The Case Against CBS News

Troy Patterson makes a scarily good case for closing the whole division. I can't tell you how television reviewing works, but to be fair, it seems to me that you need to do more than watch a couple episodes (or, in the case of one or two shows, apparently just one) before you slam them.

A few points I would add. First, it's irrelevant to Patterson's argument, but so much of what's wrong with the Evening News is the lousy production. Couric's got a heavy hand in the process -- and maybe she should take more control, though her precarious position at the company makes that pretty much inconceivable -- but she gets more flack than she deserves when you consider how much is attributable to stuff as simple as the awful copy she reads.

Second, if I were to get into the weeds on 60 Minutes, I think you have to note that the show's biggest stories these days involve major interviews with people who've just written some sort of book about Iraq or their experience in the Bush administration. Not only does this involve pretty much zero reporting, but it means that 60 Minutes frequently just functions as an adjunct to people's book tours.

Finally, yes, The Early Show is awful, so much so that it's consistent misfortunes have become a mild source of amusement for me, kind of like watching the Washington Generals get clobbered again and again. But it's all relative. The real question is, Can Patterson make a case that the Today Show and Good Morning America are significantly better -- deeper or more sophisticated -- than CBS's morning show? Highly doubtful.

Cross-Promotion

I love that Rick Stengel's defense against the accusation that Time stole its cover concept from The New Republic is, unashamedly, "No, actually we ripped it off from the NBA." Turns out they take their editorial cues from corporate ads. Much better!

Those Military Analysts

This is a must-read but also, upon brief reflection, not really surprising at all. I lost count a while ago, but this is another item to add to the list of ways in which cable networks have, wittingly or not, been used to disseminate administration propaganda.

Halperin and Davis

I guess instead of writing about McCain campaign manager Rick Davis's shady past as a super-lobbyist, Mark Halperin thought the readers of Time would best be served by a tour of the man's desk. This is the text of the piece, but it doesn't quite give you the flavor of what's in the magazine; you're missing the half-page picture with bubbles identifying, for instance, Davis's three-hole punch. (He punches his own documents sometimes!)

I get that this could be a cute little web video or something, but a full page in the print edition? Really?

Positivity

Yesterday I posted this and this at the other blog, which might lead you to believe I'm pretty negative. Not true!

Unfortunately, it's often easier to write critical items than laudatory posts, so let me take this opportunity to flag a few pieces I've read recently that were actually very good: Garry Wills on Obama and Lincoln; Hendrik Hertzberg on political misspeak; and Brad Plumer on tensions in the labor movement. Read them and learn stuff.

The Proletarian Pose

Joe Scarborough too.

What We Learned (Or Didn't) About Chris Matthews

Weirdly, the surprising thing about the Times magazine's profile of Chris Matthews is ... how unremarkable it is.

We learn that Matthews is status-obsessed and preoccupied with "the game" of politics. Neither feature is unique among people in the elite political media; Matthews is just more unashamed about it all. We read that his show is doing poorly and that his future at MSNBC (and NBC) is uncertain, which is easy to infer from his consistently lackluster ratings. We find out that he's wary of some of his colleagues, like Keith Olbermann and David Gregory, and admiring of his superior, Tim Russert. But of course, Olbermann and Matthews' mutual contempt is well-known and obvious even on-air; Gregory's star has been rising throughout the Bush administration and should trouble someone whose ratings don't justify his salary; and the status obsession explains the fixation on Russert (who, after all, is a bit like a grown-up, less voluble Matthews). Also? He's kinda sexist -- which you may have heard -- but doesn't think he is.

This isn't necessarily to disparage Mark Leibovich's reporting. He does manage to pick up some gesturing toward a Senate run in Pennsylvania. But you'd think that all the time he spent with Matthews (including a three-hour, on the record brunch) would've yielded at least a few more interesting tidbits -- some stuff that would've legitimately surprised.

The easy explanation, and probably the correct one, is that there's just no there there: Matthews is either a superficial, egomaniacal loudmouth if you hate him, or an unembarrassed lover of politics if you don't, but either way, he's putting himself out there on a daily basis and providing you with most everything you could want to know about him. A profile of a person like that can educate the uninitiated, but for people acquainted with him -- even if it's only through the teevee -- the exercise seems almost superfluous.

Photo courtesy of kendrak

Department of Corrections

A correction from the latest issue of The New York Review:

In the first paragraph of Elizabeth Drew's "Molehill Politics" [NYR, April 17], John McCain should have been described as "the Republicans' putative [not 'punitive'], and unexpected, nominee." Our apologies to Senator McCain.

That word actually caught my eye in the original, but it seemed a defensible choice all things considered.