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: LindyBill who wrote (87010)	11/18/2004 2:41:40 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793769

'Nightline' Future Is in More Jeopardy With Producer's Exit By BROOKS BARNES Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL November 18, 2004; Page B1 A longtime producer of ABC's "Nightline" is leaving the show, signaling a larger shake-up at the money-losing late-night newsmagazine. Co-Executive Producer Leroy Sievers, who has been with "Nightline" since the early 1990s, is negotiating an exit package after Walt Disney Co.'s ABC indicated it would not renew his contract, according to people familiar with the situation. Mr. Sievers, a hard-news guardian of the traditional identity of the show, has run it on a daily basis since Tom Bettag, the show's other executive producer, started devoting his time to ABC's Sunday morning program "This Week" about a year ago. The departure of Mr. Sievers comes amid an uncertain future for the 25-year-old show, which has been on a deathwatch since 2002 when ABC almost dumped the newsmagazine in a bid for David Letterman's "Late Show." In a public-relations disaster, ABC was exposed as trying to woo Mr. Letterman privately to leave CBS and take the Nightline slot, and was widely portrayed as insensitively trampling a news icon in pursuit of commercial gain. ABC retreated, but to some anxious "Nightline" employees, it looks like the network is trying to finish the job -- this time more quietly and gracefully. (The previous incident embarrassed Mr. Letterman, who didn't want to be seen as complicit in killing a much-beloved news show.) "Nightline" sprung up in the 1980s, out of a series of reports about the Iran hostage crisis and it became a rarity among newsmagazines: A success both financially and journalistically. With scoops and high-profile interviews and Ted Koppel as its anchor, it competed nimbly even with late-night entertainment shows. But cable news has muscled in on many of the things "Nightline" used to do well. Ratings have suffered: An average of 3.4 million people have tuned into "Nightline" each night so far this television season, an 18% drop from the same period two years ago, according to VNU SA's Nielsen Media Research. "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" has attracted about 6.3 million viewers this season; Mr. Letterman's "Late Show" has 5.6 million viewers. In recent months, as ABC executives have watched General Electric Co.'s NBC sign deals locking in Mr. Leno and Conan O'Brien, the network has renewed its interest in developing its own entertainment show for the slot. Even with the prestige that "Nightline" confers on the network, it attracts an aging audience that doesn't command top advertising dollars. With much money to be made in the time slot, ABC needs to pursue a younger audience, network executives say. A commercial on "Nightline" sells for about $30,000; a commercial on Mr. Leno's program on NBC costs more than $70,000. One possibility for an entertainment show includes moving "Jimmy Kimmel Live" to an earlier slot. ABC just gave Mr. Kimmel a one-year contract renewal even though his ratings are lackluster. Poaching comedian Jon Stewart from Comedy Central has been mentioned, although that's unlikely as Mr. Stewart just signed a long-term contract with the cable network. Network executives have floated several ideas about "Nightline" to recapture its must-see quality and profitability. Among them: A return to regular live broadcasts, a format change so the show tackles multiple topics each night instead of just one, and extending the newsmagazine to an hour. But such ideas require major transformations, and the staff of "Nightline," which works in Washington rather than at the New York headquarters, tends to be fiercely protective of the show's traditions. A big sticking point: Mr. Koppel's contract expires in 2005, and he is unlikely to sign a new one that involves many changes to his current situation. His contract gives him nearly two months of vacation, a three-day workweek and a provision that the show is rarely broadcast live -- a grueling option that characterized "Nightline" in its heyday. Mr. Koppel also takes home a paycheck thought to be near $10 million -- on par with top-paid figures in network news. A spokeswoman said Mr. Koppel was not available to comment. Mr. Sievers is well-regarded inside ABC News for his ability to zero in on the kind of hot-button news that has long been the trademark of "Nightline." He was the brains behind a controversial special edition of the show in May devoted entirely to Mr. Koppel reading the names of every U.S. serviceman killed at that point in Iraq. Mr. Sievers said in a statement: "The company has made it clear that it is considering fundamental changes to the format and the direction that the broadcast takes in the future. We were unable to agree on those changes and are negotiating the terms of my departure." ABC News officials dismissed speculation that "Nightline" would disappear. "We are extremely bullish on the future of Nightline," spokesman Jeffrey Schneider said, adding that Mr. Sievers is "highly respected throughout the news division."

To: LindyBill who wrote (87010)	11/22/2004 11:56:21 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793769

Bill O'Reilly is equally outraged: Marine who shot insurgent acted rationally As soon as I saw the tape of a U.S. Marine shooting a wounded insurgent in Fallujah, I knew there'd be trouble. The Iraqi had violated the rules of war by fighting from a mosque and was left for dead in combat. But he wasn't dead. So when a squad of Marines entered the mosque in a mop-up operation and the prone insurgent moved, a young Marine shot him dead. But the tape of the incident actually helps the Marine, because you can clearly hear him yell to his squad: "He's [blanking] faking he's dead!" Then the soldier shoots. On the tape, you can see the insurgent move before the Marine pulls the trigger. One day earlier, another Marine in the same unit was killed by a booby trap that was strapped to a dead insurgent. The enemy in Iraq rejects all rules of warfare, and American troops know it. Insurgents and foreign terrorists routinely dress in civilian clothes, hide behind civilians, mount operations from inside mosques, wear the uniforms of pro-American Iraqi police and National Guardsmen, attack civilians and on and on and on. Having survived a combat situation in Argentina during the Falklands War, I know that life-and-death decisions are made in a flash. If that wounded insurgent had a grenade or other explosive device, the entire Marine squad and the photographer could be dead right now. In a killing zone, one cannot afford the luxury of knowing what is certain. If that young Marine had homicide on his mind, he would have entered the mosque firing. But he did not. The Marine reacted to perceived danger. Another wounded Iraqi in the same room identified himself and was taken prisoner. This was not some My Lai action. But the so-called human rights groups are calling it a "possible war crime." What a bunch of bull! The Marine made a decision that was reasonable. Most of the American press has been cautious in covering the Marine controversy, although The Los Angeles Times ran this subhead: "Marine May Be Charged in the Fallujah Killing of an Unarmed Fighter. The Footage Airs on Arab TV, Further Tarnishing America's Image." Now, there's nothing factually wrong with that headline. But is it designed to put the Marine and the U.S. in a dubious light? You make the call. The Pentagon is not releasing the name of the Marine and is investigating. Both of those things are fair. But this case is not complicated, and anyone condemning that soldier should himself be condemned. The war in Iraq as well as the war on terror is as ugly as it gets. Mistakes will be made. But this action is not one of them. Originally published on November 21, 2004 nydailynews.com