A Media Theorist Looks at Today's Impeachment: Tape Recorder, Telephone, and Television

"It started with a phone call," Brian Williams just aptly said on his MSNBC show, The 11th Hour, about what ignited today's impeachment of Donald Trump by the House of Representatives.  That phone call, as everyone knows, was the one in which Trump tried to extort Volodymyr Zelensky, President of the Ukraine, to announce an investigation into Joe Biden and his son - "arms for dirt," as Former Federal Prosecutor Glenn Kirschner characterizes the price (dirt on the Bidens) that Trump was attempting to exact from Zelensky for release of crucial U. S. weaponry to the Ukrainians.

Fortunately, for those who value decency, the phone call was leaky.  It was overheard, and then became known to the world via a whistleblower's good work.   The Nixon tapes in 1974, which resulted in Nixon's resignation in order to avoid impeachment, became the phone call in 2019 which made Trump's impeachment unavoidable unless he too had resigned, which he never would.

And in the aftermath of that phone call, television took front and center stage, including through the historical vote for impeachment tonight.   Traditional media, telephone and television, bringing a President to the edge of removal, just as the tapes had done to Nixon.

I think it's significant that, with all the attention Twitter and social media correctly receive as vehicles and conduits of politics today, it was two traditional media, which arose much earlier than social media, that carried the ball in Trump's impeachment.  Which is evidence of a point I often make: new media rarely obliterate older media.  Instead, though the newer media get most of the attention, the older media continue to do their job.

Tape recording, telephone, television.  Older media, with venerable values.  Just like democracy itself and its victory today.

James Comey and Bret Baier Should Be Fired

So FBI Director James Comey just informed the world that there was nothing in Anthony Weiner's emails that changed Comey's assessment in July that there was nothing in Hillary Clinton's emails which warranted pursuing criminal charges.

This news is both welcome - and infuriating.  Comey's ill-advised letter last week threw a dangerous grenade into this crucial Presidential campaign.  It violated the Hatch Act.  Comey should be fired, forthwith, and he should be investigated for criminal conduct himself.

Meanwhile, though Bret Baier did nothing criminal, he should be fired, too.  He announced from his anchor position on Fox News that the FBI had enough on the Clinton Foundation to pursue criminal charges, then walked it back and apologized.

Too little, too late.  As comparison, Don Rather was forced to leave CBS News after reporting a story about George W. Bush avoiding the draft, the truth of which is unclear to this very day.  Brian Williams - who's doing a great job now on MSNBC - was forced to leave the NBC Nightly News because he exaggerated a personal story about himself, having nothing to do with any election.

Baier aggravated the already deplorable conduct of Comey.  I had nothing but praise for Baier when I was interviewed by Politico about his taking over the Special Report from Brit Hume on Fox in 2009. But his mistake this past week in such an intense and important political campaign is unacceptable.

We deserve a Presidential campaign free of FBI Directors who violate the Hatch Act, and free of anchors who seriously misreport the news.

Steve Schmidt Moved To Tears on the 11th Hour on MSNBC

I don't think I've ever seen anything quite as moving and profound from a Republican commentator on television.

I first became aware of Steve Schmidt when he was campaign manager for John McCain's unsuccessful 2008 Republican campaign the U.S. Presidency. I didn't much care for Schmidt or his candidate, and even less for Sarah Palin, who would have become Vice President had Schmidt succeeded in his campaign.

Perhaps Schmidt has grown wiser.  It happens.  Perhaps Schmidt correctly sees that as, dangerous and out-of-her mind as Sarah Palin was, Donald Trump is 10 times or whatever big multiplier worse.

Schimdt recounted on the 11th Hour with Brian Williams the dignity of FDR on the White House lawn after Pearl Harbor.  He reminded us that Hitler didn't take power by force, but because democracy in Germany was weak.

Schmidt could barely contain himself, and neither could I.   His voice and the tears in eyes conveyed the threat that Donald Trump poses to our democratic process, conveyed the disgust and despair Schmidt feels when he compares Trump to any former American President.   The obscenity of his election would trash what not only FDR but every American President has struggled to uphold and preserve our democracy, and the respect upon which it is predicated, respect for the choice of the people as reflected in the votes they cast on Election Day.

One of the silver linings of Trump may the unity he has unintentionally brought forth among all Americans of rationality and good will, Republicans as well as Democrats.

I'm looking forward to seeing them work together together to build a better America, after the political illness that is Trump is defeated.

Talking about Trump's attempts to delegitimize election, Steve Schmidt quotes Churchill + warnings of fascisms rise. pic.twitter.com/Q5SKyak3nH

— Garrison66 (@Garrison66) October 19, 2016

Hats Off to Brian Williams

Yesterday - Friday, September 25, 2015 - was an extraordinarily important day in news.  Pope Francis was at Ground Zero and Madison Square Garden and other places in New York City.   The President of China was in Washington, DC with President Obama.  And Speaker of the House John Boehner announced his resignation.

Any one of these would have been an occasion for breaking news reports.  John Boehner's resignation would have triggered in depth-reporting that dominated the news for most of the day.  And the Pope in New York City was a once-in-a-lifetime event for many people.

Brian Williams, back on television as MSNBC's anchor for breaking news, did a masterful job in commenting, interviewing people about, and all ways covering these three events.  His astute observations, his mix of historical contexts, eye and ear for detail, and humor, provided seamless hours of vidid reporting.   In the hands of a lesser master of anchoring, so many events to cover live could have a resulted in a confusing hodgepodge that reported well on none of them.

I went on record earlier this year, suggesting that Brian Williams' exaggeration of what happened to him in a combat zone was not the end of the world - certainly not enough to have him removed from his position as anchor of the NBC Nightly News.    He should have been called out and chastised for those statements indeed - but yanking him off the air was not only overkill, but a disservice to all who enjoyed and benefitted from his sage anchoring and reporting.

It was thus especially good to see him back on the air, and at a perfect time in terms of important events to be covered.  Reports say MSNBC had a nice ratings spike with Brian Williams at the helm - good, not surprising, and I hope to see much more of him on television.

See also I'm Glad Brian Williams Will Be Back on Television

I'm Glad Brian Williams Will Be Back on Television

That's right, I'm glad Brian Williams will be back on MSNBC, where he started, rather than being exiled from news reporting and anchoring forever.

I get that he did something wrong in his braggadocio misremembering of several news events of which he was not a part.  But that wasn't as bad, as, say, the racist comments made by Imus on the radio a decade ago, or even Dan Rather's misreporting of the George W. Bush evasion-of-the-draft story, if indeed that was misreporting.  But Brian Williams' exaggerations were not a misreporting of a news story, just of his own direct involvement in it.  And although people who tell us the news should be held to a higher standard of truth-telling than the average person, it's worth noting that exaggerations of personal experiences are as common as saying you loved a popular movie when you slept through it, as in fact at least one famous movie critic was reported as frequently having done.

As for MSNBC, they can use all the help they can get.  Despite their highly intelligent and articulate anchors - especially in the evening - they've been consistently in last place in the Fox, CNN, MSNBC lineup for a while now.  They were outrightly dumb to get rid of Keith Olbermann, the most energetic, iconoclastic person ever on their air.  And the tick-like constant reference to their "Pulse" statistics - to show what their viewers are thinking - is a drag on more than one of their shows.   But whatever its problem, MSNBC will be well-served with Brian Williams and his sage, incisive, sometimes satirical analysis -- especially with the 2016 Presidential campaign already in gear, and William's astute political sense.

Rachel Maddow, the best person on MSNBC and for that matter on any news network, last night took a point of personal privilege and said how happy she was that Brian Williams was returning and being given a second chance.  I couldn't agree more. Now, if MSNBC got back Olbermann, I'd bet at least even money that they'd overtake at least CNN once again,

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.

Brian Williams' Complete Interview with Barack Obama

Brian Williams' 23-minute interview today with Barack Obama follows. Some six minutes were aired on the NBC Nightly News. But, as Williams said, the full interview was too long for the Nightly News (which is 30 minutes, including commercials). So the entire interview was made available on msnbc.com - with an easy way to embed it on any blog, such as this one. That, in itself, is something laudable about this interview. Its mode of presentation serves as a good example of the way traditional media such as broadcast television and new media such as the web can work together to assist democracy.

I thought the best thing about the interview itself was Obama's relaxed, engaging, Presidential style. Asked about Joe Scarborough's advice that Obama should just come right out and say he was President of the Harvard Law Review and he was proud of it, Obama said he'd be happy to interview Scarborough for a press job in his administration. Williams countered that Scarborough was a Republican. Obama replied that he is always open to taking advice from Republicans - and he said all of this with a big smile.

As I've said before, I like that Obama is reminiscent of JFK. Because it says that here is someone who has a comfort with himself, is able to joke under pressure. For some reason, this goes hand-in-hand with inspiring, effective leadership.

The best more serious part of the interview was Obama's clear explanation of where we need to look for longterm relief for gas prices, and his gracious, sensible response to Williams' question about Hillary Clinton as a possible Vice President. She would make a good President, he replied, and therefore would of course make a good Vice President.

I know all the reasons why that may not happen, but I'm still of the opinion that would be the best possible Democratic ticket.

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...

Obama Shines in Ohio Debate, Clinton Shines And Whines to the Moderators

Obama and Clinton both did well, once again, in their debate in Ohio on MSNBC tonight. As Obama indicated at the end, and has said before, both are far, far better than what the Republicans are offering with John McCain.

What seemed to most distinguish Clinton from Obama tonight was also, once again, Clinton's occasional aggressiveness and one round of outright whining, in contrast to Obama's calm grace. This is something he first showed last week, and I thought then and now that it feels Presidential. He seems to be wearing the potential coat of the highest office very well.

Hillary Clinton's carping came early in the debate, when she complained to moderators Brian Williams and Tim Russert that she's always asked questions first in the debates! This is supposed to be Presidential? What a petty point. I have to admit that I always like speaking first in public events, but, even if I did not, I would hardly complain about it in a national debate. And she topped it off with an awkward reference to Saturday Night Live's skit this past Saturday about the Clinton-Obama debate in Texas, in which the moderators were satirized as obsessively worrying about Obama's every need. Clinton's "joke" about this tonight, if that what it was, might have worked at a campaign rally. But, again, it fell flat in this debate.

Clinton also confronted Obama on several issues - most interestingly, I thought, on his response to the Rev. Louis Farrakhan support of Obama, given that Farrakhan is a raving anti-Semite. Obama said he "denounces" Farrakhan. Clinton pressed him on why doesn't outrightly "reject" Farrakhan's support. Obama's response was very telling: he said he didn't see any real difference between denunciation and rejection, but just so there would be no lack of clarity, he rejected Farrakhan's support.

I think this showed an admirable quality in Obama - a willingness to improve his position under pressure. I also give Clinton credit for pressing Obama on Farakhan. But of the two - Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton - Obama appeared more Presidential.

As I've been saying for for awhile, I think we are fortunate to have two very good candidates vying for the Democratic nomination. But this debate reinforced my feeling, once again, that Obama is the better candidate, and would make the better President.

We'll see what the voters in Texas and Ohio say on Tuesday.