged by reporters. Indeed, the network made only a minimal effort to check-out information it passed along. There is a reason for the oversight. CNN no longer has the will to dispatch correspondents across the country to dig into multiple dimensions of stories as important as health care. The reporting is usually anecdotal—a profile of one person in one town with one problem that is complicated by lack of health coverage. The stories are often chose based on the drama they will provide.

A veteran CNN producer told me that the network now measures stories in terms of entertainment value instead of news value. Positive viewer reaction means a segment will air multiple times, regardless of its importance. Action video like fist fights, car chases, etc. are insured a long life in the 24 hour cycle. Granted, there are stories in newscasts that cover significant issues. Many, however, are superficial.

Every TV network and local station has pretty much the same priorities as CNN in selecting what stories to feature. The term “viewer friendly” has haunted television journalism ever since the first so-called news doctor appeared on the scene in the 1970’s. Their advice was keep substantive stories short and entertaining. Otherwise, viewers would change channels, which is probably true. Consequently, viewers are to blame for the state of contemporary TV news—not the news executives themselves. Television gives viewers what they want to see instead of what they need to know. Ratings are far more important than substance in the profit-drive media conglomerates that control networks and stations nowadays.

Though not completely innocent by any means, CNN is a slightly less inclined to sell its soul. Any perceived legitimacy remains linked to the bottom line. Despite low ratings, CNN is still the most profitable of the cable news networks—mainly because of corporate components that include Headline News and CNN International. 

Thanks to worst elements of the Tea Party and people like Tea Party idol, Glenn Beck, there may be some light shining beneath the toilet bowl in which CNN resides. The passage of health care reform removes a protest issue that has rallied many Tea Party demonstrators. Added to the comments of a few protesters who disgusted a lot of folks,  the group’s sympathizers may diminish in number. As I’ve said before, I understand the reasons for the demonstrations. Fear and uncertainty in a troubled economy has always brought out the worst in people.

It will be fascinating to see what happens if the Obama Administration is successful in restoring an era of prosperity. Progress in the seven months between now and the November elections will make voters forget all about the health reform issue. As a nation, we have a short attention span. The thickness of billfolds dictates the outcome of elections.

To quote the great philosopher, James Carville, “It’s the economy stupid.”

How much is too much? Following the President’s State of the Union address last night, CNN’s crack political team went into action with charts, graphs, John King’s “magic screen,” pulse meters and pundrity. Oh, the pundits. All paid “consultants.” Ten of them sitting in a semi-circle pontificating on what the President said, didn’t say or should have said. Overkill? For sure. Predictability? Absolutely. The tiresome faces of Carville, Begala, Rollins, Matalin, Gergen and others. I can almost lip sync what they are going to say, which gives me a great idea. CNN should fire them all, but retain the rights to reruns. And after every significant speech, election or important political event, the network could repeat their commentaries. It changes so little that only minor editing would be required. CNN could use the million dollars-plus to hire real reporters. As a grateful beneficiary of my IRA that CNN so generously built during my ten years as the network’s Senior Investigative Correspondent, I am passing along my idea free of charge.

Meantime, there is positive progress to report about the network’s newsgathering. The series of stories about the use of federal stimulus funds to create jobs is a noble effort. I can’t vouch for the accuracy and context of reports about individual stimulus projects. But it is a lot more substantive than saturation coverage of Tiger Woods and other celebrity news. The stimulus reporting combined with the network’s remarkable coverage in Haiti gives hope that CNN has not lost all sense of priorities. Now if only Rich Sanchez could wipe those idiotic looks of outrage from his face after each stimulus story, regardless of its merit. He apparently is trying to convey the impression that he understands what is going on.

Oops. I’m beginning to sound like one of those damn pundits.

Fifteen years ago, a jury in Los Angeles returned a not guilty verdict in the O.J. Simpson murder trial. CNN covered the trial nearly gavel to gavel—a ratings boon. A few weeks later, a top newsroom executive called a meeting to disclose the results of audience research conducted by an outside consulting firm. As Senior Correspondent in the network’s 40-member Special Assignment Investigative Unit, I left the meeting with a sense of impending doom. We were cautioned about remote control surfers with attention spans of clinically diagnosed morons—that is, of course, unless the stories fell into the category of sensationalism. The newsroom marching orders were to keep stories short and punchy—viewer friendly is a term that was then popular. I believe the 1995 meeting began CNN’s downward slide, which recently reached a low point when the network was ranked dead last in cable news ratings behind Fox, MSNBC and even Headline News—the longtime CNN orphan child.

The “brand name” Ted Turner established is now a bad joke. Even in its penny-pinching days as the “Chicken Noodle Network,” CNN was a reliable source for reasonably objective news reporting. Correspondents were allotted enough air time to give context to stories. And when Special Assignment was created in 1989, we were given broad freedom to do in-depth subjective stories—a style of reporting called “kick ass and take names.” Our exposés ran seven to ten minutes in newscasts—longer in the network’s endless quest to attract an audience for prime time magazine shows produced by Special Assignment. Unfortunately, the magazine show experiments came to a screeching halt in 1998 when a segment accusing the American military of using nerve gas during the Vietnam War was shown to be inaccurate. Under pressure from the Pentagon, CNN fired producers, forced resignations and retreated from potentially litigious investigative reporting. Indirectly involved in the story, I was a collateral casualty. CNN paid my salary and benefits for the next two years, although I did not have to report for duty—a copper parachute so to speak.

            MSNBC and Fox News had begun operations in 1996 and neither was considered a serious threat to CNN. But as Fox grew under the mythical banner of “fair and balanced,” CNN began to resort to half-measures. In order to seem provocative, anchors evolved into “expert” commentators, pundits were hired to give opinions on politics, war, societal ills, and all other subjects. Since then, veteran reporters like Bob Franken and Frank Sesno were sent packing. Rick Sanchez became a caricature of the worst in broadcast journalism. Lou Dobbs flipped out and was paid big bucks to leave. 

All that remains of CNN’s “brand name” are the network’s unparalleled war correspondents. When major news breaks and disasters occur, viewers turn to the granddaddy of cable news networks. Ironically, though, the technology that allows instant coverage has also become a liability. CNN is so obsessed with new toys that producers lose sight that the technology is to cover the news, rather than give viewers demonstrations its capabilities.

            In the absence of crises that bring viewers back temporarily to CNN, the network is now caught between Fox on the right and MSNBC on the left. In some respects, it is not even in the middle, but rather a mixed bag without any identity. Is there solution? How about replacing a few pundits and using the money to hire real reporters, who remember of the five “W’s and the H.” Then again, viewer demands make it improbable that CNN could succeed by going back to what made it successful in the first place.

                                              LIP FLAPPING

I left CNN in 1998 after ten years as Senior Investigative Correspondent of the 40-member Special Assignment Unit–not by choice, but with relief. Although CNN was cable’s first and foremost 24-hour news organization, it was rapidly losing viewers to Fox News. And to a lesser degree, MSNBC. Technically, I remained on CNN’s payroll for another two years. However, my only duties consisted of cashing salary checks. As a man of leisure, I interrupted golf long enough to produce a couple of documentaries for Public Broadcasting, write a memoir titled do a little consulting work.

            Anyway, after more or less being outside the reporting business for a decade, I have time to watch television news from a totally different perspective than during my 30 years of muckraking. I find plenty to bitch about. As a CNN alumnus, what I see on the network makes me squirm. I am sometimes tempted to tell friends that my final job before semi-retirement was working as a short-order cook at a Waffle House. There is no glory in being a former television correspondent. The embarrassment I feel in identifying my former employer is not limited to the network’s obsession with celebrity news, titillating sensationalism, manufactured conflict and superficial journalism in which people who scream the loudest are guaranteed the most screen time—whether of not their screech proportionately represents both sides of a debate.

Reliable reporting dealing with national politics and public policy has been replaced by punditry. Instead of giving context, correspondents and anchors offer opinions disguised as depth. That is only the first layer of commentary. On issues more complicated than live car chases, panels of well-compensated experts—James Carville, Mary Matalin, David Gergen, et al— rattles on with comments that are supposed to represent balanced viewpoints from the ends and middle of the political spectrum. Yet, instant interpretation often distorts issues, especially problems like health care reform. Bit complicated legislation doesn’t faze CNN’s “expert” commentators. They are paid flap their lips in hope something coherent comes out.

            I single out CNN because I remember a time when the network made a genuine effort to report what viewers needed to know–not just what they wanted to see. The distinction is a dilemma for every news organization. All are under pressure to improve ratings. I’m a realist. I recognize that CNN’s parent corporation, Time-Warner, answers to stockholders—including me and my few hundred shares. So maybe it is too late to change “new age” broadcast journalism, although I hate to think that is the case.

As cynical as I may sound, there is a bit of good news to relate.  TV and radio talkers don’t seem to have any significant impact when people enter voting booths. This was apparent in the 2008 Presidential election. Despite unrelenting attacks on Barack Obama by Fox News, a host of right-wing radio personalities and scores of lunatic bloggers, he was elected President by a sizeable majority. The outcome indicates that the majority of voters are still capable of making decisions with a minimum of input from TV “experts.” At least that is my hope.

CNN’s ratings suck. And compared to the “Big Three, so do the ratings of Fox News and MSNBC. The cumulative numbers all the news shows, including those on the broadcast networks, still falls short of number of viewers watching most prime time entertainment shows. This means, perhaps, that self-important commentators, anchors, and correspondents are important only in their own minds.              

Calling this  site the CNN Tweaker is something of a misnomer. However, I spent a decade at Cable News Network as Senior Investigative Correspondent and it is the news organization I know best, even though what I see now has no similarity to Ted Turner’s Chicken Noodle Network, or the Clinton News Network as it was once called, or the CNN that came of age in the 1990’s before bottom line profits and image became more important than legitimacy.

Still, CNN remains the nation’s only twenty-four hour news channel. Make that seventeen or eighteen hours. Although  Fox and MSNBC claim to be news channels, both cable networks produce mainly entertainment under the guise of news. The role of Fox is to provide material for Comedy Central and the Colbert Report. MSNBC acts as Fox’s chief adversary.

In comparison to these competitors, CNN epitomizes journalistic purity. That’s being generous to the network that helps pay for my golf.  But instead of screaming at the television set when I see news trivialized and sensationalized, I will screech on this blog at all the news organizations claiming to report what viewers and readers need to know.

Not so incidentally, the networks, local stations and publications, are blameless for a loss of integrity. They give an unthinking audience what it wants see and read. But that doesn’t make the the news media’s transgressions less of a scandal.

If I’m wrong, I invite visitors to The Derelict Gunslinger to set me straight.