Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 13 January 2002

It was a bit confusing but this is my take,

Juan Williams started babbling on about Dick Cheney and the energy task force and how it was kept secret. Brit Hume interrupts him and talks about how that is unrelated and it is the job of the press to keep this straight and let people know that the two - Enron's collapse and Cheney's task force - are unrelated. Tony then tries to get the conversation back on track and mumbles (I have a hard time with Tony some times) something about Enron influencing energy policy (at this point I am about to explode and am thinking, come on Fred, say how Lay was an advisor to Clinton on energy policy) and they go back to Cheney and the energy task force. Fred pipes up that the two are unrelated but nevertheless, Cheney should release the list and that will be the end of it.

I don't think Tony was trying to get at Bush here but the whole show was kind of wierd. Earlier, they (Brit and Tony)were interviewing Dingell about all this and Tony asks, "well, what are you going to do about making the Enron employees whole again?!" I can't remember what Dingell said exactly but something about giving his political contribution from Enron back to a fund for the employees.

I emailed a nasty note to Fox and said their and everyone else's coverage on this has been deplorable - all rumor and innuendo.

The whole story is ridiculous. The only reason it is getting so much play is because George W is from Texas and he has a friendship with Ken Lay and it's an energy company. Period. There is no political scandal here. It is a business scandal sure but let the Justice Dept and SEC sort it out. Congress should stay away.

Hope this helps.

Thank you, you're very nice. I agree with you 100% about not bailing Enron employees out. I feel sick over what they did to them, but it's really not a governmental matter. We can't help out everyone who takes a hit in a capitalist society. It works on the laws of chance and unpredictability, and there are always going to be winners and losers in that kind of system.

As to whether the question was a form of advocacy, I seriously doubt it with either Snow or Hume (I did read this transcript and the one with O'neil on the fox website). I caught parts of the other shows, and they asked the same exact question. They're doing it because Henry Waxman raised the issue. They think they have to ask provocative questions. If they can get an answer tantalizing enough, their shows are mentioned on the wires, in newspapers and and on the morning shows during weekdays. The theory is people here about the shows and they gain a bigger viewing audience.

I suppose your question would be "what do they care more about- ratings or good journalism". Well, that is a very good question.

Do you happen to remember what the viewer mail was about at the end of the show ('mailbag')?

,Shannon

Somebody ought to remind me next time that when you write that somebody hears of something, it's spelled hear, not here!

Yes, it was locked, but only for 10 days - it appears to me the employees were not really paying attention to their fund. I totally agree this is a business problem and not a political one.

The only reason it's become political is because the dems are so intent on getting Bush - partly because of his favorable numbers (Clinton's highest was 67%, I believe). The dems hate the fact that Bush is successful and they will do literally anything to bring him down. They're chasing this thing because they think it will bring Bush down - so far they have scored -0-, zip, nada!!!!

The viewer mail was just some hokey stuff about Brit and Tony as the Dragnet guys and being good looking. Nothing of real merit.

I have been saying for a couple of months now that I think the gound work is being layed. Think about it, a Democract and a Repubilcan(?) running together on the same ticket, a 'sign of unity' will be the cry. This is dangerous.

The only thing you said that I dont agree with, is that I have NO sympathy whatsover for investors who fail to diversify. They are nuts, or greedy or both, and they got bit in the ass for it.

I don't remember hearing all the same sob stories about people losing money when the dot.com bomb hit and 401K's were reduced across the country. And I don't buy that it is because Enron management was evil. People were greedy and got burned.

Ref: Your # 161
I'm still looking for a transcript of Brooks Jackson's report.....It was being replayed just seconds ago, but got interrupted midstream, for President Bush's speech from a John Deere plant.

One key point I heard him make, was the lock-down didn't occur till October 26, and employees had been notified it was coming.

"This administration cares more about corporation fatcats than they do the little people."

Who are the little people? As I am only 5' tall, I have to wonder if it is just me this administration does not care about! All of you tall guys (over 5'2") get everything. Could this be prejudism? Huh?!? I wanna know, so I can call Jesse and Al.

It seems like I only hear about being a "little people" from democrats. Do Republicans ever refer to their bosses (we who employ them) as "little people"?

TC

He's doing a great job with Sam on This Week! I was pleasantly surprised.

I agree. I was not impressed with him some months back, but I have been impressed in the past few days.

It takes some effort on my part to listen to him. He speaks so mildly that it is easy to ignore what he is saying. He doesn't punctuate his speech with interesting phrases or intonations, but what he says is logical, clear and hard to dispute.

C, Sorry! I missed it today.