Fairness and accuracy are not the first thing a local television newscast has to deliver. 

The #1 priority above all is.... win the 25-54 age women viewers demographic.  That's it.  That is hands down, without argument, the single most important thing any local newscast must, first and foremost, do.

Don't do that and you will be fired. 

Local news is the engine that drives local sales at any local station.  Station managers must meet sales goals above anything else.  Sales managers must meet sales goals above anything else.  And those people run the news department.  Oh sure there is a "News Director" whose job it is to run the news department but if a ND doesn't deliver what the sales department demands then... again you lose your job. 

Ever wonder why Sports is cut to nothing?  Because it does not hit the 25-54women's demographic.

Ever wonder why the "health" reporter and station cover and sponsor women's healh issues non-stop (breast cancer, etc) and very rarely, if ever, a men's health issue?  Despite the obvious fact that.. overall.. women are healthier than men and live longer lives.  Shouldn't we focus on who really has the health issues?  Well no.  Because it's not about covering real health news. It's about pandering to women who want stories about their health issues.

Every morning the unspoken words at every single editorial meeting in the nation are "what can we cover and how can we cover it to make WOMEN want to watch our newscast".  Not "viewers", just women viewers.

All of this for the simple reason that women 25-54 are the biggest target market for advertisers.  Go out as a sales team and try to sell the fact that you are the #1 station among all viewers.  That's good.  But it is MUCH better and worth ALOT more money to be able to go out and say you are #1 among women 25-54.  That's where the cash is.  That's the demo television advertisers spend the bulk of their money on.

Focus groups come into a station (happens all the time).  They are given a free lunch and told to watch tapes of potential anchors to be hired.  Whomever the women 25-54 swoon over or like... that is the person hired.

And it's just what those women say.  No one else in that group (if there are any) matters.

Women 25-54 want to watch "Oprah does the news".  So they demand (and get) from their local news.

- An endless parade of features passing as news (on relationships, kids, home, etc).

- WORSE. Direct pandering features "Is your spouse (read: b*stard husband) cheating on you.. tonight at 11."

- A Health reporter (with an overwhelming focus on their health issues).

- PETS! yes cuddly little things!  That's 'news'! (well it's focus group positive tested 'news').

- More Weather and less Sports (some stations have cut sports out entirely - because? so few women watch it... yes - they can track the demo numbers in 10 minute increments).

- Cooking... gardening... in-studio fashion shows, name it.  If it's women 25-54.. it's a feature on your local news.  And these are mostly "sold" features to advertisers who sponsor them, sometimes live at their stores.

- Slogans from stations that say "We're on your side!" and "You can count on us!" - as if that has anything to do with covering the real news of the day. It doesn't, those slogans are focus tested with a group of women to see what makes those women "feel good" and more likely to watch your 'news'.

- WORSE.  The stations use consulting firms that tell them how to write the news (which they do) and use 'terms for women' - which is why you will hear the anchors say things like "folks" and "imagine".   You'll know it when you hear the anchor say.. "Imagine what it would be like to..."

- An another endless stream of small things you might otherwise miss.  The end of the newscast shot of the local elementary classroom all waving at the camera (because... Mom is watching!) or forcing the sports anchor to cover little league or youth soccer (because... Mom is watching!).

News Directors hide this little secret.  They do so because they are usually given about 6 minutes of each newscast to actually do news.  So what they do is give the women's audience some fat to chew on - "First Weather!" (as if in Los Angeles you really need a weather report within the first 9 seconds of the newscast) - then do what little news they can and - zip - it's off to women's issues.

They get around the "news" part by non-stop promos throughout the night during prime time - little 10 second promos that say "Why (enter womens issue) is important! Tonight at 11".

This is not to bash women or women viewers.  All I want is for you to know the manipulation that takes place and what goes on behind the scenes. 

Women need to know this as well.  It is they who are being manipulated.

This isn't to say the news departments should not do this.  Television stations are free enterprises and should do whatever it takes to make a profit. I entirely agree.  And I also agree that targeting this slice of an audience is the best way to make money.  Because, it is.

This is just to let you know what it is you are really seeing is not the "news" it is the "news for a certain narrow segment of the population that can make our sales departement sell ads and bring money to the station".

If you ever see a local tv news promo that screams "How to find the best power tools for your money, tonight at 11!" you can bet that station is bleeding cash and lining up to fire a few people. 

Young moms know about 'spoon feeding' one child.  Local TV news knows about 'spoon feeding' thousands of women... and then how to spin it into ratings! 

WORSE.  They will promote it.  "The best way to spoon feed your baby, tonight at 11!".

John McCain hates "Gooks".

It's an old story, eight years old to be exact.  Suddenly thrust back up.

www.SFGate.come (website for the San Francisco Chronicle) didn't expect it.  Having to note why it suddenly appeared on the site again today this way.

(Editor's Note: This article was published on Feb. 18, 2000. In January 2008, at least two national web sites posted links to it. As a result, it appeared in the list of SFGate's Most Read articles.)

One of those sites was Drudge and now there are BBS boards buzzing about this.  Odds are the net will make this enough of an issue to warrant McCain having to address it, if not then you can bet the Democrats have been reminded to bring this up.

Here is what then candidate McCain said on his campaign bus in South Carolina in 2000.

"I hate the gooks," McCain said yesterday in response to a question from reporters aboard his campaign bus. "I will hate them as long as I live."

Since he didn't win the nomination this apparently was a forgotten issue that melted away beneath a billion web pages since.  But not far enough obviously because, it's back.

From the original story.

"The use of a racist slur can't be acceptable for any national leader, regardless of his background," said Diane Chin, executive director of the San Francisco-based Chinese for Affirmative Action. "For someone running for president not to recognize the power of words is a problem."

"Historically, straight talkers who say things off the top of their heads eventually hang themselves with those sorts of remarks," said Bruce Cain, a political scientist at the University of California at Berkeley.

"While it might not hurt him now, Democrats are not going to have any hesitation about using this stuff to string him up later." 

If Sen. McCain had been captured by Nigerians, could he call those people `niggers' and think he wasn't going to offend everyone who is black?" Akoi asked. "We can all feel for what he went through, but if that's his level of sensitivity, I'm very disappointed."

"I will call right now, my interrogator that tortured me, a gook," McCain said. "(I can't believe that) anybody doesn't believe these interrogators and prison guards were cruel and sadistic people who deserve the worst appellations possible."

McCain said he does not consider the comment an epithet. "Gook," he said, "is the kindest appellation I can give."

(San Francisco Chronicle page A1 February 18, 2000)

Without arguing whether McCain, as a torture victim in the infamous "Hanoi Hilton", has any right to use whatever description of his captors he choses you can bet that there will be questions regarding this and any potential larger scope of his language.

A forgotten slur dredged up becomes an issue.  Some will say he played a 'card' in this statement and what we wait to see is if another 'card' is played against him on this.

GOP botches Iraq debate answer

To: GOP
Fr: John Fricke
Re: the media IS NOT your friend

Dear GOP, you screwed up last night and you need to fix it... now!

You played into the hands of a media giant that is so far left it couldn't see the center with a telescope.

There is a correct answer on the leading question asked by NBC news about whether the war in Iraq has been worth the blood and treasure it has cost.

The answer is.  "Don't know yet".  Because, we don't.

I used to work for an NBC affiliate in the early 90's, at that time NBC was kicking everyone around the block in the ratings.  All was well until someone decided to take Bill Gates' money and create a cable channel dedicated to the destruction of middle America.   Digging that cable channel to depths never explored led to dragging NBC news on the hold rope into the hole and the spiral hasn't stopped.

Now they have done their level best to drag you into that pit.  You are close to the edge so hold on tight.

NBC news wants to leave Iraq and leave now. They are not unbiased on this issue.  They are not journalists with a calling to report the news, they are advocates on a mission to destroy the legacy of a man sitting in the White House whom they can never forgive for winning an election eight years ago.

Their weapon of choice.  Bait.  They will bait you at every opening and last night they did and you nearly swallowed the hook.

The rigged and leading question was whether the "war" in Iraq (it's really just one front now on the U.S. military actions around the globe and not a separate standing 'war' - which you need to start pointing out)  has been worth the cost.

All of you answered the question incorrectly. Here is how to answer that question.

===============

Q - "Has the 'war' in Iraq been worth the blood and treasure we have spent on it and was the decision to go to Iraq the correct one"  (side note - any version of this sounds like a legitimate question from a serious member of the media, when in fact it is nothing more than a leading question designed to trap you into an answer that will give the Democrats an edge - it is a talking point question from the PR wing of the Democratic party).

A - "I reject the premiss of that question.  That question assumes we can possibly know the answer, which we can't.   Not yet anyway.  If we turn tail and run as the Democrats (and at least one Republican here on this stage) suggest we do.  Then no.  It was not worth the blood and treasure.  So the question will actually be right, it was NOT worth the blood and treasure if we quit now.  Quitting now, as the Democrats suggest - heck campaign to do - guarantees what we have given will be in vain and a total waste.  Guarantees it.

Let's understand that arguing about whether we should have opened a new front on the war in Iraq as we did is a moot point.  That argument means nothing right now, not a blasted thing.  It's irrelevant.  We are there, so what do we do now?  Our choices are simple.  Quit and lose and let Iraq descend into a genocidal hellhole or fight to prevail.

I am talking now directly to all of the mothers and fathers and family members of our great and brave American soldiers. To all of you who have given so much to this country in making the ultimate sacrifice to be heroes, I will not abandon you!  I will not allow what you have given this country to be in vain.  To all Americans who have given their money to this cause, I will not abandon you and make all that money you spent to have gone down the drain in vain.

Your question was from a poorly worded poll.  It asked wether this has been worth it which assumes we can know the answer and thus answer the question - which we don't and can't, not yet.   If we prevail and we are able to see a stable and thriving Iraq, a country that becomes a leader in the region, a leader for commerce and human rights.  Then we will see a return on the investments we have made with American blood and treasure.

So our choices to answer that question are:  Guarantee it wasn't worth it or stand tall to see that we can lead a new beginning.

If world opinion of the United States has been diminished because of the actions taken in Iraq - and it's apparent to some degree it has, then it becomes even more important that we see this through.  To come to finish what we started.

Here's the question you should ask.

"Given how we left millions of South Vietnamese to slaughter when we abandoned them without backing up our word and winning that war. Would anyone ever trust us in any place in the world, ever again, if we do the same and stamp the death certificates of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis."  The answer to that question is frightening.

I will answer the question you just posed, but not until I pick up the pieces of what I will inherit and lead all of us in an effort to bring as close to a normal and thriving life to the people of Iraq as I can. Your question needs another line.  Will it be worth the blood, the treasure and the trust of America and the responsibility of America.

Wether we should have gone to Iraq or not is not the question.  It's what do we do now.  And what we do now is do everything we can to make sure we don't turn tail like a bunch of quitters and we live up to our word.

Yes it will be tough, on all of us, but given that choice there is no choice.  We will stand strong and we will prevail."

===============

NBC news was gleeful at your answers last night.  Chris Matthews was smiling ear to ear at the the thought of being able to pigeon hole Mitt or McCain or Rudy on their answer during a general election debate.  The NBC news 'analysts' ought to go back and watch the tape of their post-debate show.   One would hope they would see the embarrassment of their glee.   Of course they wouldn't because - they see their glee as being correct.   Yes they are that blind.

I have no issue with analysts on either side of the aisle expressing glee or joy in the mistakes of the other side. But those are 'analysts' and are identified as such. NBC news puts forth 'journalists' as though they were neutral. 

You can argue the Democrats were smart in not accepting the Fox News debate.  In reality NBC is farther left than Fox is right but given that both have a slant we can accept that the Dems made a calculated choice that might benefit them.   The GOP did not by stepping into the other side's PR wing and then, and worse, not being ready for a baited question.

That was a gaffe by the handlers of each candidate, by the GOP at large and mostly by the candidates themselves.  Because now you cannot even clarify your response.  You are stuck with the "yes" answer and you will be beaten up by NBC, the NY Times, CNN, Time, CBS, The LA Times, 500 other newspapers, etc.. etc.    All of whom are against you and for the Democrat candidate.  The NY Times even said that directly in its endorsement yesterday - that it endorsed McCain (sorry John, bad news for you) because it had to endorse someone on the side they stand against.  Guess that's pretty clear from the Times.

Mr. GOP candidate you must now spin out of your answer.  You must make any answer about Iraq one about what the end result will be and try to run from your "yes".    Because, since we don't know the answer yet, you let NBC bait you and you got hooked.

Might I suggest getting someone on board who knows what the media will try to do to you (not that I can think of anyone off hand with 30 years  experience in national media and the vision to see what they are going to do - ahem) and that you also practice your answers! Good grief, you want to believe that you can wage a straight forward campaign, but you cannot.  Because while Obama is finding out it's hard to wage a campaign on two fronts you will have to wage it on three.

Hillary, her husband and her back-up singers dressed in suits and ties and carrying a media badge.

Oprah the Chicken!

To: Oprah
Fr: John Fricke
Re: Where the hell are you??

Oprah;

It is my understanding that you are now saying you are too busy launching your new cable network to pay any attention to 'anything else'.

I apppologize and I don't mean to be rude, but.

Bull.

Oprah you raised your hand to stand beside your man and just when your man gets into the real down and dirty of the blood sport of politics you up and find something else that seems to occupy all your time.

You found the time to travel the country when it was safe for you to do so, when it benefited you.

And now that your man needs you to step up by his side, to help him battle the machine, you walk away.

Chicken.

Plain and simple you are a weenie. If you want to play in the game you cannot run to the lockerrom just when the real hitting starts.

Yes there has been fallout. Women, which consitute 95% of your audience, are in large numbers angry at you for not supporting a female candidate.

Look you stood up next to a liberal, a black and a man -- you were certain to find people who would take exception to any of those. You could have chosen a consverative, white, female if one were running and you would have been hit on all three of those issues as well.

Choose to take sides with a candidate.... and...

On race you were either going to be a quasi-racist to those who think you wouldn't support Obama if he were 100% white and a sellout to black Americans if he were.

On politics you were either going to be a bleeding heart with an agenda or a sellout to the the main supporters of your show.

On gender you were either going to be what you've become to some and you are getting slammed for that or you were going to be supporting a candidate solely for her gender and no other reason.

You had to know all these things when you stood up and raised your hand to support a half-black/half-white liberale male for PUSA.

If you were so naive as to not know that, well, too damn bad.

If you run away and hide (which is what you are doing right now) any marginal respect I have for you will be entirely gone.

Stand up and support your guy. Give him what he needs to fight for the nomination.

Anything less makes you the poster child for shrill suck-ups who are afraid to stand by their convictions.

Oprah time for you to "Man Up!" and not run into the corner of a a legal office somewhere pecking at the corn on the table of a fledging network.

"Americans" before "America"?