Radicalization Report Gone Unheeded, Oprah Pulls A Palin, Killings At The Canal: The Army Tapes Part Three, & Controversy In A Wal-Mart

Hi everyone. We begin tonight with the news that Defense Secretary Gates has ordered a review of military policies and the events leading up to Nidal Hassan's massacre of soldiers at Fort Hood. But CNN has learned that the Defense Department contacted independent cyberterrorism analyst Shannen Rossmiller before the Hasan shooting ever occurred, in order to look at how the military deals with procedures related to possible radicalism in their ranks. If fact, Rossmiller completed a report in April 2008 entitled "The Radicalization of Members Within DOD," which sounds a lot like what Gates is ordering now. Shades of Hurricane Pam.

For discussion of this, we're joined by Rossmiller herself, as well as Representative Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. It's a pretty good discussion. Rossmiller explains the report a bit and notes that to her understanding, it was received by the intelligence community in the Defense Department. They also talk profiling and though admittedly Hoekstra sounds relatively reasonable, I can't help but see irony in his advocation that we learn from the Europeans regarding how to deal with home grown radicals. Think he wants us to learn about their law and order approach too? Yeah, not so much.

Transitioning to the news that--ZOMG!!!--Oprah is quitting. In two years. And...she's going to have her own cable network, so everybody can just unclench, okay? She's not leaving us. I thought Twitter was going to have a heart attack when the news broke. It's going to be okay, people. In a Tom Foreman piece, we get an abbreviated Oprah biography. You know the drill: media empire, weight issues, book club, and YOU GET A CAR! If you're a regular reader of this blog, you know that I don't exactly buy into the Oprah hype, but that doesn't mean I don't like her. She's definitely done much more good for this world than bad, and I'll admit to watching on many an occasion.

It's just that Oprah has a tendency to make everything about, well, Oprah. Take James Frey. Did Oprah eviscerate him in front of millions of people in defense of truth? No, she did it because she felt personally slighted and had to do damage control to her reputation. If she was really all about the truth, that Sarah Palin interview would have been a hell of a lot tougher. (By the way, I bet this story bumped our nightly Palin coverage, so, uh, thanks Oprah.) Anyway, after Tom's piece, Anderson Cooper talks to Ryan Seacrest by phone, which just makes me laugh. I dunno, something about Ryan's whole existence makes me laugh. But, uh yeah, there's nothing of note here. Well, except Ryan reminding me that Oprah also unleashed Dr. Phil on us. Not her best moment in my book.

On now to part three of the investigative series "Killings at the Canal: The Army Tapes" with correspondent Abbie Boudreau. Tonight we learn how, after nine months of secrecy, the execution style murder of four Iraqis by U.S. soldiers was finally revealed. As reported previously, 13 men were on the mission that day that led to three sergeants committing murder. All 13 were questioned and interrogators found themselves up against a very strong brotherhood loyalty. But finally Jess Cunningham, now a former army sergeant, broke the silence. He insists he did the right thing.

David Court, attorney of First Sergeant John Hadley who is now serving time at Fort Leavenworth for the crime, doesn't find Cunningham's reveal to be exactly a noble act. In fact, at the time he came forward, Cunningham was facing disciplinary charges for assaulting Sergeant Michael Leahy, another soldier convicted in the murders. He has received immunity for testifying and is no longer in the Army. So in terms of viewing the case, that complicates things a bit. After the piece, Abbie tell us that Cunningham has been treated pretty badly since coming forward. Called a rat, property vandalized, things like that. It's sad. Ultimately he did the right thing, though perhaps not for the right reasons.

For discussion, we're joined by Army captain and Iraq war veteran Pete Hegseth, and Eugene Fidell, a military law attorney. They begin by talking about the whole 'band of brothers' thing and the extremely strong loyalty that soldiers have for one another. From Pete: "I don't think it's accurate to say that that band of brothers needs to extend to covering up war crimes that happen." And Eugene notes that when it comes to war crimes, there is an obligation to both report and investigate them. The panel then moves on to Cunningham's excuse that fear for his own safety prevented him from coming forward sooner. Pete agrees there's most likely truth there. I'm sure there is, and the fear is legitimate. Just ask Joe Darby or Justin Watt (old school 360 blog!).

Anderson asks about the validity of the argument that the men were simply trying to avoid having to release Iraqis who they believed had killed Americans and would do so again. Eugene thinks that kind of action is insubordination. Pete "completely disagrees," explaining the previously reported difficulties with keeping detainees locked up. But if you listen to the nuances, I'm not sure he's really disagreeing at all, but rather making sure a problem is acknowledged. Anderson sums it up nicely: "What you're saying is that's an argument for changing the ground rules in terms of what evidence is needed or how evidence is gathered against detainees. It's not an excuse for murder."

Transitioning to a Gary Tuchman piece on a racially charged controversy in Kennett, Missouri. I've missed some of this reporting, so time to play catch-up. When Heather Ellis, an African American, was 21-years-old, she was checking out at a local Wal-Mart, when she decided to switch lines. Customers--all white--accused her of cutting, and she allegedly began using profanity. Police were called and she was ultimately accused of hitting and kicking the officers, all white. Ellis claims they assaulted her. Oh boy. There's a surveillance video, but all it really shows is her pushing other customers' items back at the counter.

Three years later, Ellis is now facing 15 years in prison, which I have to say, regardless of her guilt seems a little extreme. As for that guilt, things aren't looking so great. I'm the first one to be wary about statements from cops, but when you have all those people saying the same thing against you...like I said, doesn't look good. Plus, I think I'm a bit biased by my former retail experience. Because customers? They're craaazeh! This story almost seems tame to me. I mean, I once saw our loss prevention guy get mowed down by a shoplifter fleeing via vehicle, fly over the hood of the car, and then pop back up to continue the chase. Just a regular day in retail. Lesson we can learn from all this? Don't shop at Wal-Mart.

Also? I absolutely loved Gary reading the profanity-laced testimony of the customers (who were quoting Ellis): "One of them was Albert Fisher, who testified, 'She told me I was a stupid mother blanker.' He added, 'She let me know I didn't know who I was blanking with.' And then he says, when he asked her name, she said, 'My name is Donna blanking Duck'" When she said, 'If you try to arrest me, I'll kick your blanking blank,' according to the cop, he arrested her." My blanking blank? Gary! Such language! Oh, my innocent ears...

Next up, we learn that the government panel that issued the new mammogram guidelines did some clarifying today. Except, not really. Because their clarifying sounds suspiciously like what they said before. Help us, Sanjay Gupta, help us. Never fear, the doctor is here. And he recommends still getting mammograms starting at age 40. The Gupta has spoken. Case closed.

The "shot" tonight is done by Tom Foreman because it features Anderson. It seems the Silver Fox and Wolf Blitzer both have cameos in Stephen King's new book. And what better way to commemorate this fact than to have members of the crew do a dramatic reading? I think the last guy deserves an Oscar. As for the actual passages, out of the two anchors mentioned, I find it hilarious that it's the Wolfbot, ahem, "Wolfie," that ends up being the crush object. That Stephen King is never one to go with the pack, is he?

I thought the show was fairly good. Talking to Seacrest seemed a little excessive, but there's no way this show wasn't going to be all over the Oprah story. They love (to report on) her so! Abbie's series continues to be very well done. With tomorrow being Friday, I'm not sure I'll have a full review, but I do plan to blog the final segment and my thoughts. So until we meet again.

Fort Hood Shooter Warning Signs, Abortion Rights And Health Care Reform, A Priest With A Secret Son, Palin On Oprah, And Oscar The Grouch Visits 360!

Hi everyone. No blog for yesterday because I wasn't able to watch. Tonight we kick things off with the news that Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan has been charged with 13 counts of murder. This moves us into a Brian Todd piece regarding the warning signs that were missed, or which never received proper investigation. Hasan's former colleagues are speaking out--anonymously, it should be noted--and two former classmates blame political correctness regarding his religion as the reason the obviously troubled Major was able to skate by for so long.

We're then joined by former military prosecutor Thomas Kenniff to further explore this angle. Though Kenniff does push the political correctness line, it also sounds like Hasan's rank and his profession as a physician might have had just as much to do with people not wanting to come forward and make trouble--possibly jeopardizing their careers. Obviously there were individuals who had reservations about the man, but in those situations you can never be sure you are right. So, as with Hasan's potential connections to terrorism, as of yet, I'd say there is no definitive there there when it comes to why warning signs were missed.

Moving on to a Tom Foreman piece that explores the Stupak-Pitts amendment, which was added to the House health care reform bill. Severely limiting abortion rights, the amendment now poses a big problem for the senate. Take it out and they lose pro-life votes; keep it in and...you get the picture. And it's getting dirty: A Rhode Island bishop wants representative Patrick Kennedy to leave the Catholic faith because he didn't vote the "right" way. Yeesh.

For discussion, Candy Crowley and David Gergen are keeping us company. Nothing hugely of note, though the Gerg does point out that "women's groups also feel very strongly that, as in the past, when there have been conflicts over women's rights vs. other preferences, that women often come last and that men push it." Yes. That is very annoying. Then from Candy we learn that Democrats are pretty much just trying to keep the legislative process rolling and fix the bitter pills as they can. That might make me feel better...if they weren't so incompetent.

Transitioning now to a Gary Tuchman superduper two--yes, TWO--part investigation. The subject? Henry Willenborg, a Franciscan priest who also happens to be a secret baby daddy. Oh yes. This is so going to be the plot for Lifetime's next movie of the week. But this story isn't just about scandal; there's a tragic twist as well. The "baby" (Nathan) is now a 22-year-old with brain cancer who has only weeks to live. Let's back things up. Once upon a time, devoted Catholic Patricia Bond had an affair with, and became pregnant by Willenborg. Instead of having the priest take responsibility for his child, the church had Patricia sign an agreement of silence in return for quiet financial support. Feeling intimidated and vulnerable, she went along with the deal.

Now with her son's illness, she has had to resort to begging the church for money for his care. Besides $1,000, they basically said no, claiming they have paid her about $233,000 over 22 years. Well, Gary can do math, and it turns out that's less than $11,000 a year. Plus, isn't there that whole moral thing? I thought those priest guys were big on that. Perhaps not. Gary then tracks down Father Robert Karris, the lead negotiator of the agreement. The idea is to find out why there was ever an agreement in the first place. Gary asks why they didn't kick Willenborg out and make him take responsibility for his child on his own. Says Karris: "It would have been the best thing. But that's not the reality." Um, yeah. Because you made it not the reality.

Then we find out that Willenborg just got suspended from his current Wisconsin church because of new allegations regarding an affair with a minor. Wow. Protected by the church, and now he's doing it again--this time to someone underage. Now no one knows where Willenborg is, so Gary came here to St. Louis where he apparently used to live. I am simultaneously excited that Gary was here and annoyed that my city just got dragged into this mess. But anyway, to wrap things up, the Franciscans have agreed to pay 100 percent of Nathan's internment expenses, which is good, and completely morbid at the same time. And if you need one more tragic twist, here you go: Patricia was just diagnosed with cancer herself.

So...that was all pretty messed up, huh? I suppose there's an argument to be made that Nathan is an adult and his father would no longer be legally responsible regardless, but I think the main point of this story is the cover-up and secretiveness. We all know the Catholic church has an, um, history. To talk about this, we're joined by Barbara Blaine, founder of the Survivors' Network for those Abused by Priests (SNAP), and William Donohue, president of the Catholic League. Donohue has been on the show before. Gotta say, not a fan. And why must he talk so loudly?

Barbara hits on the power imbalance that occurs when a woman has an affair with a trusted member of society such a priest, likening it to a doctor-patient relationship. Donohue thinks the church blew it, but then he tries to somehow equate it with the David Letterman thing, giving us all a collective WTF? Barbara helpfully points out that, uh, yeah, Catholic officials and late night talk show hosts don't exactly hold the same moral ground. Seriously, is this guy really the best they can do as a spokesperson?

Next up, two of 360's favorite obsessions collide to make one horrifying segment. Ladies and gentleman, I give you Sarah Palin on Oprah. The thing hasn't aired yet, so we're just getting clips. Can't say I care much. I like it when she says that her family "don't really like the drama." Really? Because every time I see you, drama seems to be hanging out nearby.

Finally tonight, Anderson Cooper and Erica Hill get to chill with one very special visitor: Oscar the Grouch! No, really! In honor of Sesame Street's 40th Anniversary, the cranky Muppet who lives in a trashcan stopped by the 360 studio to talk about going green and getting healthy. Fun facts: Oscar was originally orange and prefers a blueberry instead of the cliched blackberry popular with the newsies. And...that's kinda all I got. This was both cute and awkward, though mostly cute, so I'll call it a winner. Now, when is Count Dracula stopping by?

The show wasn't bad, though I'll admit to being totally biased when it comes to Gary Tuchman's reporting. I'm probably going to miss tomorrow, so don't do anything too awesome, 360! I'll try to maybe blog something again before next week. Until we meet again.

Edited to add: Happy trails and congrats to Ted Fine. AC360's behind-the-scenes Silver Fox (ahem) is moving on up to an EP position at Bloomberg TV.

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: