The TV Zone

Larry King had on Joe Jackson last night.

Here's a "highlight:"

KING: Where is -- where is Michael's body?

JACKSON: I don't know. You'd have to ask somebody that knows. I don't know. All I know is that...

KING: You're the father.

JACKSON: I was at the memorial and where they took him from there, I have to find out. I'll let you know later, Larry.

KING: OK. But as the father, one would think you would have the most imminent right to know.

JACKSON: I do have that right. But I'm not talking about that right now.

[Question not asked by LK last night: Do you know ANYTHING Joe?]

Wow! And there's more! The Sarah attack continues.

(Man o man, what kinda day are they having over at CBS?) And check this out - the National Organization for Women is giving Dave heck...

Here it is, and the huntress levels both barrels, again:

-Photos: Sarah Palin tours New York City

Grade: F (AP)

Interesting new gimmick on CNN tomorrow night and you might wanna check it out. You can vote for O and all his decisions - good, bad or indifferent - over the last hundred days. The festivities start at 7, end at 11, and over that four hour period, CNN.com will post a total of twelve questions. The real-time results will pop up immediately on air - CNN - after the question is asked.

Grades will be issued - A, B, C, D...though the network's fuzzy on whether it will offer a failing grade alternative, though of course it should lest it further goad the critics who insist it's in O's bag.

[Yes, I have just been told - YOU CAN GIVE F'S to whomever or whatever you want...failing grades will be a possibility; here's what I'll give an F too - photo op attempts over Manhattan...]

Then...just before 11...this question - How did O himself do? (CNN in fact is not saying what the questions will be, but you can guess 'em - ranging from policy to personnel.)

(Really interesting if Fox News did this as well, then, someone could average the results and come up with an accurate grade....)

And speaking of media...ummm....preferences, check out this study just now released by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.

It states: "In his first two months in the White House, 42% of the news stories, editorials and opinion columns about Obama have been positive in tone compared with 27% for Bill Clinton and 22% for George W. Bush in the same mix of seven national media outlets. Positive stories about Obama outweighed negative ones by a two-to-one margin (42% vs. 20%) while 38% were neutral in tone." Journalism.org has the full report.

More on "First 100 Days" on the jump...

Continue reading "CNN: Grade the Prez, A to F" »

Wow - whatta story, and I don't mean the tea parties: I do mean coverage of the tea parties.

Fox News has now officially moved away from flogging the tea party story to flogging its competitors who flogged THEM. Yes, it's confusing, but this is war - over ratings, money, stature, mindshare.

Yesterday, representatives for CNN and Fox were furiously dialing around to various members of the TV press to point out just how irresponsible the other's coverage was. Fox used that Susan Roesgen interview in Chicago for exhibit A; she actually blamed Fox on the air for something, unclear what that was (See below.) Fox supporter Drudge later got in the act, posting that Anderson Cooper "teabagging" post.

Here's Shep Smith, upon hearing of the now famous (or infamous, depending on your choice off networks) Roesgen outburst, as reported on TVNewser: "I've just learned it's Anti-CNN day. I know, right? I had no freakin' clue....Just a minute ago, that Susan Roesgen, from that CNN, that people used to watch a long time ago...Anti-CNN? Who's anti-CNN, settle down Susan! Come on girl...Poor Susan Roesgen, nobody hates you, everybody ... we love the CNN. Relax everybody. Don't get your hate on."

And MSNBC? It was left last night to its resident Fox basher/hater/reviler, Keith Olbermann, to lay out a separate case, where he effectively accuses Bill O'Reilly of doing something that I'd rather not get into here; that's a network first anywhere, I believe.

Now, this! Megyn Kelly just got off the air with Brent Bozell, Media Research Center guy, who was created in the alternate universe to Keith Olbermann. "All the sex jokes about teabagging" on MSNBC and CNN, he sputtered, promising viewers he wouldn't explain what the term meant. "But they had them by the dozens. That's how insulting they [MSNBC and CNN] were to people who believed they were being taxed too much...How DARE they criticize Fox when they were so clearly promoting their own agenda."

Ummm, what agenda was that?

Boy, this is just wacky.

Seriously, I don't what any of this means, but it must mean something. I'm reasonably certain it doesn't have much to do with Darjeeling or Orange Pekoe, however.

This interesting and curious clip is making the ol' Internet rounds and your dutiful servant - anxiously awaiting tonight's "American Idol," though don't ask me why - feels duty-bound to share said clip.

Now, I think I'll get a cup of Lapsang souchong...

This Internet! You just never know what malicious and naughty things people will do.

Cases in point: The two videos that have gone viral, revealing Anderson Cooper and Diane Sawyer in various states of mental disintegration.

Why, they remind me of me.

I called my friends at CNN and they claim this one of Anderson Cooper - posted on Gawker - was probably doctored by the same "doctor" who doctored this one of Diane (see below.) But we all need a good laugh. These will provide those - no harm, no foul, right?

All this hub-bub about the inaugural and I almost forgot to mention a pretty important development at CNN this weekend. A brand new four-hour show will be launched Sunday morning, to be anchored by redoubtable reporter and master of the touchy-feely
board, John King.

Its first guests have just been announced. You know one of them very well: Barack Obama, senior adviser David Axelrod, Bush White House press secretary Dana Perino and Bush White House counselor Ed Gillespie will be on the new show.

I've been a fan of King's for years - he's a ridiculously competent guy - so I'm thinking, this will be a good show, entitled "State of the Union," airing from nine to 1 p.m. But one of the other more noteworthy developments here: It'll swallow Howie Kurtz's long-running "Reliable Sources," which has been something of a must-see in media circles (much as Romenesko is a must-read) since launch in 1992. Howie - as you may know - is also the veteran media writer for the Washington Post. King tells me Howie's show isn't going away, but will remain as part of this four-hour block. But it will definitely change.

Says John, "my participation will be less, not more, but that'll fluctuate. I will definitely have interaction [with Kurtz] at the top and end of the hour [it airs at 10 a.m.] though some weeks maybe in the middle. We'll also maybe have more news makers in that hour. Let's say Obama's health care plan" is covered in "State of the Union's" first hour, then "maybe at ten, the subject is, 'how are they selling that in the media...'"

That, of course, is a big change because "RS" has typically covered major media stories that broke the week before.

BTW, Kurtz's first guests include Perino and Clinton press secretary Dee Dee Myers, while CNN's Dan Lothian and American Urban Radio Networks White House correspondent April Ryan will talk about diversity in the press corps.

This four hour show, explains King, will originate out of Washington. King was senior White House correspondent from '99 to '05 and currently chief national correspondent. In that capacity he mastered and made famous that space-age in-studio jumbo tron which displayed voter behavior almost down to individual neighborhoods. He'll bring the touch screen to the new show, too, while he adds that he'll also leave Washington every week to report various stories around the country, and maybe world.

Finally, a reasonably attractive Surgeon General and in some quarters, cute, too. It's about time.

CNN medicine man Sanjay Gupta is gonna join the Obama administration as Surgeon General.

It's true!

Even CNN has pretty much said so; haven't checked Drudge or the Times, but I guess they have this above the fold already. My thoughts? Where's Wolf Blitzer gonna go? The SEC? John King? The FEC? Candy Crowley? The FCC? Jeannie Moos...?

This will be gleefully reported by Fox, which has long argued that CNN is in the pocket of the Dems anyway...

But not so fast, Foxies. Don't forget that shout-down between Gupta and Micheal Moore on Larry King, where Gupta said something to the effect that "Sicko" was bogus.

And speaking of Obama, he'll be all over CNBC's air tomorrow. John Harwood has a big interview with the prez-elect on the stimulus package.

Phew. I'm back.

Yes. Was away. For almost a week. More than a week.

My brain, my poor sad brain, now must be picked up, dusted off and reinserted.

Sometimes this works. Sometimes it doesn't work. We'll see.

Meanwhile, how about Kathy?

For the first post of the year, I offer this clip. We learn from this a few things. a.) She will probably not be returning next year to co-host the ball drop with Anderson Cooper. b.) You should probably NOT heckle her when she's doing live TV. 3.) Anderson may have wished he'd said what she said.

By the way, I missed this. I was too busy watching Dick Clark. Alas, my fascination with his latest outing was purely morbid.

Here's the Kathy clip. Keep the kiddies away ...

(Screen grab, courtesy the Cable Game)

This can't be good: I am told that CNN has eliminated its science unit, affecting seven staffers. It's not good for many reasons but the network's science unit is one of the best in television and probably has a few dozen Emmys to prove it. Here's a statement from CNN: " We want to integrate environmental, science and technology reporting into the general editorial structure rather than have a stand alone unit. Now that the bulk of our environmental coverage is being offered through the 'Planet in Peril' franchise which is produced by the 'AC360' program, there is no need for a separate unit." Veteran anchor Miles O'Brien is affected in this shift too; TVnewser just reported that he was ousted too. As viewers know, CNN's taken a deep, long interest in science (space-related stuff, it seems to me, in particular) going back to the earliest days, when John Holliman - one of the "Boys of Baghdad" - was the network's space reporter. So this strikes at the culture and history of the place.

Question: What happens if next week's election is dull and obvious by (say) 11 a.m. and the networks have to pretend that there's actual DRAMA going on out there for the next ten hours or so?

Answer: Entertain us!

And that's what CNN has in store. Though it probably won't get a HUGE road test on Tuesday, the network has plans for its first-ever use of hologram technology.

Howzit work? Well, Wolf's in NYC, and Candy Crowley's at Obama headquarters, and Wolf decides to see Candy face to face; she says "beam me up, Wolfie" and a second later, she's virtually standing next to Wolfie, err, Wolf.

Here's the relevant graf from the recent press release:

"Adding to what promises to be one of the most technologically advanced events in CNN’s 28-year history, CNN will enhance interviews with remote correspondents and guests using hologram projection. The network has built sets powered by hologram technology at both campaign headquarters making it possible to project three-dimensional images into the Election Center. From the New York set, anchors will exhibit more natural conversations with newsmakers and CNN correspondents in the field by interacting in real time with their 3-D virtual images."

Oh yes, you're thinking, Wolf could even beam up a president-elect (but he has to be careful because you all remember what happened in "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine," when Captain Sisko ordered Chief O'Brien to beam up Odo, and poor Odo didn't quite make it...)

Why hasn't CNN done this before? My hunch - other than what happened to Odo, it IS tricky technology. You can't jar anything, and the set has to be very still; if Wolf sneezes, then the hologram will dissolve into a billion pixels...Candy or the Prez-elect will not like that.

Last night's Larry King/Ryan Seacrest smoochfest didn't produce much news at all, but it did provide a very quick opportunity to dash that report of a week or so ago that RS was in discussions with CNN to replace Larry King one of these days.

Rumors which I sort of believe.

King was dutifully going over all the stuff Ry does on a daily basis, and then, this:

KING: You have your own TV production company. There were even rumors you were going to join CNN, which, we can tell viewers, there's nothing to that.

SEACREST: No, the only rumor is...

KING: So my question is...

SEACREST: ...we're having dinner Thursday. That's true.

KING: That's true.

SEACREST: All right.

KING: So my question is, when do you sleep?

["When do you sleep???!!!" Boy, that Larry King sure knows how to knock out those tough questions.]

My questions: Wouldn't you like to know what Ryan was going to say before LK cut him off? And why did they dispense with this in two seconds when LK had actually PROMOTED this very subject on air for the last few days?

I honestly think there is something to the rumors; CNN is absolutely thinking about an LK successor - that's a fact - and the network would be foolish to not have Seacrest on its radar. Whether you like him or not, the guy's a skillful live broadcaster who's quick on his feet.

And speaking of quick on his feet, here's a priceless exchange between LK and RS:

KING: Who will be the next "American Idol?"

SEACREST: David.

KING: Or can't you say?

SEACREST: David.

KING: Oh...

SEACREST: Guaranteed.

KING: And so you're going out on a limb here.

SEACREST: Guaranteed, David.

Here's some very, very (very) intriguing gossip, that may well be of the "where there's smoke there's fire" variety:

MSNBC is reporting as we speak that Ryan Seacrest is "in negotiations" to take over Larry King's role at CNN by year's end. Courtney Hazlett of "The Scoop" has this, without the usual round of denials, but suggests that he'd be "adding" to his hosting duties. That's absurd -- there's no way Seacrest would or could do both CNN at 9 and "Idol" -- unless, of course, he's like some sort of Cylon from "Battlestar Gallactica" and has a body double out there (hmmmmm).

No, he'd leave "Idol." There has been bounteous speculation on this very subject -- Ry to LK's slot -- in the past, but always pooh-poohed. Hazlett pulled up an old quote from the Times, which cites LK's tacit approval of such a move: “He’s the classic generalist. The only thing I don’t know, and I’ve gotten to know him pretty well, is how versed he is in politics, world affairs. Does he read the paper? Is he interested in Iraq? Because if he is, he’s going to be very good.�

(Not to be a snotty twit -- because of course, I'm not -- but how well do YOU know those things, LK?)

Seacrest, I imagine, would be fine, assuming he knows how to ask questions and how to listen; he's certainly no dummy and is quick on his feet, and he's done the show before. Can't imagine how he couldn't handle this -- but let me think a little while and I am sure I'll come up with several ways he couldn't. Would viewers of this show with an ancient demographic embrace this relative child? That's another matter altogether.

Could LK be moved aside if Ry is available? Of course. We reported right here at TV Zone not too long ago that CNN neglected to give LK a lock on his 9 p.m. time slot when he got his new contract. Katie Couric is interested, too, and if CNN wants to keep this vital hour open to someone with bona fide news credentials, who do you think might be a better pick?

This would also be an elegant out for "American Idol" and Ry; the show's going to do some overhauling next season, and you know what happens with "overhauls;" first, the set is changed, then the host, then ...

But -- as always -- I'm getting ahead of myself. I'm sure I'll get the e-mail denial any minute from CNN, telling me how "bogus" the MSNBC story is, and that "we love Larry, and that he'll be the host at 9 p.m. FOREVER!"

I've got some reasonably big Larry King news here, friends, that could well affect the future of one Ms. Katie Couric, so listen up.

CNN has just re-upped the septuagenarian newsman to a new deal that will keep him at the network until 2011 - this, first reported on TVnewser.com late yesterday. "Twas expected and re-upping LK to one more contract is NOT "big" news.

But this is: King did not secure a guarantee to continue anchoring the 9 p.m. hour, which - I am reliably told - opens the door wide for Couric when she leaves CBS after the inauguration, as she almost certainly will.

There are a couple of things that seem to be going on with Katie that everyone save the man in the moon now knows about. First, she's miserable at CBS which she thinks has stiffed her on resources and turned "Evening News" into the same old-same old nightly network news show. She wants out, but is certainly in no hurry - recognizing, perhaps, that it's harder to score a meaningful gig if you're on the beach, and that (after all) CBS would have to eat $40 million-or-so of the remainder of her contract if it were to pull the trigger instead.

Here's the other thing: That she'd be happy to entertain an offer from CNN. Without giving Larry a lock on 9 p.m., CNN is finally laying the groundwork for a 9 p.m. succession plan and in fact, CNN appears to have the luxury to do so: Its first quarter ratings were the best in years, and the one-time whipping post of FNC is finally doing a little butt-kicking of its own. There's a simple reality factor at work here as well: King'll be 75 this November, and while we can all agree his tenure has been a remarkable one, nothing - and no one - lasts forever. Nor is anyone untouchable in this business - even Walter Cronkite, whose exit from the anchor chair was assured in 1981 when Dan Rather, then a superstar, forced the issue.

Does Katie have the same clout to move King aside? This speculation of Katie-for-Larry has swirled around for years (most recently re-cycled in the Times package of two weeks ago.) I remember chasing it during Katie's last two contract go-rounds at NBC, when she let it be known that she was bored and needed new challenges, including the possibility of a syndicated Oprah-like talk show launched under the aegis of NBC. She had the good sense to back away from that, but CNN beckoned, in part because of Katie BFF Wendy Walker Whitworth - "LK Live" exec producer and a real power broker at the network.

That's the background. When the Katie-out-at-CBS story broke a couple weeks ago, CNN - with remarkable haste - signed King to a new deal that will carry him through 2011. But Larry effectively was given the kingdom without getting the throne. Sure, he'll be at CNN - but at 9? The answer to that is the only one that matters.

Possible flies in the ointment of a Katie-for-Larry swap? Foremost, would she want the gig? Again, I'm reliably told, yes. Would CNN consider her "damaged" after the rough ride at CBS? I hardly think so while she could argue (maybe with some justification, maybe not) that she didn't get all the resources promised, etc.

Also, Lou Dobbs. Never count Lou Dobbs out - there's no cagier, shrewder, harder-hitting inside operator in the entire business than LD who probably has his eye on 9 too.

Anderson Cooper? Why unseat a sure bet at 10? That means you've got a problem at 10 that you've gotta fix. Plus, AC's turned into a solid anchor-reporter - why waste him on David Blaine or Paris Hilton?

I've got a call into King's agent at William Morris, John Ferriter - no return yet - and yes, I called CNN. Christa Robinson, the network's spokeschief, said this: "Larry King is the best there is. He will be here for a long time. We are refuting in essence what you are speculating."

But did you guarantee Larry 9?

"We do not discuss contracts."

[Meanwhile, an update! I see that Ferriter, in fact, responded to TVnewser's request for a comment on the iron-clad 9 p.m. lock question. Said he, "I can tell you that it is a two year extension of the exact same deal and job that Larry has been doing." As most of us semantic experts can plainly attest, that's neither a denial nor confirmation. It's a dodge. So, I'm waiting for a call-back, Mr. Ferriter. Waiting and waiting and...]

(Above: Who would you rather see on CNN weeknights at 9? A pretty lady in pink, or....?)

What self-styled-fire-breathing-border-closing-multimillionaire-CNN-anchor-populist emerged as a possible - emphasize "possible" - candidate for the '08 race after an online Wall Street Journal column by John Fund reported recently that "friends of Mr. Dobbs say he is seriously contemplating a race for the first time, although it’s still unlikely...?"

Lou, that's who. Such is the power of the on-line press. The spec couldn't come at a better time because he's just launched a new book tour - amazing how this stuff happens - for "Independents Day:Awakening the American Spirit." He's even written that maybe just maybe a fabulous dark horse could arrive at any minute though coyly says he's not that horse. Anyway, this morning, he denied his interest yet again to Diane Sawyer, which seems like an awfully lot of denials (and a little known rule of politics says that if you deny something three times, then it must be true; I do believe this is the third official denial): "What friends," he scoffed to Diane, would possibly tell Fund that he's interested!? Then this: "That's not where my interest lies right now...I doubt very seriously something like that [a Dobbs candidacy] could possibly emerge."

Note the words "now" and "doubt very seriously." Those prove that Lou is a master of Clintonian speak, with "now" meaning "right at this minute while I'm talking to you, Diane" and "doubt very seriously" means a door is open a crack that would allow someone to walk in and convince him. Who might that be? There is an on-line campaign to get him to run, and if Michael Bloomberg enters as a third party guy, then - goes the spec - Lou's right behind as a Fourth Party guy.

Maybe Lou should call Roger Ailes for some guidance.