Health Care Reform Procedural Controversy, Tiger Woods On My TV Again, Sex Addiction, Vatican Scandal, And More Serial Killer

Hi everyone. Health care reform continues to chug along at an excruciating pace, and it's not without a bump or two either. We're in the home stretch of massive legislation, which means one thing for certain is on the horizon: confusing procedural issues! In an Ed Henry piece, it's noted that our prez has been traveling all over these here United States, promising the American people an up or down vote on health care reform (helpfully exhibited in clip form-nice).

But! Now Pelosi might use what is known as "deeming," which means that House members would be able to approve fixes to the Senate bill without having to do that whole unpleasantness of actually voting for the whole bill. This is CYA at its finest. Reform gets passed and no one has to stick their necks out politically. Everybody wins! Well, except democracy.

And as a preserver of that democracy, Ed holds Gibbs' feet to the fire on the issue. Honestly, at this point I just want them to push it through and I really don't care who they have to tie up in the House basement to do it, but good on Ed for doing his job. He also notes that Republicans, who predictably are crying like little babies over this, did the same thing themselves with immigration legislation. Ed's on a roll. I just might have to give him a cookie.

Oh Also? Gibbs and Pelosi aren't even on the same page. Democrats are so frustrating. Right side of the issues, wrong side of competency. After Ed's piece, he further explains how Republicans are cynically trying to score political points off all this. Yeah well, water wet, sky blue. What are you gonna do? Pass the bill. In the end, no one will care how it got done. Declare victory and move on. Hey, it worked for Iraq.

On now to discussion with David Gergen, who has become quite the broken record these days. Again with the hand-wringing over how the bill is going down. I think I could say his lines at this point. Does the Gerg have a glitch? Somebody give him a shake and see if he turns back into that rational non concern troll that I liked so much. The stuff he's saying, you'd swear he didn't even live through the Bush administration. Also of note, Anderson Cooper did a little challenging. Credit where credit is due (yes, I'm reaching).

Transitioning now to the news that Tiger Woods is returning to golf...which means now we get to talk about him some more. Yay? A Gary Tuchman piece gives us a sum-up of all the prior drama, and explains why golf wants him back ever so badly. I don't have to go over how he slept with the equivalent of the tri-state area, do I? Anyway! Anderson reminds us that Tiger checked himself into sex rehab and we're shown several pictures of other celebs who have allegedly suffered from the problem. Because I'm sure they want to be dragged into this.

This, of course, is all just leading up to an interview with a sex addict, that sex addict being Benoit Denizet-Lewis. There's a funny little bit of information you learn when you put his name into the Google machine. You know how Anderson told us about Tiger being in sex rehab? Well, the curious thing is that Tiger hasn't actually spoken about it. In fact, our anchor stressed several times that we really don't know his exact deal. What tabloid reporter invaded the golfer's privacy to confirm the sex rehab info? Why, it was Benoit Denizet-Lewis!

So, let me get this straight: A guy who is supposedly suffering from something very real and painful, exploits a celebrity who is allegedly suffering from the exact same thing, in order to get himself publicity. In the meantime, 360 is apparently more than happy to play this game, because they themselves are exploiting the notion of sex addiction so that they have an excuse to speculate about Tiger Woods. The golfer, by the way, has never even said he's a sex addict. Good God, I actually feel bad for Tiger here. That's how fucked up this situation is.

And no disclosure that Benoit was the guy who confirmed the sex rehab?! I mean, seriously? Wow. It's funny, I already thought the situation was pretty messed up and that was before I Googled. Someone please tell me I'm mistaken about this stuff. Otherwise, I don't even know what to say. Obviously I consider the guy's credibility pretty much shot, so at this point everything he said is moot. I guess we'll just move on because...wow. (Update: Benoit writes on his blog that he did not break the Woods story, but only further confirmed, something he now regrets. Do with that what you will.)

Next up, Abbie Boudreau joins us to update the prior reporting she did on the 96 hour rule. That was the rule that said soldiers had four days to come up with evidence that would merit turning over suspects to Afghan officials. Otherwise, they had to be released. Much controversy arose from the rule, which many felt was putting soldier's lives at risk. Abbie tells us that General David Petraeus was questioned about the matter and now the rule will be 14 days instead of four. That sounds reasonable. Yay for that.

Moving on now to a Nic Robertson piece on yet more scandal of the sex variety going down with the Catholic church. This one's actually connected to the Pope, and while I do not deny it's important, I feel like my church sex scandal quota has already been met for the week (and we're not even at the halfway point!). After Nic's piece, Anderson talks with CNN's senior Vatican analyst, John Allen. It kinda cracks me up that CNN actually has a senior Vatican analyst.

Transitioning now to a Stephanie Elam piece on that "Dating Game" serial killer guy Rodney Alcala. Actually, I find their TV show angle with this story to be completely ridiculous. The guy was a contestant once. So what? They make it sound like he actually killed people on the show. But we all know it makes it more intriguing. Anyway, the police found a bunch of pictures of women and girls in the killer's storage locker.

It's not known who they are, but in a rare move, they were released to the public in the hopes of perhaps solving some cold cases. Tips have since been streaming in. We're being shown the pictures throughout the piece. My regular readers know well how much I dislike these kind of stories, but if there's a public good to come of them I have absolutely no problem with the airing. What they're doing with this piece is one of the functions of news. My problem is with unnecessary speculation and exploitation involving stories that only touch a handful of people. Lisa Bloom follows this up with the legal lowdown.

Candy Crowley has our headlines tonight, one of which is the news that a connection has been found between erectile dysfunction and heart disease. Earlier, Anderson teased the story by saying how much the early warning sign would shock us. Well, here we are and I'm not shocked. Why do they always do that? It's not exactly a new problem. I even wrote a whole blog post about it almost three years ago. Also? Why are they teasing a mere headline in the first place?

The "shot" tonight is some facial morphing done of our anchor because the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History is celebrating their 100th anniversary and they have a new exhibit on human origins. Yeah, I don't know what Anderson has to do with this either, but let's just go with it. So anyway, we're shown Neanderthal! Anderson, who yes, is decidedly less pretty. Amusingly, however, he still has the furrowed brow. Because that's how we know the news is serious, people! Anderson also shows Candy's (against her will!) and she's not looking so hot either. But she takes it well. These two actually have pretty good chemistry. Still miss Erica though.

Well, children, apparently the special theme tonight was sex. Oy. You know, last week when I noted that 360 seemed to be morphing into a news magazine and that was probably a good thing, in my head I envisioned them going in more the direction of, say, 60 Minutes. But I guess they have chosen the opposite direction, onward to Inside Edition. I don't know what to say except that I don't get it.

Going sensational only alienates viewers who they count on when they do real news like Haiti and whatnot. I used to watch a fair amount of CNN. Then came months of Michael Jackson coverage. Except for 360, the network lost me. The show keeps going back and forth between putting on a quality broadcast and catering to the lowest common denominator. Until they pick a side and stay consistent, they're never going to significantly grow their base of regular viewers.

Barney Frank Interview On Our Money, More H1N1 Talk, Sex Addiction, And Health Insurance Gender Inequality

Hi everyone. Well, it seems Anderson Cooper has ditched us for no doubt more interesting surroundings. But never fear, John King is here, and he's more than qualified when it comes to holding down the fort until the silver-topped one returns.

Tonight we begin with...outrage! Okay, we're all well aware of the bailouts...and the taking of our money...and the perks and yada yada. At this point, some of us would like to see the CEOs of these companies, I don't know, perhaps made to cry like little girls. But I digress. Joe Johns tells us that now companies like Citigroup and Bank of America--takers of OUR money--are pouring cash into lobbyists, who in turn are (most likely) trying to water down regulations that might have kept us from getting into this whole bailout mess in the first place. To sum up: ahhhh!!!!!

We're given a bunch of caveats. Like, John isn't telling us specifics of the lobbying and the companies are claiming they're not using federal funds. In fact, they apparently even sent CNN charts and graphs as proof. Oh, well, if we can't believe something made in PowerPoint, what can we believe? Seriously, are we sure we can't make them cry like little girls?

Next up, John has an interview with Representative Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. I like Frank's no BS-style, but I'm not going to lie, following his interviews can be challenging. Of note to me is Frank stating that money doesn't necessarily make the lobbyists effective. Basically he's trying to say he and his colleagues can't be bought. Okay, fair point. Money doesn't guarantee they'll get the legislation they want, but it sure as hell helps.

Frank also talks about his plan to set up a systemic risk council in order to prevent the whole "too big to fail" problem from happening again in the future. "We're going to have death panels. But they're going to have death panels that are going to put to death these institutions before they can cause us problems, not old people," he tells us. Yes, killing old people is generally frowned upon. But death panels for companies is something I can get behind. It'd be great if this actually came to fruition.

Then the very good point is made that, originally, financial companies acted as a means to an end, with the end being goods and services. Now some of these companies are the end. All they do is move money around. Frank doesn't see much value in it, and quite frankly, neither do I. From here, the conversation turns to health care reform, with Frank expressing his support for the new proposal that states can opt out of the public option. He thinks the option will actually become popular and states won't opt out. Again, I agree. It's not the strong public option I'd like, but at least it makes the bill worth passing.

Transitioning now to more on H1N1. Sanjay Gupta is here because President Obama just declared the flu to be a national emergency. But no freak out needed. As Sanjay explains, the declaration refers to how wide spread the flu might become; not how severe. Also, it's mostly a technicality, in that it streamlines procedures and cuts through red tape. Sanjay brings up Hurricane Katrina as an example, which is actually exactly what I thought of when I heard about the declaration. Erica Hill then pops in to talk about availability of the vaccine. Things are pretty behind. Keep washing those hands, people.

If it's true that sex sells, let's hope our next segment gets the 360 kids some ratings because otherwise...ugh. It seems some ESPN analyst got fired for having an affair with a production assistant and now we're talking about sex addiction. Yeah, I don't know why either. We're joined by Lori Brown, associate professor of sociology at Meredith College, and addiction specialist Reef Karim. I can't say I'm all that interested. If I wanted to watch Dr. Phil, well, I would.

A bit of hilarity though: you know how 360 does that "Text 360" thing even though they have the feedback form, Facebook, and Twitter already? Well, tonight I saw my Twitter pal Vanessa tweet Anderson's Twitter account a question, and not even about three minutes later, they were reading it on the air. So, either "Text 360" isn't very popular (especially since they didn't even use a text) or the 360 kids give a new meaning to last minute decision.

Next up, the Silver Fox is back! Well, sorta. We have a taped interview Anderson did with Christina Turner, a woman who was sexually assaulted and then dropped by her insurance company. This whole story is just so so wrong. Christina was drugged by men at a bar, and subsequently did the right thing by going on anti-HIV medication. Unfortunately, that move, coupled with the therapy she required to deal with the traumatic event, made her essentially uninsurable.

This pisses me off so much I can't even recap it properly. So go here to read Christina's story, watch the extended interview with Anderson, and finally, check out the website awomanisnotapreexistingcondition.com.

For more on the gender inequality of our health insurance system, Sanjay returns and we're also joined by Marsha Greenberger of the National Women's Law Center, and Candy Crowley. Marsha tells us that unfortunately Christina's case is not an anomaly. There are even states that consider domestic abuse a pre-existing condition. Sanjay adds on, noting that pregnancy can be viewed as a pre-existing condition as well. Plus, plans are often more costly for women and may not even cover obstetric care. On the political front, Candy talks a bit about how Michelle Obama is now out there on health care reform. Good couple segments. I'm glad 360 did this.

There's more show, but I actually got distracted and missed the end. From what I saw, besides the (IMO) pointless ESPN sex addiction segment, everything was good. A couple things of interest: Brian Williams will be reporting from Afghanistan this week with special reports from one of my faves, Richard Engel.

Also, remember how I said I hoped the Balloon Boy coverage would at least get 360 some good ratings because their October numbers were going to suck? Yeah, well, their October numbers suck. Ouch. Not exactly a surprise. Obviously this is a network wide problem, but it looks like 360 might be bearing the brunt.

I wouldn't deny that much of CNN's ratings have to do with the fact that they're not a partisan network, but I also believe some of their woes are self-inflicted. Simply put, CNN has no identity, and this trickles down to individual shows. To be honest, I cannot recommend 360 to anyone because I don't know how. I, a loyal viewer of over four years, am unable to succinctly define this show. Sure, we've all read the blurbs about holding people accountable and going behind the headlines and blah blah.

Some nights that's true. Other nights it's total crap. I don't really want to tell someone, "hey, watch this show because they might do a provocative hour of news." I feel like I need to add the caveat that the provocative hour will go out the window if a balloon flies through the air for two hours, or a celebrity does something really stupid. The last time I recommended 360 to someone, she sat down to 20 minutes of Paris Hilton. After the embarrassment of receiving her WTF email, and having to explain that, no, I don't think celebrity news is the mark of a quality program, I was a tad turned off from ever singing CNN's praises to non newsjunkies.

So, my view? There's a large group of news viewers out there who view CNN as a total joke because, well, sometimes they are. Thing is though, the network also does really great work that's not being seen by as many people as it should, because the stupid coverage alienated the potential loyal viewers. Does CNN really want to be at the mercy of events? There's a loyal audience out there just waiting to be found. I know Jon Stewart is a comedian, but his smack down of CNN a few weeks ago was spot on. Reporting...fact-checking...CONSISTENTLY--I think it's an identity a lot of people could get behind.