John Fugelsang speaks TRUTH about Michael Brown....

[calimary]

33. Yep, certainly - to all those things! Everything you said.

Yes, definitely. My own personal bias is totally showing. I just think women news brokers and curators need to dress a little differently. I just do. Incongruous? Yeah, probably. The First Lady is in a class by herself. Gloriously so. And she can bare her arms in whatever circumstances, since it's always in a tasteful context. From her collar to her shoes - which BTW are NOT the fancy sex-bomb stilettos we see Mika and others prancing around in. I've never seen Michelle Obama in 4-to-5-inch heels (higher if you add the platforms on some pairs of them). I just think the way Mika and a few others dress is not entirely appropriate for that kind of job. It sends a different message than should be sent.

This stems from my getting rather annoyed while watching the first months of "The Cycle." Back when "sippy cupp" (S. E. Cupp) was on. It just totally burned me up! Coming up on almost EVERY commercial break without fail, the camera would be positioned below desktop level and zooming slowly in. So basically your view is sneaking down in, under the table. Where you saw sippy - whose chair was positioned closest to the camera so your view through that camera would always be basically behind her and over her shoulder. However, in this case it wasn't at shoulder level. It was at the seat-of-the-chair level. Where you saw - as the camera zoomed in - sippy's butt, short tight skirt over said butt, long bare legs, and sky-high platform stilettos - shoes designed to make the legs of the wearer even more curvy-looking just because of how the muscles in the back of the calf bunch up when one is wearing heels that high. Like minimum four-inchers. Fashion and sex appeal and all that. Okay... I'm sorry... THAT's a girl who doesn't have to jump up and run out to cover a story and stand on her feet in front of the courthouse all day or in the rain and cold for hours or ... I just found it galling. And insulting. Because as a onetime reporter/anchor, I did have to do all those things. Those shoes don't go with those things. This isn't supposed to be about your legs, anyway, honey. Sheesh. And maybe yes, I'm turning into an old fart. That absolutely could be part of it, too.

If I were in charge at MSNBC, yeah, I'd probably run it like a tyrant. You kinda have to - if you're in charge of an organization full of towering high-priced egos like that. I would certainly have to supervise that closely at first. It'd take awhile for everybody else to come along. Yes. I'd feel the need to clamp down HARD. I'd mainly be looking to help shape the message. Hey - Roger Ailes did it. And my main point is that - why is it only that side that crafts and tailors a message? What's so wrong with that, if you're advancing the liberal view? Why can't we do that? Why can't we BE the liberal network? Be it. It's not as though there isn't a thirst for it out there among news consumers. There's the problem: there is such a scarcity of liberal views in the media. Talk radio is wall-to-wall CON. Pox Noise is, too - around the clock, 24/7/365. They don't stop for cheap canned tabloid programming for most of the weekend the way our only relatively-mainstream cable outlet does. And if that's all you hear and all you see and all you get, how are you even supposed to know there's any other way to think?

I think that's what our side is severely lacking, and desperately needing. I think part of our problem is that we can't seem to get the messaging correct. The opposition is utterly rhapsodic about it. They are virtuosos on that side of the aisle, extremely organized, focused, and disciplined. Yeah, I know, that thing about Dems - part of what makes us us - the whole "herding cats" thing. That may have contributed strongly to our bad news on the last Election Night. The other side is fabulous at messaging. It's WHAT they're messaging that sucks. For our side, it's the other way around - we suck at messaging even though WHAT we are about is much better for everyone (well, maybe not quite so much for the 1% but they've certainly had their turn at the front of the line). That, in my opinion, has to be FIXED. Otherwise, I fear we'll be rolled again, but this time it'd be in a presidential election cycle, when we can least afford it.

And yes, too, I AM advocating for a balls-out LEFT channel. And yes I realize I'm probably just puffing up pipe dreams. But that's what I'd do. Particularly since there's one for the so-called right. And they ARE 24/7/365. I just want to even the playing field. Push things back LEFTWARD, and with a very hard and vigorous and muscular push. Here in L.A. I suffer from a lack of liberal programming on the radio - which becomes important when one drives a lot, as one does here. I suffer from no liberal programming at all, really, since they took the KTLK lineup off. And I think we need to feed the liberal programming needs for a change. REALLY fill them. Why must we always have to scrounge through obscure channels and feeds? Why can't we have ONE big one? In my fantasy, where I would be in control like that, you bet I would assert such an agenda. I think we need it. I think we need a powerful media push. That's how the other side did it, conquering talk radio. That voice is lacking. And it's needed, precisely at a time when Democrats and liberals and progressives everywhere are questioning what our side's reps even stand for. What we stand for is NOT being solidly and sufficiently articulated. We need to be loud and proud about it, I think. Do you know how many people I've heard in conversation and read and seen posting - missing Keith Olbermann? You know how he is! And often, those missing him admit to it begrudgingly. But they know that's the kind of thing we need. I'd try to put it back in place. Promote the bejeezus out of it, and let the ratings do what they do.

Hey, this is fantasy football for me. I'm certain I'll be just another blogger somewhere, and nowhere near a place like that for the rest of my days. My career is LONG over. I retired from the day-to-day news thing a couple of decades ago. I had a good friend and colleague who went from the news director position at a full-service radio station in Northern CA to New York City in a staggeringly huge break. She was hired to be PD - program director - of a MAJOR LEAGUE AM full-service station. She wanted to put "Spy" magazine on the air and saw this as the vehicle to do so, especially since its ratings were down and they were looking for something new. Surprise! They liked what they heard, and hired her! She eventually left there, very dissatisfied, her goals unfulfilled, feeling as though the built-in situation that confronted her when she arrived - was too hard and set-in-stone to combat or change or modify in any way. She wanted to move or dismiss some talent - and their agents and contracts got in the way. She later told me it felt like "moving pianos around all day." I can relate. I'm certain if there were ever such a fluke of the natural order of things that I would be hired to run MSNBC (like that would happen in a trillion years!) my changes would probably piss some people off, internally, who'd obstruct, and/or their agents or managers or PR reps would interfere and demand stuff and there'd be contracts that wouldn't budge and pianos and other mountains galore to have to move around.

But yes, if it just so happened that I ever got that job, those are indeed the changes I'd make. Or at least attempt to implement.