Media Nation

MSNBC is the sleeping giant of cable news. As the only one of the three all-news channels backed by a network news division, MSNBC could establish itself as the quality leader tomorrow — make that tonight — if the owners at General Electric so desired. Instead, it staggers on in third place, year after year, foisting dreck hosted by the likes of Rita Cosby, Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson upon an unsuspecting public. (Or not, since no one’s actually watching.)

Let me qualify that a bit. Cosby’s nothing but a third-rate sob sister, but Scarborough, stiff and weird though he may be, is willing to listen more and shout less than most of his peers. Carlson is a terrific writer and a charming guy, but I don’t think he’s ever found his footing on television. Each may be capable of doing better, but neither of their shows was ever conceived of as news.

So Media Nation did not exactly hang the black crepe when Rick Kaplan was shown the door earlier this week. Ratings have gone up during his tenure, but from where I’ve been sitting (that is, on the couch), MSNBC has just been marking time the past couple of years.

Now Dan Abrams will get his chance. As the host of a tabloid law show, he is not, to say the least, the first person who’d come to mind if your interest is in seeing MSNBC become a serious news outlet. But I was somewhat heartened to see that he considers Keith Olbermann‘s and Chris Matthews‘ shows, easily the two best on the network, to be models for the direction in which he wants to move. (I’m not saying I’m a huge Matthews fan, and I’m not saying I don’t wish Olbermann’s program, “Countdown,” were a bit less contrived. I’m just saying that everything else is much, much worse.)

And, Dan, here’s an idea, free of charge: Hire Aaron Brown to be the host of a prime-time, hour-long newscast. Give it a try. What the heck. Brown wasn’t exactly a ratings king on CNN, but he did better than his replacement, Anderson Cooper.

Somehow, though, I don’t think much is going to change at the News Channel That Viewers Forgot.

And I’m moderating comments again. Now, this could persuade me to end comments. Sorry, but life is too short.

Among the odder phenomena related to the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the notion advanced in some circles that liberals are unhappy because the deadly raid makes President Bush look good. Media Matters offers this example, in the form of a deeply stupid exchange between Fox News host John Gibson and Republican strategist Ed Rollins.

Yes, Nick Berg’s poor father has said some strange things, but he is, after all, still grieving.

Anyway, Media Nation this morning issues a challenge. If you can find a credible example of a mainstream liberal expressing anything other than delight at Zarqawi’s demise, send it along and I’ll post it. An explanation of the rules:

• “Credible” means from the horse’s mouth. If Sean Hannity, for instance, claims that Liberal X uttered Outrage Y, that doesn’t count. However, if you’ve got proof that Liberal X did indeed say Outrage Y, that counts.
• “Mainstream” means someone whom we don’t have to spend a half-hour researching to figure out who he is. Also, Ward Churchill doesn’t count.
• In determining the validity of any particular entry, I am judge, jury and executioner.

In a twist, conservative blogger Glenn Reynolds accuses Newark Star-Ledger columnist Paul Mulshine of falsely claiming that Reynolds had criticized the media for not being sufficiently appreciative of Zarqawi’s death.

I followed the links, and I’d say Reynolds comes closer to making that accusation he wants to admit. The Himmler aside is telling.

Does this make Ann Coulter better or worse? Worse, I’d say.

The spam attack appears to be over, and I have turned off comment moderation.

When the going gets tough, President Bush trots out the gay-marriage bogeyman. Bush got exactly what he wanted this week. The constitutional ban that he supposedly backs was easily defeated, thus giving him a chance to excite his dwindling base while keeping the issue low-profile enough so as not to alienate normal Americans.

Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post put it nicely: “What uncharted realm lies beyond brazen cynicism? A wasteland of utter shamelessness, perhaps?”

But if Bush’s motives are obvious enough, what’s the deal with Peter Steinfels? The New York Times religion columnist devotes an entire piece today to exploring the notion that legal recognition of same-sex marriage could violate the First Amendment rights of religious conservatives.

I’m not going to take on Steinfels’ microanalysis of whether an evangelical Christian college might be forced to allow married same-sex couples to occupy its dorms or lose its tax-exempt status. In fact, I would go so far as to say that there is some chance of that happening.

Rather, let me address the macro argument that seems to elude Steinfels: Whose religion? There are, in fact, mainstream religious organizations in this country that support the right of same-sex marriage. The fact that Unitarian Universalist clergy may only perform such marriages in Massachusetts is just as much a violation of religious liberty as the hypothetical examples cited by Steinfels. (Disclosure: I’m a UU.) Reform Jews, Congregationalists and members of several other denominations also support same-sex marriage — or, at least, oppose a constitutional amendment.

Next time Steinfels chooses to write about this topic, he might consult the Web site of an organization called Clergy for Fairness, and ask some of the leaders how their religious liberty is being threatened by the likes of Pat Robertson, James Dobson and, yes, President Bush.

My friend Susan Ryan-Vollmar writes in Bay Windows this week: “Civil marriage rights are a civil rights issue and a moral issue. One of the reasons why we have succeeded here in Massachusetts is because the issue has been framed in those terms.”

By failing to frame it as a moral issue elsewhere, gay-marriage advocates allow their opponents to claim morality for themselves — and they allow journalists such as Steinfels to be led astray. Yes, Steinfels quotes liberals who think the notion of a constitutional clash is real, and no, I don’t doubt that it could happen. But there are Americans are being denied their religious liberties right now, and Steinfels should have paid attention to them, too.

Coulter cracks up

Sorry for the late hit, but I’m accustomed to ignoring Ann Coulter. But watch this, and ask yourself why anyone ever invites her to appear anywhere.

Michael Graham reproves his worthlessness here.

I am going to moderate comments for a while in order to stop a flood of comment spam that’s coming in. No, not you, Mike. A robot has managed to penetrate Blogger’s word-verification system and is posting long lists of pornographic links to old posts. Sorry for the inconvenience.

I tuned in Jon Keller’s report on independent gubernatorial candidate Christy Mihos’ running mate tonight more for a laugh than anything. I did laugh, but it was with delight.

I know John Sullivan. He was town moderator in Winchester back in the late 1970s and early ’80s, when I was covering Winchester for the Daily Times Chronicle of Woburn. He was terrific — smart, dry and charming. When town meeting would drag on night after night, week after week, as was sometimes the case in Winchester, Sullivan was the only entertainment available.

Frank Phillips has posted the official announcement.

Off the top of my head I can’t even tell you how an independent candidate for lieutenant governor would get elected. There’s no primary, so I guess Sullivan automatically wins if Mihos somehow manages to defeat his major-party rivals.

Too bad Sullivan can’t get elected lieutenant governor in his own right. He’d certainly have my vote.

Even if no rational person believes that the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi will end the violence in Iraq, it’s certainly good news that he’s been killed. John Burns of the New York Times reports on the raid that ended in Zarqawi’s death. Writing in the Washington Post, Ellen Knickmeyer and Jonathan Finer assert:

His killing is the most significant public triumph for the U.S.-led coalition since the 2003 capture of Saddam Hussein, although analysts warned that Zarqawi’s killing would not stem the tide of insurgency and violence in Iraq any more than Hussein’s capture did.

Al-Jazeera runs a chilling piece on the reaction of Zarqawi’s family. Zarqawi’s older brother is quoted as saying, “We expected that he would be martyred. We hope that he will join other martyrs in heaven.” That’s the problem: There’s no shortage of the hatred that created Zarqawi.

Rory Carroll writes in the Guardian:

We can assume that al-Qaida in Iraq will attempt reprisal attacks as soon as possible, to show it is still in business; also that the organisation will operate at less than full steam while it tries to fill its leadership void.

Beyond that, the significance of this week’s US strike on Baquba, 40 miles north of the capital, is difficult to gauge. Too much mythology, too much spin, encrusts the name Zarqawi to know at this stage whether his death is a turning point or a footnote.

Writing for the Daily Standard, Dan Darling, a “counterterrorism expert,” calls Zarqawi “one of the most accomplished mass murderers in the modern history of terrorism.” Yet Darling concedes that the extent of Zarqawi’s power and influence have always been something of a mystery. Darling concludes:

Zarqawi’s death is unlikely to prove the immediate end of either al Qaeda in Iraq or the Iraqi insurgency, as Zarqawi was, by his own account, only a servant or representative of al Qaeda’s international terrorist organization. Yet it must be noted that Zarqawi was also a monster of unspeakable proportions. The United States, its coalition allies, and the new Iraqi government have much to be thankful for in bringing an end to this mass murderer’s career.

Well, that’s certainly true. And not just mass murder: up close and personal, too, as Zarqawi was believed to have personally been involved in beheading hostages. Zarqawi’s death may have little more than symbolic value, but symbolism matters.