Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (22534)	1/2/2004 3:43:16 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793550

Reese Schoonfeld's Blog - Headed CNN for Ted at the start I’ve stuck to my word—no detailed breakdown for the past three weeks. The reason? I think the news market share is cast in lead if not in stone. Fox and CNN continue to get about 80% of the rating in prime time and 77% total day. Here’s the way it broke down for the last four weeks: Prime Time FoxNews 48.9% CNN 32.5% MSNBC 11.2% Headline News 7.3% Total Day FoxNews 47.5% CNN 28.5% MSNBC 13.1% Headline News 10.9% Analysis: I am surprised that CNN continues to lag in total day. It no longer claims 30% of the audience. CNN holds onto its recent prime time numbers but it did 3 or 4 points better when Connie Chung was around. MSNBC has picked up a point in prime, Headline News has lost a point, but as suggested above, I can’t see any reason that market share is likely to change in the foreseeable future. The next one of these will cover the upcoming five weeks and from now on, it’ll be four weeks, then five weeks, which should bring us through the year with a once a month analysis. Once a month numbers may not vary and then we’ll switch to quarterly. P.S. FoxNews once again made the top ten in total viewers. For the week of December 8-14, Fox was 10th in prime time and 7th in total day viewers. News viewing was way up thanks to the Saddam capture. 34% more viewing in total day, 21% more in prime time. The Hussein Weekend Saddam was captured last Sunday so comes the inevitable question; which of the cable networks won the most viewers for the event. The news broke around 5:00 a.m. Between 5:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., FoxNews averaged 2,947,000 viewers per quarter hour. CNN registered 2,679,000 and MSNBC 846,000. I do not have Headline’s numbers and it may be that if they’re added in, the combined CNN total edged Fox but one on one, Fox vs. CNN, Fox won by about 10%. MSNBC had less than one-third as many viewers as Fox or CNN. Total day Fox averaged 2,318,000 viewers, CNN 1,969,000, and MSNBC 677,000. That's Fox almost four to one better than MSNBC and CNN almost three times better. FoxNews is 15% up on CNN for total day. Again, adding Headline News might make a difference. In prime, Fox averaged 2,575,000 viewers, CNN 1,910,000 viewers, and MSNBC 440,000 viewers. So, Fox was more than 20% ahead of CNN in prime with six times as many viewers as MSNBC and CNN had almost five times as many viewers as MSNBC. MSNBC’s prime time performance was so dismal that it actually had fewer viewers this year than it had on the same Sunday a year ago. From 5:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., it was up 187% from last year. For the same period, Fox was up 515% and CNN was up 558%. MSNBC is not in the same class with its two competitors which brings me to an interesting and important postscript: meandted.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (22534)	1/2/2004 4:59:09 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793550

Didja ever wonder about the utility of the UN? Jpost DIASPORA by MELISSA RADLER Bizarro by the Bay Just three days after the world awoke to Saddam Hussein's capture, the United Nations grappled with one of the several anti-Israel items on its agenda: "Armed Israeli aggression against the Iraqi nuclear installations and its grave consequences for the established international system." The agenda item, circa 1981, was neither removed nor ridiculed, but deferred to the General Assembly's 2004 session. "I think the UN is bizarro world," said Israeli deputy ambassador Arye Mekel after the session. Bizarro world is an alternate universe, popularized on Seinfeld and the Superman comics, where everything is opposite to what it usually is, and while many goings-on at the UN this year have left Israelis scratching their heads, Mekel called the 23rd annual condemnation of the feted IAF raid "the ultimate proof of bizarro world." "Do they think the destruction of Iraq's nuclear capability was a mistake?" Mekel asked. (At the UN, the answer is probably yes.) "Every time I enter the building, I think I'm on Seinfeld," he noted. "I always look for George and Kramer." jpost.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (22534)	1/2/2004 5:12:24 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793550

A man who should know says the "Times" is getting better. Winning the war on liberal bias? By Bob Kohn Bob Kohn is the author of "Journalistic Fraud: How The New York Times Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted." © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com Is the New York Times improving? As 2003 wound to a close, it appeared that liberal bias in front-page news articles in the Times had abated. Was this the result of a change of heart at the Gray Lady, or are we just witnessing the calm before the storm? During the past couple of years, the following lead sentences were typical of how the front page of the Times went out of its way to spin the news against the Bush administration: WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 [2001] – Stung by suggestions that President Bush had hurt himself politically by delaying his return to Washington on Tuesday, the White House asserted today ... WASHINGTON, June 6 [2002] – Responding to widespread criticism of the government's handling of terrorists threats, President Bush called tonight for ... WASHINGTON, July 30 [2002] – In a sign of how profoundly the nation's business scandals and volatile stock market have rocked his administration, President Bush signed ... Yet earlier this week, presented with another opportunity to pre-spin the news with a lead reflecting its political bias against the Bush administration, the Times played it straight ("Special Counsel is Named to Head Inquiry on Leak," Dec. 31, 2003): WASHINGTON, Dec. 30 [2003] – Attorney General John Ashcroft disqualified himself on Tuesday from any involvement in the investigation into whether Bush administration officials illegally disclosed the identity of an undercover CIA officer. How easy it would have been for the Times to open the lead with "Stung by widespread criticism that has rocked public confidence in his authority as attorney general, John Ashcroft disqualified himself on Tuesday ..." But that's not what happened this time, and similar opportunities for distorting the news have been passed up lately, too. Consider the following surprise which appeared earlier this week, above-the-fold on the front page of the Times ("Halliburton Contracts in Iraq: The Struggle to Manage Costs," Dec. 29, 2003): An examination of what has grown into a multibillion-dollar contract to restore Iraq's oil infrastructure shows no evidence of profiteering by Halliburton ... By refuting so prominently on its front page earlier suggestions of wrongdoing by Halliburton – as opposed to omitting or burying the paper's new findings and conclusions – the Times did much to diffuse an issue that the Democrats would have been keen to use against President Bush and Vice President Cheney later this year. What's going on at the New York Times? Have they begun to pay attention? Could it be that critics of liberal bias, such as the Media Research Center and WorldNetDaily.com, have begun to have an effect on the Times? Have recent books on media bias – such as Coulter's "Slander," Morris' "Off With Their Heads," and my "Journalistic Fraud" – found an audience at the Times? Or has the Times new "public editor" begun making headway against liberal bias in the Times' news pages? Now, the Times is by no means bias free. But it would be hypocritical of us to expect from the Times the level of perfection that the Times' editorial page seems to expect of the Bush administration. The best we can hope for is an earnest effort by the Times to embrace journalistic objectivity as a goal and, then, the application of some means of enforcing that objective. Because I can't read minds, I don't know about the former, but recent evidence suggests that a real enforcement mechanism may be in place at the Times. On Dec. 1, Daniel Okrent began work as the New York Times' "public editor," someone responsible for holding the newspaper accountable for the quality of its journalism. At the time, it was not clear whether the public editor would consider combating liberal bias to be part of his job description, but shortly after his appointment, he gave us hope by equating news bias with a form of journalistic "felony" and promising to work with readers to address charges of bias in the Times news pages. In the past, we observed periods when liberal bias at the Times seemed to become intensified, as it did the weeks leading up to the 2002 mid-term elections. At other times, the bias seemed to subside, as it did in the weeks following the resignation of Howell Raines (and as it's doing now). The question Times critics face this time is whether the paper has simply gone into another quiet period, when the liberal bias seems to have settled down temporarily, only to re-intensify during the upcoming presidential election cycle. Or, are we witnessing a Times that is truly trying to reform its news pages? (If you're thinking of writing me an e-mail expressing your skepticism on this score, don't bother. I'm with you). Nevertheless, the New Year has ushered in a measure of hope on many fronts, and we should not be so cynical as to completely deny the possibility of reform at the New York Times. If I didn't think it could happen, I wouldn't be writing this column. Where I come from, optimism is a virtue, and at the beginning of every New Year, it's simply unavoidable. worldnetdaily.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (22534)	1/2/2004 7:09:04 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793550

Some BG noise on the Net about this WP story. This from a "Blue" Blogger. Plame: The Defense Makes Its Opening Statement It's always been apparent that Mike Allen of the Washington Post knows somewhat more than he's able to say about the Valerie Plame scandal. He may well know who it was that contacted Robert Novak and encouraged him to print the story that Plame was a CIA "operative" and had encouraged her husband's trip to Niger, in order to discredit Ambassador Wilson's accurate report that Iraq was not buying yellowcake uranium. Today he has a story that also must be hiding something, because the story is bizarre on its face, but I can't figure out quite what the something else is: markschmitt.typepad.com Justice Could Decide Leak Was Not a Crime By Mike Allen Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, January 2, 2004; Page A04 CRAWFORD, Tex., Jan.1 -- The Justice Department investigation into the leak of a CIA agent's identity could conclude that administration officials disclosed the woman's name and occupation to the media but still committed no crime because they did not know she was an undercover operative, legal experts said this week. "It could be embarrassing but not illegal," said Victoria Toensing, who was chief counsel of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence when Congress passed the law protecting the identities of undercover agents. The three-month-old investigation entered a new phase Tuesday when Attorney General John D. Ashcroft recused himself and the Justice Department announced the appointment of a special prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald of Chicago. Democratic presidential candidates complained that the change came too late and did too little to protect against a conflict of interest. President Bush, when asked Thursday about the probe, said he did not know why Ashcroft had recused himself now. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 specifies that the revelation is a crime only if the accused leaker knew the person was a covert agent. The July newspaper column by Robert D. Novak that touched off the investigation did not specify that Valerie Plame was working undercover, but said she was "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." That raises the possibility that the senior administration officials he quoted did not know Plame's status. "The fact that she was undercover is a classified fact, so it would not be unusual for people to know that she was agency but not know she was undercover," Toensing said. Plame's husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, had undertaken a volunteer CIA mission that undercut reports that former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein sought uranium from Africa. Wilson became a public critic of the White House case for invading Iraq, and administration officials have said the revelation about Plame was apparently designed to diminish Wilson's credibility by suggesting he got the assignment because of his wife. Toensing said that administration efforts to encourage reporters to look into the connection between Plame and Wilson could have been "typical Washington talk" and would not "even begin to qualify as a dirty trick." Wilson said he believes the White House should be subject to political accountability, as well as legal accountability, if prosecutors discover Bush's aides abetted an attempt to undermine his reputation. "The question is whether the president is going to accept having people on his staff who have engaged in behavior which has to be inconsistent with his own promise to change the tone in Washington," Wilson said. "Just because it isn't criminal doesn't make it ethically acceptable." Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey Jr., who announced the new leadership of the investigation, gave no indication of where it was heading. FBI agents have interviewed a variety of senior administration officials and have asked about the possible involvement of top White House aides, including Bush's senior adviser, Karl Rove. When White House press secretary Scott McClellan was barraged with questions about the case this fall, he said repeatedly he knew of no Bush aides who had "leaked classified information." McClellan would not answer questions about the ethics or propriety of encouraging reporters to write about Plame. "The subject of this investigation is whether someone leaked classified information," McClellan said. Another time, he said, "The issue here is whether or not someone leaked classified information." McClellan left open the possibility that White House aides had discussed Plame with the media. A senior administration official said Bush's aides did not intend to mount a legalistic defense, but two GOP legal sources who have discussed the case with the White House said the careful, consistent wording of McClellan's statements was no accident. "If they could have made a broader denial, they would have," said a lawyer who is close to the White House. "But they seem to be confident they didn't step over the legal line." © 2004 The Washington Post Company

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (22534)	1/2/2004 3:21:37 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793550

Egypt resumes Mideast referee role BY MOHAMMED DARAGHMEH ASSOCIATED PRESS RAMALLAH, West Bank — Egypt will send its intelligence chief to the Palestinian areas next week in a renewed effort to halt attacks on Israel, Palestinian officials said today. The visit by Gen. Omar Suleiman comes amid growing Palestinian concerns that Israel will impose its own borders on the West Bank if peace efforts break down. With Egyptian backing, Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia has been trying to persuade rebel groups to commit to a truce as a step toward resuming peace talks with Israel. Suleiman has led the Egyptian mediation efforts. His visit next week follows a meeting Thursday between Egyptian presidential envoy Osama el-Baz and Palestinian President Yasser Arafat. During the talks, Egypt agreed to a request from Arafat to resume its mediation efforts with the militant groups, said Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian minister of negotiations. A date for Suleiman's trip hasn't been set, he added. Egyptian officials weren't available for comment today. The ceasefire efforts come at a sensitive time. Israel this week carried out an unsuccessful missile strike in the Gaza Strip aimed at two members of Hamas, which in turn vowed revenge. The previous week, Israel killed three Islamic Jihad fighters in a similar air strike, while a Palestinian suicide bomber killed four Israelis near Tel Aviv. Israel has also been carrying out raids aimed at fighters in the West Bank city of Nablus and Gaza town of Rafah in recent weeks. On Friday night, a large roadside bomb blew up next to an Israeli military jeep in Nablus, causing no injuries, the army said. The blast reverberated throughout the city, knocking out power in the immediate area, witnesses said. El-Baz on Thursday pressed Arafat to lead the way toward ending three years of violence with Israel, saying he is hopeful Israel will respond positively. "We, from our side, should take decisions and measures that can lead the way to a better future," el-Baz said. "Then, we hope the Israelis will do the same." Since taking office in October, Qureia has made a truce a top priority. But the efforts have so far been unsuccessful. Egyptian-sponsored talks in Cairo last month ended without agreement. A truce commitment by the Palestinians could pave the way toward full-fledged negotiations on the U.S.-backed "road map" — a peace plan that envisions an independent Palestinian state by 2005. The road map requires the Palestinians to disarm rebels and the Israelis to freeze settlement construction — steps neither side has taken. Palestinian groups have been reluctant to commit to a truce, citing Israel's continuing military operations. On Friday, some 4,000 people joined a demonstration sponsored by Islamic Jihad in the Jabaliya refugee camp in Gaza. The rally marked the death of military wing leader Meklad Hameid, who was killed in last week's Israeli air strike. Dozens of protesters wore T-shirts with Hameid's picture, and about 300 uniformed gunmen marched with rocket launchers, mortars and machine-guns. Islamic Jihad leader Nafez Azam blamed Israel for the failure to reach a ceasefire. "Everything depends on the occupation. In the Cairo dialogue, we offered to spare civilians the agonies of war and the answer we received was the invasion of Rafah, the resumption of air strikes and killings all over the occupied lands," he said. Sharon said last month that if there is no progress on the road map, he would move to unilaterally redraw the lines between Israel and the Palestinians. While Sharon said his plan would include the removal of some Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, he said the Palestinians would receive far more land under a negotiated settlement. Israel is also building a contentious separation barrier in the West Bank. Israel says the barrier is needed to block suicide bombers; the Palestinians say it is a land grab. A senior Palestinian official told The Associated Press on Thursday that there are growing concerns among the Palestinian leadership about Sharon's threatened go-it-alone plan. Meanwhile, the Israeli military lifted a more than four-month-long blockade on the West Bank town of Jenin on Friday, allowing residents to travel in and out of the town, the army said. Troops had encircled the town since an Aug. 17 suicide bombing in Jerusalem. thestar.com