Obama Declares war on Fox

We are all familiar with Obama's distaste for dissenting opinion when it comes to the media. Back in his 2008 campaign for President, the Obama campaign left reporters from The New York Post, The Dallas Morning News, and The Washington Times on an airport tarmac. The Post and Times are noted for their conservative bent and all three were guilty of endorsing John McCain. Once those endorsements were announced, reporters from each of these newspapers were left out in the cold.

ABC News reported at the time that "The campaign says that a limited number of seats forced it to make the tough decision of which journalists would be permitted to follow the Democratic presidential candidate in the last four days of the campaign, but the papers are calling foul, claiming they were targeted for their editorial-page positions and kicked off while nonpolitical publications like Glamour and Jet magazines remained on board." It would seem any news publication would have a stronger case to stay on board than Glamour.

Even before Obama was elected there was talk of restoring the "Fairness Doctrine" that had silenced conservative voices for decades until Ronald Reagan reversed the policy in the 1980s, leading to the rise of Rush Limbaugh and others. Obama says he favors consensus, the kind of consensus that only comes from controlling the media.

The Obama Administration is at it again and is now declaring war on the Fox News Channel and many in the media are weighing in.

The "war" against Fox came from pretty high sources in the Administration with White House communications director Anita Dunn describing a new, aggressive, press strategy regarding the network. PRNewser reports on, and has video of White House communications director Anita Dunn's strategy which "she explained in a straightforward slam of Fox News Channel during an appearance on CNN's 'Reliable Sources,'" stating "Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party," said Dunn. "Let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is." The senior aide added, "What I think is fair to say about Fox, and certainly the way we view it, is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party."

Reports of the White House attack is drawing comments from around the news industry. Time Magazine's James Poniewozik discusses what the Administration has to gain from such an approach, "Of course, it's possible that the Administration is simply making the case because it believes that it's right and Fox News is wrong. But politically, you would think that the White House seeks to gain something from a fight, since Fox News probably is." There is little doubt that Fox loves the attention, and many of my friends with the network have brought Obama's attack to my attention and the personalities themselves discuss it on the air. With Obama's rapidly shrinking numbers, why would not Fox want to be the place to go if you are unhappy with the Administration?

There is certainly a concern that the White House is going too far in its stance. The Orlando Sentinel's Hal Boedeker writes that "Maybe the White House should get out of the press-critiquing business. It's never been a wise move for any White House. The complaints come off as whining. The White House certainly should stop condescending to Fox News, which is a slap against that channel's fans. The smarter move would be for Obama to engage. Why doesn't he put his smooth, unflappable style to the test on Fox News?"

Even liberal publications have echoed a similar concern. The Nation's John Nichols thinks the strategy is weak from both a political and historical perspective: "Whether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is 'whining.' And nothing -- no attack by Glenn Beck, no blogger busting about Guantanamo -- does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."

With the other major news media being little more than a microphone for an increasingly unpopular Administration, voters are going to look for an alternative. Obama and his staff have made it easy to identify where to go to for that.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. His articles often appear in Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, USA Today, and other national media. Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

That Sucking Sound: The Disappearing Newspaper

A few decades ago, most major cities had at least two major newspapers and many of them had morning and evening delivery. Today, newspapers are undergoing rapid decline and, for most of them, their futures are either digital or they will have no future at all. Those newspapers that will survive, will be free. Newspapers with a community focus that discusses the local boy or girl who has graduated from school or served the country with honor in the military and ones with a lifestyle or classified focus (jobs, homes, etc.) that are free will continue to continue to survive and maybe even thrive. The paid ones will quickly become history.

In the last few months we have seen the Rocky Mountain News fold in Denver, Colorado, the curtailing of days of delivery for the Detroit Free Press, and the move from a daily Christian Science Monitor to a weekly edition. This decline of newspapers is attributed to several factors:

The Internet has made the majority of content free. One of the strange answers by the industry, to the newspaper crises, is to raise the price on newspapers. This has only chased customers away to the vast array of sources available at not cost to the reader. The only newspapers that charge and may survive will have to fulfill a very specific function. The jury is out on that.

Information spreads best in a viral way, which lends very well to the Internet, but not newspapers. For years I use to clip articles, some times make copies to send to others, but usually lost them and tried to remember what the article I loved so much actually said. With the Internet, people can easily spread the word about the great article they have seen, pass it via email, and make the source a household name. With the Internet, organizing information is a breeze and it stands as far superior to the old methodology.

Archiving for future reference is very easy. I wanted to find out if the Internet is better than newspapers, so I did a Google search and I received millions of links. Remember going to the library, looking through periodical indices, and thumbing through countless newspapers or magazines to find an article? The Internet has changed all of that.

Many want to attribute the decline to the ideology that is pervasive among newspapers today. The liberal bias in newspapers is obvious and I think it is clear that this has hurt the credibility of the media in general. On TV, Fox News (which is described by the left as conservative, but in my opinion, strives for some level of objectivity) has more viewers than MSNBC and CNN combined. I believe this is attributable to the liberal bent among Fox News competitors.

In spite of these realities, if paid newspapers had Glenn Beck types as their publishers, they would still be in decline because that form of print news would still be in decline. The Internet (and the rise of smart phones that brings Web information everywhere) is just a far superior technology. Conservatives need to stop merely complaining about the newspapers and their liberal bias and take advantage of the new battlefield which is online. Currently, the left is dominating the blogosphere. It is still relatively early in the game, but conservatives need to shelve their pass loses and focus on the future that is the Internet.

This article originally appeared at CNN650.com, part of the CBS Radio Network.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on CNN 650 (M-F at 11 am). Eric Bolling of Fox News and Fox Business and says that Price’s Blog “is very influential and moves the blogosphere.” Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com.

Traditional Media Continues to Shrink

Recently I was at one of my son's college football games visiting with him and his friends. In spite of our continued yelling for our side, they lost by a pretty significant margin and I had that sense that the game was over by the third quarter. So I focused more on conversation and talked to a bright and polite young man about his career future. "So, what are you planning on doing after graduation?" "A journalist," he said, quite innocently. Whenever people tell me this, I instantly want to laugh because I assume they are joking. Unfortunately, this was a very nice kid and he was ever so serious.

Being in radio and involved in a media news website, I meet young people virtually every day who are interested in journalism and are getting degrees in such. Where are their parents when they need them? Getting a degree in journalism today is like getting a degree in computer science when I went to college in the early 1980s. The only difference is that journalism majors should know better and so should their parents.

From the information I received in a recent Revolving Door Newsletter, it appears the traffic is going in one direction when it comes to media, and that is the exit door. The newsletter reports that "the axe fell at NBC Universal with 500 layoffs underway, including 30 from its sales staff. Elsewhere, CNBC laid off as many as 55 staffers and "The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch on hiatus." We also learn that "long-anticipated cuts finally came to Viacom, with 850 losing their jobs. Some 300 of those were from MTV, and top managers won't receive salary increases... Veteran CNN correspondent Miles O'Brien will leave the network, which is shuttering its science, space, and tech unit..."

In the book publishing world, Revolving Door reports numerous senior staffers at leading publications have left and "Simon & Schuster let go 35 people, including Rick Richter, president of the publishing company's children's book division... Thomas Nelson, the world's largest Christian publisher, laid off 10 percent of its workforce. "

From the magazine sector we learn that "Time Inc. is having trouble finding volunteers to take buyouts at its New York-based magazines. People completed its layoffs, while Sports Illustrated needs to hand out 20 pink slips. Elsewhere, seven staffers at Coastal Living, part of the company's hard-hit Southern Progress Group, will be let go. Time Out New York's investors put the magazine up for auction, hoping to get $40 million. Giving the timing -- terribly economy, advertising slumping, etc. -- you have to wonder just how bad things have gotten at New York's listings bible.

The list goes on. Traditional media is in huge trouble and is not only the victim of the Internet, but of its own inherent weaknesses. Solid journalism based on information and not opinion is hard to fine. If you want someone to tell you how they think about something, ask your next door neighbor. That is exactly what millions of people are doing by reviewing the 133 million blogs available on the Internet which operate on virtually no overhead. Another challenge of the journalism profession is that those who cover the stories of the day in every genre often have no idea what they are writing about. Journalism should be a double major accompanied with something of something so that they know how to cover that issue.

Unfortunately I don't see the industry changing. Instead, I see it continuously seeking scapegoats for its demise. Instead of being a worthy profession, I am afraid it is going to continue to slide down the track of being the butt of a bad joke.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Fox Business and News Breaks Bailout Agreement

I just received an email from Jessica Rice of Fox Business who was telling me a story that will most likely be missed by most in the media -- the role of the Fox networks in breaking the federal bailout story, and of Fox Business in particular. She wrote that "this afternoon, FOX Business Network’s senior Washington correspondent Peter Barnes was the only one to obtain the Senate Banking Committee agreement of principle outline that Senator Democrats and some Republicans had agreed upon to propose to the President today at the big economic meeting."

She added that "Barnes... had the first concrete piece of paper we saw on this outline. Additionally, this afternoon at 12:54 PM ET, after a fundamental, initial deal had finally been reached between Democrats and Republicans on Secretary Paulson’s $700 billion bailout plan, FOX Business Network beat all the major cable news networks" with this information.

Finally, Rice indicated that Fox Business "was the first to report news of the deal at 12:54pm ET, followed by Bloomberg, FOX News Channel, CNBC, MSNBC, and CNN."

Some have argued why there was a need for an additional business network and others, because of their ideological agendas, have suggested that Fox wouldn't be taken seriously. News Corp has always been a leader in innovation and journalism. From the creation of a television business news network that pursues the interests of Wall Street to Main Street in Fox Business or in its purchase of the Bible of the financial world, The Wall Street Journal.

The thing I have enjoyed in working with the network is the sense of family I have seen that is so contrary to journalism today. I have had Alexis Glick, David Asman, Jonathan Hoenig, and others from the network on the program and their genuine love for their network is seen in the way they perform their jobs and how they represent the company.

In addition to providing a sense of understanding in its concerns about Main Street it also maintains a commitment to being "fair and balanced" that is similar to its sister station, Fox News. Because we have become so accustomed to a media bias with a driven agenda, we often see Fox as "Conservative." Honestly, it is only in the context of how blatantly liberal much of the rest of the media remains.

I congratulate Fox Business on these firsts as it approaches its very first anniversary. I am expecting even more from the network in the years to come.

Kevin Price articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

A Tale of Two News Sources

When it comes to the popular television news media, there really are only two sources. Fox News and virtually everyone else. Don't get me wrong, MSNBC and CNN have different personalities and they each have shows that are entertaining and informative in their own right. However, when it comes to ideological slant, CNN and MSNBC are largely Twiddle Dee and Twiddle Dum. The only difference is that MSNBC tends to be more liberal than CNN, but they are both remarkably similar.

Usually I watch Fox News and Fox Business as my primary TV information source. As I do that, I wonder how anyone could vote for the Obama and Biden ticket. It isn't that these networks simply rant against liberal politicians, but they tend to methodically review both sides and allow viewers to come to their own conclusion. Further, there is no glorification of individuals or philosophies, but typically a balancing act between various ideologies. It is true, most of the hosts have backgrounds that indicate they lean to the right, but certainly not all of them. Furthermore, when there is a larger panel of more than two or three, the voices tend to lean to the right. However, generally speaking, they seem to strive towards their motto of "fair and balanced."


There are shows I enjoy on CNN. I, of course, like Glenn Beck (who is certainly more libertarian than conservative), News to Us (which is an excellent showcase of the convergence of media), and several other programs that make up my normal news intake. However, the network's hard news shows virtually always have a liberal bent. They simply interpret news from a liberal worldview as if they were the facts. Recently my friend Jessica Colon (Young Republicans) was on the Larry King Show to talk about the McCain campaign versus Obama. The panel had her -- the sole Republican -- on with five Democrats (not including King). I have never seen that on Fox and it did not reflect well on CNN.


Things may be even worse at MSNBC. Although I love its documentaries and the network does have a token conservative, Tucker Carlson (he seems to have a shrinking role at the network). The only other member of the news team who leaned to the Right was Joe Scarborough. The former Republican Congressman use to be one of the only prominent conservative voices on the network, but he has moved slowly to the left in the minds of many since he has begun his Morning Joe program. The situation at the network has gotten so bad that Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman, both very passionate and obviously liberal in perspective, are no longer to anchor political programming because they have gotten carried away in the past sitting in such chairs. What is funny about that is these two have been replaced by David Gregory, who has been President Bush's strongest media nemesis. At least MSNBC has a sense of humor.

So what is the moral of this tale? Friends of Fox, beware, because if you think your side is going to win in November you need to be checking out the views of other networks. Ditto to viewers of MSNBC and CNN. There is a huge audience that is getting a different perspective on the candidates from your preferred news sources. In the end, I am not surprised by the wild differences in attitudes between those who have opinions based on a specific network. In fact, I am surprised there isn't more disparity of opinion.



Kevin Price accurately predicted that Joe Biden would be the VP candidate of Obama three days before the announcement. He predicted a woman would be McCain's VP days before as well. Get his commentaries in your email box by contacting Info@HoustonBusinessShow.com.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Who Won the Saddleback Debate?

It wasn't really a debate, but there certainly was a contrast in the presentations of the two major party candidates for President of the United States. The venue was the Saddleback Church, famous for its rapid growth and out spoken Pastor, Rick Warren. The contenders were John McCain and Barack Obama and the differences in style and substance was surprising.

The format was simple. A table, two chairs, and two hours. The first hour was Obama and Rick Warren and the second was John McCain and the Pastor. McCain wasn't suppose to be listening to the first hour or there would be accusations of cheating. It appears the Senator from Arizona was on the road when the Obama discussion began and there is a chance (as reported famously by NBC) that McCain heard much of what Obama said on the radio. Obama's people have cried "foul" and have stated that it is the "only way" McCain could have performed so well. There are more reasons for that than cheating and here are just a few of them:

* Obama was incredibly stiff and nervous. Obama looked like a person who didn't feel like he belonged there and that was obvious to the audience both there and on TV.

* Obama spoke too much and said too little. When he didn't have a good answer, he would simply talk more. Usually Obama is a pleasure to listen to, that wasn't the case during this program.

* Philosophically, Obama was completely out of the water. He did a fairly good job of making positions on issues that Evangelicals typically do not share, palpable. But his answers required a lot more work than those of McCain. It was a hard sales job.

* McCain told powerful and poignant stories. When he talked about his experience as a POW in the Vietnam War and the sacrifices he made, you could hear a pin drop. Furthermore, there was an obvious level of sincerity in his story about the role of God in his life that you didn't see in Obama. I'm not saying that Obama lacked sincerity, I am saying that McCain was much better at conveying such.



* McCain has one of the strongest records in the US Senate on Pro-Life issues. As a result, he could tell the audience "like it is" without flinching. Furthermore, Rick Warren and many of his constituencies are big fans of the Global Warming rhetoric so pervasive today. I'm not buying it, but McCain does and Obama had little to nothing over McCain on that subject. McCain has been a spokes person on behalf of the environmentalism for quite some time.

* There is no question that Obama is a better public speaker in general. He is very articulate and persuasive when giving a speech. In many respects, McCain is equally capable in the off the cuff setting that was used in this forum. McCain loves to speak candidly (which made him a media darling until Obama came along) and he demonstrated it on this program.

The bottom line, McCain won this discussion because he is much more the person for that audience. It was simply a better place for him than Obama. There has been a huge concern whether Evangelicals could get excited about McCain. The Arizona Senator placated many of those concerns during this Saddleback event.

Kevin Price's articles are found daily in national publications such as USA Today, Chicago Sun Times, and Reuters. Subscribe to his newsletter here.



Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review.

NBC's Smart Choice on Meet the Press

Like many other news jukies, I have been curious about the future of Meet the Press. The show had become one of the most respected in the news industry thanks to the leadership of Tim Russert and finding a replacement was quickly becoming a sacred task. However, instead of thoughtful deliberation, it appeared the network had quickly narrowed it down to Chris Matthews as the heir appearent.

Many bloggers, including myself, advocated Tom Brokaw as a transitional candidate to replace Russert. Virtually all the major news stories seemed to dismiss this as a possibility early on in the discussions, but I guess the message finally got through and Brokaw took that spot.

It is clear, however, that Brokaw is an interim host and the future seems unclear. One candidate for the host spot was Ted Koppel, who just recently got taking off of the short list according to Mediabistro. Regarding Meet the Press, Koppel said "That's the kind of thing that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. They need to find somebody younger than Tim, not older than Tim. He was 58. I'm 68. I just don't think it's realistic."

"If I were to do something like that, it could only be for a relatively short period. I don't think that would suit either NBC or me." It isn't like Koppel needs the work, he is now working with Discovery, National Public Radio, and (most recently) BBC America.

So what about the future of Meet the Press? It is hard to say. Many had no idea Koppel was on the list, so the announcement that individuals were on it seems to be stated after they are elininated. Very rude, but it creates a great deal of interest. NBC has stated that it isn't interested in one of the "cable guys," while saying Chris Matthews was a major candidate (who is primarily known for his work with MSNBC). However, I am going to stick my neck out there and say that I think one of the stronger candidates is Anderson Cooper at CNN. Although he is young (which means he can serve in that chair for many years), he is taken seriously by most in the media. We will have to wait and see.

According to recent surveys on marketing, most advertising attracts sellers (others who want you to buy more ads) and not buyers. Do you want to know why? Email info@HoustonBusinessShow.com and put "marketing audio" in the subject line and we will get it to you.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Couric Won't Replace King Any Time Soon

Rumor had it that Couric would soon be departing CBS due to her anemic ratings for CNN and would be replacing Larry King. That rumor largely came to halt with the announcement that CNN would extend its contract with King. This exclusive came from Media Bistro:

Sources tell TVNewser that CNN and Larry King have agreed to a contract extension, which will keep the anchor with the network through 2010, beyond his 77th birthday.

A recent New York Times

story speculating about Katie Couric's future reported that King's contract was set to expire in the summer of 2009.

The article also revealed the CBS Evening News anchor was eying King's CNN slot as a possible move if she were to leave CBS. "Couric discussed several things she might do if she left the anchor post, according to the executives, including a daily talk show to be syndicated by CBS, or replacing Larry King in a prime-time position on CNN," the Times story claimed.

CNN doesn't comment on employee contracts, but a CNN spokesperson tells TVNewser, "Larry is the best there is, he'll be here for a long time."

There was no talk on money, which surprised me, but I am sure it is significant.

I am no Larry King fan -- half the time he doesn't seem quite sure where he is or what he is doing. However, I think he makes far more sense for the format approach of his show then Couric would provide. Couric is about to become a media orphan, in my opinion. She is perfectly suited for early morning news shows (like Today, for which she is famous) and I am sure she probably believes that such programming is beneath her.

For a copy of the free report, "Why Your Marketing Isn't Working," email Info@HoustonBusinessShow.com and put "marketing" in the subject line.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at HoustonBusinessShow.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Bhutto and the US Race for the Presidency

The terrible murder of Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan is having a ripple effect felt right here in the US. Besides a wildly volatile stock market that is concerned how the actions on the other side of the earth might affect us right here, there is also discussions on how the terrorism will shake up the US race for the presidency.

The winners appear to be the candidates who have taken the strongest positions on the war on terror. With over 45 percent of Pakistanis supporting Al Qaeda (according to CNN) and the possibility that they were behind this act (though no one has claimed it at the time of this writing), US candidates who have had the strongest positions on the war on terror are the biggest "beneficiaries" of what has happened in Pakistan. I know, it sounds tasteless, but I'm not sure how to describe it any more clearly.

Generally speaking, the political prognosticators are arguing that the biggest winners will be Sen. Hillary Clinton among Democrats (because of her long term relationship with Bhutto and the fact she is probably the most Conservative among that liberal group) and Sen. John McCain, who has had the strongest and most consistent views on the war on terror. I have a slightly different spin. I think the biggest winners are any Republican contender and the losers are any Democrat, because all of the former have had stronger positions on terrorism than any of the latter. Whether or not there will be any lasting impression will take weeks, if not months, to see.

Kevin Price is Host of the Houston Business Show (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and is Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Get a free subscription to that newsletter by clicking here.

You Know It Is a Slow News Day When...

CNN does a story on whether or not hugging should be allowed in middle school. It appears there is a school in Oak Park, Illinois in which classes have been disrupted and kids have been late due to the persistent hugging going on. The principal had to bring this to a stop we are told!

To stop hugging in middle school -- the place where people begin to really appreciate the opposite sex, seems as likely as stopping prayer in school on test days -- is next to impossible. I guess it will be interesting to see how the petition drive goes to reverse such a decision.

Anyway, my point was in writing this post is that it must be a slow news day when CNN makes this an important enough story for them to cover. In fact, they even want viewers to vote on the subject. My thought is that this is an indication of a slow news day. So slow that I'm writing an article about the media struggle to find something worth talking about.

Note: Order Kevin Price's audio program The Accumulators, which explains the impact that the Internet is having on marketing and consumer behavior. It is available online here for only $10 plus p and h. Receive the Houston Business Review e-zine free each week by clicking here.

CNBC to Fox Business: We Are Ready

According to a recent Media Bistro ezine:

In today's Hollywood Reporter, NBCU's Jeff Zucker confidently reveals how CNBC will handle the arrival of Fox Business Network: "We're not going to make the same mistake CNN made when Fox News Channel came along a decade ago. We'll be strong and aggressive and continue to prove what makes CNBC by far the leading financial news broadcaster in the world."Zucker continues, "I think there is a degree of irony that the company that broke the story that Rupert Murdoch wanted to buy Dow Jones was CNBC."

Obviously Murdoch could have broke that same story and chose not to and this story reminds me of the saying that "pride comes before the fall." I don't think CNN fell over and played dead, but simply tried to down play the significance of the rival at their own peril. I believe Fox won the content war more than the personality battle (although I generally prefer Fox's people). I also think the quality of people that Fox brings will be better than what CNBC currently offers. We will have to wait and see.

With Fox's purchase of the Wall Street Journal, will the Dow Jones Industrial Average become the Fox Business Industrial Average? I'm dying to see a CNBC reporter say something like that.

Observations on the CNN/YouTube Debates

I wish I were an artist. I can barely draw flies with honey all over my face. But if I were an artist, I would draw a picture reflecting my assessment of the recent CNN/YouTube debate and it would have the Democratic candidates all lined up and a Giant Pink Elephant (or would it be a donkey?) with a podium of his own.

The elephant would be labeled "terrorism" and, some how, it was ignored through out the entire debate. Sure, "we need to pull out of Iraq," but there was no discussion about the forces that got us there nor the series of attacks that the UK has faced in recent weeks and the unusual "home grown" activities we have seen in the US. The more they ignore this issue, the bigger the problem will become in my opinion. This will eventually haunt the Democrats in the not too distant future.

I did not like the way questions were posed to the candidates. Screeners would find a question they would like on YouTube and had individuals posing questions that were some times longer than the period of time candidates were allowed to answer.

Worse still, the questioners clearly had an axe to grind. Candidates have a hard enough time drawing the moral courage to answer honestly when questions are posed with some semblance of neutrality. The questions these candidates heard were full of agendas and the candidates clearly framed the message in a way that accommodated that bias.

YouTube is "young," "hip," and "open minded." I guess that also translates to Democratic, from the way this event was framed. They chose to be on the most liberal cable network and chose to pose questions to the most liberal party. It will be interesting to see how they conduct the Republican debate. So far, they have shown their true ideological colors, in my opinion.

See How They Run: Democratic Candidates Won't Debate on Fox

Rumor has it that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (photo)are joining John Edwards in a boycott against Fox News in that network's upcoming debate, according to the Huffington Post. The candidates argue that Fox News is too biased and anti-Democrat and they don't want to legitimize its views by participating in the forum. I first learned about Edwards' decision about a week ago and was some what offended by the idea. However, the more I think about it, I have to respect all of these candidates for sticking to their convictions, regardless of how wrong those beliefs may be.

If conservative candidates had done the same thing to CNN many years ago, the media would not be nearly as polarized as it is today, in my opinion. Americans couldn't expect the Democrats to boycott that network 20 years ago, it was the Republicans who were getting abused. They obediently took their regular beatings rather than holding the network accountable. These leading Democrats are doing just that when it comes to Fox.

There is, however, a difference in my opinion. I honestly don't believe that Fox's treatment of the news is biased. The editorial departments clearly lean to the Right, but the news itself really is fair and balanced. A typical Fox story will point out truths that neither side wants to hear. In my memory Fox has also been fair in its treatment of candidates during debates, which weakens the arguments of these Democrats about whether they should participate.

With these leading Democrats firing this salvo, the question is, how should Fox respond? If I were in charge I would move full speed ahead towards having a debate among the Democrats willing to participate. This would do several things:

* It would likely cause one or two of these major candidates to blink. The thought of one of their opponents -- even a minor one -- getting that kind of uninterrupted exposure, would be more than they can handle.

* The majority of Fox viewers consider themselves independent, a more moderate Democrat could have an excellent opportunity to pick up some key votes. Hillary Clinton has heavily marketed herself as such a Democrat and would be the must likely to suffer from such a boycott.

* I believe this could possibly move the Democratic party towards the much neglected center. Candidates who are largely ignored by the media whose agenda is established by the Democratic party (most media, in my opinion) would have an opportunity to voice their views to an audience that hasn't heard such perspectives.

* It would put the power of the candidates at check. If Fox News doesn't budge, these candidates likely will. Those candidates who don't will likely regret it later.

There are checks and balances for every branch of government. Although I disagree with the Democrats about the network they want to boycott, I'm impressed that they are holding this "fourth branch" of government accountable.

What I Learned About Morning Television at the YMCA

I make an effort to go to the YMCA 3 or 4 times a week about ten weeks a year. Seriously, I go fairly often, but rarely in the morning. It is usually between 9 and 10 PM when my younger kids are in bed and the older ones are available to watch them. When I do go during the day it is usually after 9 or 10 AM because I have a hard time getting going earlier and I hate the pre-work crowd. This morning I found myself dressed for the gym at around 7:15 after dropping off my kids at school and a very busy day in front of me, so I decided to go ahead and get the Y behind me or I wouldn't likely be able to go at all.

These days I am focusing on the treadmills and as soon as I walked in I noticed that the long line of treadmills had many more bodies running, walking, and fainting on one side of the room over the other. I kind of felt left out, all that was left for me was the five empty treadmills at the end. I reminded myself that I should be happy I could get in at all and went straight to work. When I looked up at the TV screens I noticed that the channel nearest me was CBS (The Early Show), the channel after that was ABC (Good Morning America), CNN was next, and then finally, where the huge crowd was I found NBC. The ratings companies have said that the Today Show dominates the mornings, I began to think I had evidence of this on a very personal level. Almost everyone, even the poor soul next to me who looked like she was going to need to see a chiropractor from straining to watch NBC, was focused on Today.

I used my time to see what CBS and ABC had to offer. The first thing I noticed is that these shows are now virtual clones of Today. They have somewhat similar personalities, Harry Smith (photo above) from CBS seems to now be using Matt Lauer of Today's tailor. When the Today Show is outside with the crowd, so is CBS and ABC. When the Today Show team is on the couch, so are the the personalities at ABC and CBS. If I were one of the personalities on ABC or CBS, I would take it very personally. The only difference is that CBS puts a much stronger emphasis on local news than the others, other than that it looks like "NBC and the Wannabes."

Something I noted that was interesting is that Good Morning America is trying to incorporate Web 2.0 ideas into the show itself. They showed a video of some kid riding a skateboard inches from a police officer on a handrail. That police officer pushed the kid in the bushes near by because it wasn't safe for either one of them. The question, posed on the Web of course, was whether the response was appropriate. The hosts asked a guest to weigh in and they wanted the response of the audience to his comments. It was an interesting way to encourage audience interaction and it appears to be one that is used fairly often. It isn't, however, enough to make me stop watching Today.

I have said before, I don't really understand the attraction. I use to be a strong Good Morning America fan for years. Until I figure it out why I like Today, I'm going to either have to get to the Y early or make sure I go after the Today Show is over. With the continued expansion of the show through out the day starting in September, I might develop a huge weight problem.

On This Week's Houston Business Show

This week's Houston Business Show was unusually busy, to say the least, with four guests instead of the usual two or three. Any regular listener knows that our studio is small (see photo, right) from the comments I have made about it during the shows. This week, with so many guests coming in and out, it was particularly tight! Fortunately, most were on the via telephone, but this picture right gives you an idea of the cramped circumstances in which I work. So much for media being glamorous.

However, I did have a great slate of guests and if you want to be kept up to date of who is going to be on when and to get information on our updated 24/7 archive, sign up for our newsletter here.

Here's a quick run down of who was on today, and what they spoke about:

* Colette Ann Lombardo of the Sterling Memorial Villages. This innovative program for senior citizens allows them unique ownership opportunities and the ability to be cared for according to their individuals needs. It is excellent at keeping spouses together and affords financial savings that traditional programs simply can't provide.

* Also Ralph Fain of the R/Fain Group provided excellent information on purchasing a franchise.

* Michael Frewer, Executive Vice President of the Bank of Houston provided insights on the changes in the banking environment.

* Noel Halgreen of (Sona MedSpa) discussed his latest articles at the Houston Business Show website.

Check out our archive to listen to recent shows online 24/7. Listen to the show live on Mondays at 1 PM at CNN 650.

Is the Economy in Danger or Was Yesterday a Mere Speed Bump?

The Headlines are fairly ominous today at CNN Money. We read about a "Wound Licking Wednesday" because the stock market dropped by over 400 points. Just below that article we see that "Economic Growth Not So Strong," with the actual increase being only 2.2 percent instead of the initial estimates of 3.5 for the fourth quarter of last year. The problems are not merely domestic, with the headline "Asia Stocks Tumble -- Except China" (this news is considered a major factor in our stock market decline yesterday). In fact, the news is so bad today, I suggest you avoid any sharp objects while reviewing it.

Seriously though, there is probably some legitimate cause of concern, but I believe that the economy is still on track towards a positive trajectory for this year. I say this for a few reasons:

* The power of divided government. There is an old saying, when the legislature is in session, no one's wallet is safe. Thanks to the fact that the President is of one party and the majority of the Congress is in the other, the chance of much being done legislatively is very slim in deed. This is a good thing in the eyes of business.

* Unemployment remains at historic lows. Zero unemployment is considered by most economists to be around 4 percent (because of people who are seasonally employed, are in illegal activities, are actually creating a business, etc.). Our unemployment is a mere 4.5 percent, thus near zero. This means the housing bust is probably going to actually be a mere burp (since high unemployment is a typical prerequisite to a housing bust) and should find itself having a strong year over all.

* The long term and consistent growth for so many quarters. This too is historic (even with the small increase from the last quarter) and there is nothing in the fundamentals of the economy to make one think it should change any time soon.

However, if the economy does go south, there are several potential contributing factors. If Congress passes its massive increase in the minimum wage and the President signs off on it, the economy will certainly suffer. Also, if the President signs on to a Democrat tax increase, we could find ourselves in serious trouble. In fact, the Congress failing to keep the current tax cuts in effect (a requirement in the bill that was passed with the tax cuts) will equal a tax increase in the eyes of many.

In the end, though, I expect 2007 to be extremely strong on the economic front, even if it is a little soft compared to last year. I have such optimism, not so much because of the ability of government to prevent a slump, but because of the entrepreneurs that has kept this economy growing. Let's face it, the economy typically thrives in spite of government, not because of it.