Fort Hood Shooter Narrative Changes, Radical Muslims On US Soil, D.C. Sniper Executed, And Carrie Prejean Has A Book (Oh, yes)

Hi everyone. We again begin with Nidal Hasan, and why he would commit such a horrible crime. Drew Griffin has the piece. Funny thing? Last night, the coverage leaned heavily on possible terrorist connections and information that sounded like it could potentially be terrifying. Tonight? New narrative! The lone wolf motive, to be exact. It's explained that if Hasan was really a jihadist, he would have hid his religion. Plus, um, the dude allegedly went to strip clubs and I kinda thought that's frowned upon.

So, as Drew says after the piece, "The red flag the FBI, the Army, and even the local imams may have missed was possibly a middle-aged, isolated Army major facing an internal crisis and about to snap." Yep. Or, um, not. It's still way early. But it's nice to get a little more context, given that there are already people out there calling this the worst terrorist attack since 9-11. Yesterday, I was fairly critical of 360's coverage, though admitted I was sure they were being more responsible than outlets like Fox News. Perhaps I should have said ABC News instead. Yowza.

I'm actually not sure I explained my prior post well enough. I've been doing reviews of this show for about three years now, and it is a completely different viewing experience than just simply watching. I was reminded of this when I took my hiatus from blogging over the summer. When I am reviewing, I am paying attention to everything--truly taking in all information reported. The normal viewer does not do this. The normal viewer is channel surfing or chatting on the net or glancing at the TV while on the phone and so on and so on. Does anyone really just sit and watch the news anymore?

My point is that when it comes to a story that has the potential to inflame, I think it is the responsibility of the news organization to be extra careful with everything (graphics, chyron, copy, etc.). Because chances are, the viewer is only truly taking in about half of what's reported. Drew's piece yesterday may have had caveats, but c'mon, the viewer hears "9-11" and foreign names, and connections are made that Drew never even stated--especially when the reporter is saying one thing and the words on the screen are saying another. I suppose one could argue that the public's interpretation of their reporting isn't a media outlet's problem. But is there any harm in being extra cautious when you know you don't have all the facts?

Anyway, we move on to another piece from Drew on radical Muslims in New York City, which is actually a repeat (though I don't think I blogged it). Basically? These asshats were born and raised in the US, but are preaching love of Bin Laden and praising terrorist attacks. Awesome. One guy tells Drew, "We're commanded to terrorize the disbelievers." Oh really? What about the idea that killing one innocent is equal to slaughtering all of humanity? I'm guessing he skipped that Quran verse. Like I said, asshats.

For discussion of this, we're joined by Jeffrey Toobin and Peter Bergen. The topic of free speech and where to draw the line is brought up, with Jeff noting the courts have struggled with this for years. The Skokie case comes to my mind. Free speech is one of the things that make this country great, but these radicals present a potential very real danger. I think we're all hoping that the FBI is on top of them and other equally dangerous groups.

Transitioning now to the news that earlier tonight the D.C. sniper, John Allen Muhammad, was executed. This then segues us into part two of the special report from yesterday, with more news clips of that terrifying period in 2002. I'm slightly amazed by how much I remember of this footage. Back then I was mostly shunning regular CNN (it sucked big time), but watched Headline News (at the time the channel actually did, uh, news) all the time. Following the piece, Anderson Cooper talks with Jeanne Meserve, who interviewed Muhammad in 2004. She describes a pretty bizarre experience, noting that he tried to intimidate her and wouldn't talk about the murders at all. Scary how just a couple of guys can terrorize so many people.

On now to a story with a much happier ending. In Boston, a drunk woman stumbled onto the subway tracks", but thanks to arm-waving bystanders and a quick-thinking driver, she was able to emerge from the incident unscathed. The driver's name is Charice Lewis and she is tonight's "Big 360 Interview." Ooh, the same spot as Oprah. You go girl! So basically? Drunk girl falls in, people wave frantically, Charice realizes what's happening and quickly stops the train right in the nick of time, and drunk girl pulls herself off the ground and smiles. Lesson? Um, maybe don't get wasted and go walking around subway tracks.

Next up, Gary Tuchman tells us all about the piece he's going to have on Thursday. Dudes, spoilers?! Kidding.

Finally tonight, Randi Kaye has the super-important news that former Miss California, Carrie Prejean, has a book out. Time to get that puppy out there and apparently 360 has decided to help with this feat. Why guys, why?! Poor, poor Ms. Prejean has had quite a time of it. Randi tells us that the book claims the beauty queen was "publicly labeled a bigot and another word that starts with the letter 'B.'" We're left to figure that one out for ourselves. Oooh! Oooh! Beelzebub? And then there's that little matter of a sex tape. In which she's alone. Oh my.

Anyway, blah blah blah...hypocrisy! Do we really care about any of this? Anderson tells us he hasn't had a chance to look at the book. For a second there, I soo thought he was going to say he hadn't had a chance to look at the tape, which would have hurt my brain in several different ways. And why does he need to look at the book? Dude, seriously, you can slack on this one. It's okay. But hey, how's that troop increase in Afghanistan going?

For discussion of this (seriously?!), we're joined by Lisa Bloom. Oh guys, c'mon. Yesterday Lisa was tweeting about the death penalty. Now that would have been a worthy discussion. But here we are. Anderson thinks that it was pretty sleazy for the boyfriend (or whoever) to leak the tape and I would have to concur. "But-- now that it's out there, even kind of talking about it just kind of -- it's like supporting somebody who's..." and then our anchor's thought train just kinda derails. It's okay, Anderson. We get it. Well, sort of. But if he thinks talking about it is "inappropriate" then, um, why are we talking about it?

The show was okay again. I think I'm still on-board with bulldozing the format. By the way, one of my chat friends reminded me that this week we were supposed to be getting a special series about army tapes. So what's up with that? Per my friend: "Why does this show lie to me so much? I feel like I'm in an abusive relationship." I'd make a Brokeback Mountain "we just can't quit you" joke, but, uh, a lot of regular viewers have quit you.

New Info On Fort Hood Shooter, Health Care Reform Passes House, D.C. Sniper Timeline, And Oprah Interview About Her Latest Book Club Selection

Hi everybody. Happy New Week! We're kicking things off with the latest on the horrible shooting at Fort Hood. I have to say, the coverage tonight and Friday (which I didn't blog) has made me somewhat uncomfortable. It is still SO early regarding finding out what exactly happened, yet there seems to be a narrative already forming in the media. Is it correct? Possibly. But remember, it's only recently that we learned that almost everything we thought we knew about Columbine was so very wrong.

Okay, so from Drew Griffin we learn that last year the FBI was actually investigating Major Nidal Malik Hasan because he was communicating with someone else they were investigating. The Army did their own investigation, finding that the person was a radical Muslim cleric in Yemen, but determined the communications to be research for his job as an Army psychiatrist. Then Drew's piece delves into a bunch of terrorism stuff, but if I'm understanding correctly, there are no smoking guns here. For example, two 9-11 hijackers attended services at the same mosque where Hasan had his mother's funeral. Maybe this is something. Or maybe this is just some sort of weird game of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.

It would be unfair for me to say there are no caveats here. From Drew: "There is no evidence Nidal Hasan attended the mosque regularly at that time, nor that he ever met with or was influenced by the cleric al-Awlaki, who left the United States a year later." And: "...a federal law enforcement source very close to the investigation says, don't discount the idea this may be a disgruntled employee, a person who may have had some kind of jihadist views." And from Anderson Cooper: "...it's perfectly possible for someone to do something in the name of a cause without being an actual member of a cause or in touch with people in that cause."

But as I said before, I'm still uncomfortable about this media narrative forming, because so far, it seems devoid of real facts. And 360's whole "did the Army make a deadly mistake?" framing isn't really helping things. Seriously, just because you stick a question mark at the end, doesn't suddenly make a statement objective. For the life of me I do not understand why they cannot simply report facts. Everything has to be sensationalized. To be clear, I absolutely think it's warranted to look into that question, but there's a difference between holding people accountable and simply framing your segment.

We then move on to a piece from Ted Rowlands and learn that Hasan's former classmate Val Finnell was very disturbed by his proclamation that he was a "Muslim first and American second." That could definitely be a red flag, but I'm also wondering if some people might find it less disturbing if you swapped Muslim with Christian. Hasan had other problems as well, and the co-founder of a mosque referred to him as "incoherent," so it's looking like there were definitely lots of signs something was up. Why this man was promoted will surely be a much investigated subject in the future.

Anderson does the "360 Bulletin" tonight. Hm, weird. Technical difficulties?

On to an interview with ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Republican Pete Hoekstra. I was fully ready to hear some of that good old Republican fear-mongering we all know and love, but Hoekstra was, dare I say, practically rational. There's a lot of back and forth about briefings, which is kinda neither here nor there. Apparently all that stuff we heard from Drew earlier was somehow leaked to the media and now Congress is catching up. So...that's not good in a myriad of ways. I'm not sure I embrace the Congressman's statement that "... there's indications here that this is more of an act of terrorism than just a criminal act or someone cracking." But his warnings about jumping to conclusions were quite refreshing.

Transitioning now to Randi Kaye at the wall. My God, what has she done with John King and Tom Foreman?! Anyhoo! The topic? Health care. As it turns out, there are more uninsured people in red states than blue states, with Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, and Florida being in the worst shape. But guess whose Republican senators are going to vote against the public option? Yep. Randi breaks it all down for us. This was a good segment. More please, 360.

On now to discussion with David Gergen and Candy Crowley. Saturday night the House passed its version of the health care reform bill (yay!), so now things move on to the senate. However, a very un yay part of that bill passage was the addition of the Stupak amendment, which limits abortion rights. President Obama has already indicated he wants to see that changed. The Gerg also talks about whether or not Harry Reid has 60 votes. This kinda drives me crazy. If he has 60 votes for cloture, we only need 51. Are Democrats going to vote against party on procedure? There's a question I'd like answered.

Also, to be filed under "well, that was odd," right when Candy says "the public wants some form of health care," we hear clapping in the studio. Um, I'm guessing that's a no no. Probably not even related to what Candy said, but I bet Glenn Beck can make a whole segment out of it if he really tried.

Next up, we have a timeline of the D.C. sniper shootings that took place in 2002. I'll admit, that when I first saw this advertised on the blog, I was not at all enthused. I didn't know why they were retreading through old material (turns out John Allen Muhammad will be executed tomorrow) and I fully expected it to suck. It did not. What we got was a very well done trip in the way-back machine, complete with CNN's own news footage and interviews with those who covered the story. There's even a clip of Anderson subbing on NewsNight. Aw, I miss NewsNight. Confession: I probably watched that show more than I did the previous version of 360. Regarding the show rearrangement, I guess it all worked out for everyone in the end, though I do miss learning the weather in Chicago.

But back to the piece, we hear a lot from Joe Johns who covered the story for NBC News, and admitted he feared being the next victim. I don't think I knew Joe came from NBC. News peeps jump around so much, it's hard to keep track. Anyway, he tells us the motive for the sniper attacks is still unclear. It sounds like the guy is mentally ill. His accomplice remains in jail, probably for life.

Finally tonight, we have the "Big 360 Interview" with none other than Oprah. See, the Queen of Daytime and CNN and Facebook all got together to do this big book club webcast. Synergygasm! And our own Silver Fox took part. Are you really surprised? It's no secret our anchor has some mad (platonic) Oprah-love going on. Yeah, I may have done some mocking through the years. Anyhoo! The book is "Say You're One of Them," a collection of short stories told through the eyes of African children. It sounds good, actually. I'll probably read it, despite my Oprah snobbery. My two waiting-to-be-read books on Rwanda ("Shake Hands With the Devil" and "We Wish To Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families") are going to be mad if I buy and read this new one before them.

I tried to watch the webcast for a bit, but it kept freezing on me and I gave up. You can watch the whole thing on CNN's site, which is something I stupidly didn't think about. I should have just waited. It's not like I wanted to participate in the chat. There's not that much to say about the interview. Oprah talks about her school and Anderson comments a bit about the students' resiliency. Two things: First, why all the short story hate? Both Oprah and our anchor say they aren't usually fans. Even David Sedaris?! C'mon, you gotta love David Sedaris. Also, I couldn't quite tell because of the freezing feed, but it looked like they had some pieces on Africa from CNN correspondents. Is there some reason we can't get that coverage on 360? It's pretty sad when you know a network's international correspondents because of Twitter, and not because you've seen their work on air.

The "shot" tonight was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Twenty years. Man.

The show was okay--not a real winner; not terrible either. I'm not sure what to think of their Hasan coverage. I'm guessing they're being much more responsible than, say, Fox News, but I expect more caution from 360. There are real consequences for Muslims in the military here (or hell, just Muslims period). I certainly don't proclaim to know what went down. Hasan might be more involved in terrorism than anyone has reported. But we don't know that yet. Anyway, Randi's segment and the D.C. Sniper timeline were the highlights of the night.

Also? I think my theory about election night ratings panned out. CNN saw a pretty good bump with the Fort Hood shootings. The brand still has it.

A Little Levity After A Horrible Shooting At Fort Hood

Hi everyone. This was a pretty terrible news day. The Army reports 12 dead and 31 wounded in a shooting rampage at Fort Hood in Texas. As a general rule, I don't blog "breaking news" because 1) it's too hard and 2) there really is no point. Some of what was reported today won't be true tomorrow. I learned long ago that you can watch hours of news coverage of a breaking story and literally only learn five minutes of actual facts. This isn't a criticism exactly; it just...is. I'm not sure how you get around that.

Yesterday I mentioned that CNN is the network that people turn to when news happens. I guess I should note that, in this regard, I'm more of an opposite kind of viewer. Though I'm a news junkie, I tend to purposely avoid cable news (unless the story has a strong visual component) whenever a big story breaks. I like facts. I loath speculation. I prefer to wait until people actually know what they're talking about before I tune in. But that's just me. For 360's sake, I hope I was the exception. The show went for two hours tonight, but I only made it through about an hour. From what I saw (and I admittedly wasn't watching that closely) it seemed to be decent coverage.

My thoughts and prayers go out to those affected. As a distraction from the horrible news--and because I didn't give you a real review--here's a video that always makes me smile:

Political Spin, The Maine Same-Sex Marriage Decision, And New Report On Phillip Garrido

Hi everyone. Welcome to the post-election glow. Well, if there was a glow, which there is not. Pop a Dramamine kids, because this might get dizzying. On the Democratic side, Nancy Pelosi is all "yay!" about the New York win. While Republican head Michael Steele is crowing about the pickups in Virginia and New Jersey. You spin me right round, baby, right round, like a record, baby, right round, round, round.

As for our friends at CNN, well, they've got some spinning of their own to do. Despite going all out with their super-special election coverage, the network came in a devastating last place in the ratings. Embarrassing? Hells yes. But I'm not sure this is actually the death blow some are making it out to be.

We all know that CNN has a lower base viewership than the partisan networks. They get their viewers when news happens. Last night was supposed to be one of those signature viewer-getting events, but was it really? Let's face it, CNN totally forced this election coverage, hoping to recreate 2008. In reality, most of the public wasn't even paying attention. And even of those who were invested, the most energized were the conservatives and CNN will NEVER get them.

I maintain that the network has major problems and I don't believe their current model is sustainable, but it's also not all going to come crumbling down in less than a year (I'm measuring from 2008). The brand is too strong. I'd be curious to know though if the brand is viewed the same by all generations. I suspect it's not. I suspect the younger crowd is more apt to hit social networking sites for "breaking news," rather than turn on CNN. Now THAT'S worth worrying about.

Anyhoo! Tom Foreman is here to talk about the "sea change" among independents. Ooh, there were changes in the seas! Meh. You know, I blogged the whole 2008 election season (all two years of it!) and the media was so spectacularly wrong on so many occasions, I tend to only hear the Charlie Brown teacher voice when they start talking independents and what they mean. Of note though is Tom telling us poll percentages of people who are "scared" or "angry" or whatever. The numbers are high, BUT just last night, Soledad noted that the numbers from last year were actually higher. Ladies and gentleman, we're experiencing a bit of context-fail tonight--please buckle your seat belts.

Moving on now to an interview with Liz Cheney to talk politics. Oh joy. Were the Bush twins not available? What do the Gore kids have to say? Despite the last name, is there any reason we should be listening to anything this woman says? The Wikipedia says she has State Department experience (which doesn't really apply here) and worked on the campaigns of Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney. Thompson and Romney--now there's some resume boosters. Did Thompson's campaign ever even get off the ground? Dun-dun!

You've probably guessed that I have no interest in what she says, though I will note that she got in an ACORN reference right off the bat. These people are hilarious. She also talked about "nationalized" health care, which isn't even on the table. Anderson Cooper didn't follow up on that one, but he did fairly okay with the overall interview.

Next up, we have an interview with Obama campaign manager David Plouffe. Yes we can...sell a book! Aw, I kid David. Sorta. He is selling a book and that's why he's doing the show circuit. I'd wager he's also the reason we got saddled with Liz Cheney. CNN and their lovely forced "balance." This is definitely one of the network's top problems. The show wanted to have on Plouffe, but felt they couldn't without matching him with a Republican. Thing is, Obama campaign manager DOES NOT equal Fred Thompson campaign worker.

The whole left/right match up is getting very tired. Have on the news maker of whatever party and hold them accountable. Yes, if a guest is allowed to do a monologue and then there's no one from the other side, I'm going to be peeved, but otherwise? It's okay. Of course, I'm probably one of the few people left that think 360 at least strives to be an objective show, so perhaps I'm not one to go by on this issue.

As for the interview, the only thing of note to me was when Anderson was asking where all the grass roots organizing went, noting the tea party protests. "Well, the tea party protests were loud and irresponsible, so they got coverage on shows like yours," says David. Oh snap! Ouch. But not untrue.

Transitioning now to the equality defeat in Maine. Don't make me put you on my "list," Maine. Alaska is on that list. Just sayin'. Anyhoo! So we gotta debate this sucker out. Joining us to do just that are Evan Wolfson, founder of the organization Freedom to Marry, and...Tony Perkins. When Perkins was introduced, I had to crack up. I had been chatting with some long-time 360 viewers and during the run-down at the top of the show, one commented: "Dear God, if Tony Perkins shows up I'm turning the channel." Show up he did, and channel was changed by many of my chat-mates.

My point in relaying that little anecdote, is that it really shows just how stale 360 has become. We know the guests before they even announce them. We know the conversation before we even hear it. I'll admit that personally I'm into this story, so these debates usually hold my interest. But I can completely understand why others would go for the remote, even when they care about the topic.

Where's the unconventional thinking? Instead of the same old debate, why not actually send someone to Maine to speak to the voters? Why not show us a gay family and the real consequences decisions like Maine's have? I know stuff like that requires more time and effort than talking heads in a box, but people are sick of the talking heads in a box.

Moving on to Randi Kaye who has details of a damning report recently issued related to the Phillips Garrido case. I'm going to wrap this up, so I'm leaving out the numbers, but pretty much the authorities and parole agents failed in, like, every way possible. Unbelievable. Jobs should be lost over this. After Randi, we get legal analysis from Jeffrey Toobin and Lisa Bloom.

Erica Hill has the "360 Bulletin" and we learn that one-time Miss California USA, Carrie Prejean, has a sex tape. In which she's alone. Oh my. Jesus will not be pleased. The "shot" tonight is a dog massage video. Yes, it sounds weird, but I'll admit it made me giggle. The show was...uh, I'll get back to you.

A Super Important Election Night (At Least That's What CNN Wants You To Think), Plus Anderson Cooper Is A Lego & Jack Gray At The 140 Conference

Hi everybody. So hey, did you hear there was an election tonight? That's right. CNN whipped out the Magic Wall, gathered up the pundits, and put extra batteries in the Wolfbot, all in preparation for a long night in the Election Center with the Best Political Team on Television (BPTOT). Compared to the awesomeness that was 2008, this year was a real snoozer. I can't say I was all that invested. Oh, but CNN was--in an eye roll worthy way.

Honestly, I didn't pay that much attention to the coverage. After a while, all the pundits tend to blend together. But I've managed to squeeze out a few bullet points for you. Nostalgia! First though, the business: Republicans saw wins in Virginia and New Jersey, Democrats picked up a long-time Republican seat in New York, Michael Bloomberg's money almost wasn't good enough to buy a mayorship, and equality took a hit in Maine. Yeah, there was other stuff too, but seriously, do we really care all that much? On to the bullet points!

• I'm over the Magic Map/Wall. Do we really need all that technology just for John King to write numbers on a screen? Just get a dry erase board, and with the money you save you can hire an extra reporter or two. Or, you know, stop laying off the ones you have.

• Hey, BPTOT, stop telling me you have "surprising" results to report (I'm looking at you Anderson Cooper). I'll be the judge of whether or not I'm surprised.

• And while I'm yelling at you, this is not one big referendum on Obama. His presidency is not in peril because of a couple of piddly elections. Capiche? Is the Election Center a context-free zone? Remember how different things were a year ago? Yeah, well, they could be just as different (for good or bad) a year from now. My point is that the midterm elections are A YEAR away. Chill!

• Soledad O'Brien told us that over 60 percent of the American people think things will be better in the country in the next year. Then she told us that this number sounds good, but is actually possibly problematic depending on if Obama can deliver. Oh. My. God. Stop trying to report on nonexistent future news! Yes, next year things could be not better. Or they could be even better than anyone imagined. Hell, maybe next year Obama will give everyone ponies. Please, people, stick to news happening in the present.

• Anderson Cooper made a reference to the "liberal media." I'd like to know his definition of that term. I also wonder if he realizes that basically every conservative would count him (and CNN) a member.

• Election night and 360 is still doing the "shot." Interesting. And a little out-of-place.

• You know, I couldn't care less about a single thing any pundit says. Yeah, I like some of them more than others (I know in the past I said I loved them equally, but, uh, I lied); I still don't particularly want to hear their opinions.
  

• Anderson Cooper brought jokes to the Election Center. He told us that the most note-worthy thing about a member of Boyz II Men getting swine flu was that the group still exists. Zing! Also? In his opinion, Michelle Obama should get a medal for surviving a Miley Cyrus concert. Booyah! He'll be here all night, folks! Or at least until the suspender-ed one takes over.
  

• I hope Scozzafava is laughing her ass off at the tea partiers. How's the Beck crowd going to spin this?

• Maine, you suck. That is all.

Now for a few extras. My artist relative has been having some fun with Legos lately. Check out her latest. Lego Silver Fox!


For your viewing pleasure, the YouTube finally got a hold of Jack Gray's appearance at the 140 Character Conference. Enjoy:





And his bossman, Jon Klein:



I haven't finished watching all of the Klein video, but I am already quite in a tizzy over them showing those clips of the CNN birther debunking and then NOT bringing up the Dobb's radio show controversy regarding that issue. Dood, you have Klein right there. Maybe I'll expand on that tomorrow. But that's all tonight. Until we meet again.

Noisy Politics With A Dose Of Offensive Insanity, Generic Coverage Of Women At Work, And Nicholas Cage? Oy.

Hi everyone. Tonight Anderson Cooper returns to claim his rightful place in the anchor chair. And...that is really the only good thing about this show, unfortunately. I don't particularly enjoy being a Debbie Downer. It's just that I usually only have time to watch one full hour of news and nights like these I feel like I chose poorly. I actually considered having my review consist of only three simple words: the show sucked. But I suppose even I'm not that harsh. So let's bulldoze over this thing, shall we?

We begin with politics! See, there's a few key races going down tomorrow and CNN is hilariously going all out. What's that smell? I do believe it's possible ratings. Any chance at recreating last year and they are so there. Anyway, Tom Foreman tells us about New York's 23rd Congressional District. Historically Republican, GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava was favored to win. But wait! That was before the angry conservatives. Mwahaha!

Actually, this kind of song isn't all that unique. I'm sure you can guess the tune: the Limbaugh/Palin wing of the party starts screaming RINO and endorses the conservative. What is interesting is that Scozzafava actually suspended her campaign. So now 360 has this all framed as a big moderate versus extreme wing thing because God forbid we have a story without conflict. But hey, fine with me. My view? Go Team Conservative! Go ahead, take over the party. You're gonna do awesome in the generals.

For discussion of this, we're joined by tea party guy Mark Williams and Roland Martin. Oh man. C'mon 360. Is there any conceivable way that this segment isn't going to end in disaster? What's funny is that Mark always goes on the show and then trashes them later on his blog. Yet they keep inviting him back. I think CNN is a little self loathing. So, okay, yes, let's put two loud yell-y people together and see what happens. This is totally a good idea.

Mark does not disappoint. Upon his very first opportunity to speak, he connects the moderate candidate to ACORN. Wow, well played. Eek, ACORN! Boogity boogity boo! By the way, if you'd like to learn more about ACORN, Mark has a helpful link on his blog located under the title "21st Century Nazis." There you can find info about former president Jimmy Carter as well. I love how eager Mark is to inform. Also? Apparently conservatives embrace constitutional values, while "liberal, by definition, is an enemy ideology to this country."

So, what a hot mess, huh? At one point Mark wants to know why he's considered "fringe." Obviously he does not actually listen to anything that comes out of his mouth, otherwise he'd know the answer to that. The only solace here is how bad he is at what he does. Most wingers are smart enough to keep the crazy in check when they're on the national TeeVee, but not this guy.

I guess I should note that Roland says a bunch of stuff too (and Anderson sorta kinda does a little accountability-holding), but it's nothing of note. Our anchor also does his usual routine of asking us to give our opinion on the blog. For some reason I'm guessing my suggestion that Mark go Cheney himself would probably not make it out of moderation.

Transitioning now to some estrogen-heavy coverage. Being a woman, I know I should probably be pleased about their special girl power segment, but mostly I am meh. It starts with an Erica Hill piece about how the world is a boys' club. Obama's sports-playing and stuff like that is mentioned, but what really caught my eye was the part about Letterman. It's portrayed like we're supposed to be surprised that a late night comedy show would be a tough place for a woman to work. Um, duh? Obviously I don't agree with the work environment, but isn't the fact that it exists pretty well-known?

On now to our all-woman panel. Four guests all in boxes. It's like Hollywood Squares: Girl Power! Occupying the squares are Suze Orman, professional poker player Maria Ho, former White House press secretary Dee Dee Myers, and neurosurgeon Katrina Firlik. I don't have anything against these women (though some socio-economic diversity might have been nice); there's just nothing of note here. Women are less aggressive than men and downplay their accomplishments. Wow, that's really ground breaking. C'mon, we've heard this all before. Where's the provocative angles? I'm not saying be sensational, but must we retread on stuff I'm sure Oprah did five years ago?

On now to a Randi Kaye piece on Nicholas Cage getting swindled by his business manager. Oh good God, I give up. After the piece, Anderson says this: "We should point out, with millions of Americans out of work, a lot of people are going to find it hard to sympathize with a Hollywood star who loses track of his tax payments and his multi- million-dollar fortune." You think? Yet they still went with the story. AND had discussion with Lisa Bloom and business manager Evan Bell. When the most interesting thing about a segment is that one of the guests has a phenomenal porn 'stache (did you see that thing?!), you're probably in trouble.

So hey, when you combine Ewoks, Halloween, and the humping of Al Roker's leg, what do you get? Why, you get tonight's "shot." Um...yeah. Apparently some Ewoks got out of control live on the Today Show. Were they drinking? 360 got to the bottom of it, y'all. No, they were not. The Silver Fox is just all in a tizzy over his love for this clip. "I love Ann Curry's face in it. She's just like, 'I've been to Darfur. Why am I doing this stupid segment?'" I'd just like to point out that our anchor is now reporting on that stupid segment.

Anyway, the banter with Erica Hill seems to go on forever (seriously, time to kill?). Pictures are shown. Blah blah blah. The Ewoks might not have been drinking, but it sorta seems like someone has been. I might enjoy the inanity if it didn't follow such a bad show. Oh 360, I don't know what to do with you. Lately I've been talking to some viewers who have been watching for years--well, had been watching for years. Most barely watch anymore. None have anything nice to say about the state of the show. Le sigh.

Just to throw a little bit of extra weird into this post, I caught a couple minutes of Rick Sanchez's show today. He had on Scott Ritter and talked about his smearing by the MSM even though he turned out to be right on Iraq. Remembering that time well, it was a bit cathartic to watch. Man, I never thought I'd see the day where I was trashing 360 and promoting Rick Sanchez. This truly is an upside down world. Hopefully we'll get flipped back over tomorrow.

United Nations Compound Attack, Combating H1N1 Vaccine Fear -Mongering, Job News, Palin Talk (For Some Reason), & Wanda Sykes Interview

Hi everyone. We continue our week of Anderson Cooper-lessness while John King steers the ship. Our sub anchor, however, does not have the "Big 360 Interview." No, that super-sized honor actually goes to Michael Ware (ooh, unconventional!), and it's where we begin tonight. On Wednesday morning, the Taliban launched an attack on a United Nations Compound in Kabul that left eight dead. It was brutal and brazen, and actually could have been a lot worse if not for American contractor Chris Turner.

He tells Michael that when he heard the small-arms fire, he knew they were close, and immediately grabbed his rifle. Everyone attempted to evacuate and he was the last out. About 24 people hid in a washroom while Chris stood guard, keeping them safe. He downplays his actions, noting that they were in the back of the compound and most of the action went down in the front. Still a compelling story nonetheless, and a smart move to have Michael do the interview.

Transitioning now to the subject of the H1N1 virus and--I kid you not--the Magic Map is deployed. Oh John, is there any subject you can discuss without waving your hand in front of a board? Anyway, he shows us a map of the US and all the swine flu states are red. If this were election night, that map would be giving me a heart attack right about now.

Randi Kaye then joins us to talk about some of the public resistance to the vaccine that's happening on the Internets. The 360 kids are a bit behind on this angle. Bill Maher's tweet is mentioned ("If you get a swine flu shot, you're an idiot.") and I'm pretty sure it's at least a couple weeks old because I remember seeing it in real time. There's YouTube and blog fear-mongering as well. Not to mention email forwards (which Randi doesn't mention). I had to do a big debunk for a family member a couple weeks ago due to one of those.

As I've stated before, I'm in the middle on this issue. Do I think the vaccine is perfectly safe? Of course not. Nothing is fool proof and medical mistakes are not uncommon. But do I think the government is out to get us? Um, no. They don't have their act together enough to orchestrate a full blown biomedical conspiracy. There's always a risk with any medical procedure or medication; vaccines are no different. I sort of wish Randi would have done more of an in-depth fact check. This segment kinda plays like, "weird crap we found on the Internets."

Then we're joined by Sanjay Gupta, who gives us some more info on the flu, as well as a bit of an explainer on where all these crazy theories are coming from. Guillain-Barre syndrome is mentioned, though Sanjay points out there's no proof people really developed the syndrome due to receiving the 1976 swine flu vaccine. Also, I don't really endorse the reporting of Inside Edition, but I am curious about this video and would like to see it examined by a more reputable news agency.

Moving on now to an interview John has with Christina Romer, chair of the president's Council of Economic Advisors. Funny story: A few years ago, the Bush administration was trumpeting the economy because Wall Street was humming along and GDP numbers were good. But they just couldn't understand why the poll numbers on the subject were in the tank. Well, now we are through the looking glass, people. GDP numbers are up and guess who's screaming about the lack of jobs. That's right, the Republicans. Now suddenly they're all about the average American. Funny how that happens.

As for the interview, nothing hugely of note. Though the Obama administration's job expectations aren't being met in a timely fashion, there's still no gotcha because the time period given has yet to end. It's definitely a subject they should keep up on though.

Next up, we learn that Sarah Palin is sticking her nose in a New York congressional race, and apparently now we have to talk about it. Oy. I don't get this. She's not a governor anymore. She's not any kind of official. She's not seen as a credible candidate by the majority of the country. She's nothing! Why must we continue to talk about every little thing she does. Seriously media, it's time to let go. Anyway, there's talk with Paul Begala and David Frum, but yeah, totally don't care.

Moving on to an interview with comedian Wanda Sykes. Wha? When they do stuff like this, I'm left scratching my head. I'm not complaining exactly; I just don't understand why she's on the show. I can't even explain this with synergy. All CNN has been doing this week is defending their ratings by noting how newsy they are, and then they have on a comedian (and Campbell Brown had on Tracy Morgan a week or so ago).

Personally, I think they should just have some sort of (short) pop culture segment every night. When they're able to book someone, they can have an interview. When they can't get anybody, Anderson can talk movies or TV (or Levi Johnston stripping for Playgirl--*shudder*) and you know it will be entertaining. The segment would help shake up what most now agree to be a totally stale format AND it would take away the WTFery of these kind of seemingly odd and out-of-place interviews. A little fun on the news is fine, as long as it has its place.

Anyway, the interview with Wanda is a little odd in that John focuses a bit on the White House Correspondents Dinner, where yes, she performed, but it was also forever ago. That dinner was not without controversy. Rush Limbaugh had recently remarked that he hoped Obama would fail. In response, Wanda cracked that she hoped Rush's kidneys would fail, a remark that sent a gasp through the crowd. "Washington wasn't quite ready for that one," says John.

Hey, remember the 2004 dinner when Bush pulled that great bit about how he couldn't find WMDs? You know, those same WMDs that never existed, which were used as a justification for a war that resulted in the deaths of thousands of people? Remember that? Wasn't that just Hee-fucking-larious? Listen to the press laugh. Good one, Bush! Too funny! But yeah, a crack about Rush's kidneys failing? Washington wasn't quite ready for that one.

Also? Apparently Wanda Sykes is gay. I'm not sure if I already knew this. I think I probably did, but it's not exactly something that concerns me all that much. I bring it up, because John does this really abrupt transition and starts asking her about the human rights campaign, which threw me for a second. I guess this is how they classify the interview as news.

That about does it for me. The show was okay. I think they beat the Olbermann repeat in the demo ratings last night, so...yay? It's kinda sad how bad they're getting pounded lately. A part of me thinks they should just bulldoze the format, do some outside-the-box thinking, and rebuild the show from there. But I don't see that happening. Anyway, until we meet again.