Setting Dodd Straight on SOPA

Former Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), now the head of the MPAA and the main spokesperson for SOPA and PIPA (now shelved or withdrawn), just told Andrea Mitchell a bunch of nonsense on MSNBC.  Here are some of his major points, with translations into truth to set the record straright:

Dodd:  Most people misunderstood what the bills were about - which was, to stop the loss of American jobs due to Internet piracy.

Truth:  Everyone understood that purpose of the bills.  What we also understood were the provisions of the bill that would have held entire sites responsible for even one pirated item on their otherwise massive, non-pirated sites and could have crippled the Internet as we know it.  Dodd said nothing whatsoever about that.

Dodd:  the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 has been effective against Internet pirates and has led to the shutdown of many sites.  SOPA and PIPA were just trying to extend its provisions to international pirates operating here.

Truth:  Right, the DMCA has been very effective.  So why not just extend its provisions to cover international pirates?  The DMCA has none of the provisions of SOPA and PIPA which could have crippled the Internet.

Dodd:  The First Amendment does not protect criminals, people who libel and slander others, etc.

Truth:  Right, but the First Amendment does protect from government regulation all modes of speech and press which are not engaged in criminal, slanderous, or libelous actions.   If The New York Times, for example, inadvertently published something deemed libelous, it could be sued for libel under the current laws.  Those same laws can be used against anything online - without the need for SOPA and PIPA - and the same applies to piracy (with extension of DMCA to cover international pirates).  The problem with SOPA and PIPA is they went way too far, and would have have seriously violated the First Amendment.

In sum - Dodd, after being rebuked by the withdrawal of SOPA, is starting off on the wrong foot for where we go from here.  A little truth would help.

I Come to Andrea Mitchell's Defense in the The New York Post

In case you missed it in the New York Post: my brief defense of Andrea Mitchell covering the bailout story on MSNBC, even though her husband is former Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan, who is being blamed in part for the crisis.

I disagree with the Columbia Journalism Review - always a pleasure for a Fordham University professor - and say MSNBC was right to keep Mitchell on the story.

Left out was my point that in this day and age, a wife should not be assumed to have the same opinion as her husband - or to be unable to report objectively on a story in which her husband is a player. Mitchell, in my opinion, is one of the best commentators, reporters, and anchors on MSNBC, and taking her of the story would deprive viewers of her expertize in this area.

My advice to the media: don't worry so much about perceived conflicts of interest. Be concerned, instead, about the quality of your commentary and reporting.

And here I am talking about Alan Greenspan and Andrea Mitchell to Ray Suarez (and mispronouncing Ayn Rand's name) on the eve of Greenspan's departure as head of the Federal Reserve Board in January 2006:

MSNBC Had Best Coverage of the Primary Campaigns

This is not a statistical analysis, but the impressions of one viewer - me - who happens to be a Professor of Communication and Media Studies at Fordham University in New York City, and author of a whole bunch of books about the media.

I'm thinking MSNBC had far and away the best coverage of the primary campaigns - far better than its CNN and Fox competition.

Here's why:

1. Tom Brokaw, Brian Williams, and Tim Russert commenting on the nights when the votes are counted: No other cable station or network has that kind of fire power - the current network news anchor (Williams), the previous network news anchor (Brokaw), and, just for good measure the host of Meet the Press (Russert). CNN and Fox have no parent network such as NBC to draw upon.

2. The coverage of MSNBC during the day is top-notch, even extraordinary. Andrea Mitchell interviews movers and shakers whenever she is on, which is often. (Her interview with Manhattan Congressman Charlie Rangel yesterday broke new ground in what was happening with Hillary Clinton, to give just one example.) Meanwhile, Nora O'Donnell and David Shuster, who also have shows on MSNBC during the day, are first-class political reporters. At best, CNN and Fox's day people may be as good as Contessa Brewer and Monica Novotny on MSNBC - but usually not.

3. Chuck Todd is outstanding as a political and statistical analyst on MSNBC. CNN makes a good showing with John King at the magic board, and Bill Schneider's political analysis - call that a draw, maybe. Frank Luntz on Fox is a distant third.

4. The prime-time lineups are about the most equal. Larry King on CNN is in a (good) class by himself. Britt Hume and Bill O'Reilly on Fox are certainly powerful commentators, and Hannity & Colmes are ok. (I'm not taking political positions here, just assessing power on television.) But Chris Matthews on MSNBC is right up there, too. And Keith Olbermann right after Matthews is an imposing presence, too. And for politics, David Gregory and Dan Abrams on MSNBC are a lot better than Greta Van Susteren on Fox, and, for my money, better than Anderson Cooper on CNN, one of its stars.

5. All three cable operations get good guests for regular political commentary. David Gergen on CNN is probably the best - adviser to umpteen Presidents - but Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough on MSNBC hold their own, and Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove on Fox News are nothing to sneeze at.

All in all: MSNBC is well ahead in two of the five categories above, and close to equal and sometimes better on the other three.

Prediction: If MSNBC keeps this up during the ensuing General Election campaign, it will be the #1 cable news network.

Advice: MSNBC has wisely moved its "Doc Block" to the midnight hour. I'd recommend removing it completely.

MSNBC Unfurls Excellent New Lineup - But Why are They Keeping Their Lame "Doc-Block"?

MSNBC announced the following changes in its schedule, to take effect this coming Monday, March 17 -

.David Gregory, NBC News' Chief White House Correspondent, will anchor Race for the White House, a new daily show airing from 6-7pm
.NBC News' Andrea Mitchell will anchor MSNBC each weekday afternoon from 1-2pm
.Countdown with Keith Olbermann, on at 8pm, will now re-air a second time at 10pm, in addition to a third time at 2am.
.MSNBC's "doc block" will now air weeknights from 11pm-2am.
.Live with Dan Abrams will re-launch as Verdict with Dan Abrams, from 9-10pm.
.Tucker Carlson's show is out, but he will continue on MSNBC as Senior Campaign Correspondent.

These all look like excellent moves. With the strength of NBC regulars Brian Williams and Tim Russert, along with Tom Brokaw on election nights, MSNBC has the best election coverage in the business. David Gregory joining the weeknight lineup of Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Dan Abrams makes a lot of sense. And when you add to that the stature and savvy of political commentators like Patrick Buchanan and Joe Scarborough, MSNBC is unbeatable.

But there's one thing I've never understood about MSNBC, and still don't get in the new lineup: why is MSNBC alienating the audience for its political coverage with its "doc block"? I know that I have dialed away from MSNBC many times when I wanted to see politics, and MSNBC had yet another show about life behind some prison bars....

Moving the doc-block to 11pm is a step in the right direction. My suggestion: move it to three o'clock in the morning, or off the network altogether.

Especially in an election year, the "Doc Block" is not the way to go...