Eliot Spitzer to Succeed Campbell Brown on CNN

What a disaster in the making. CNN announced today it will replace Campbell Brown in the fall with a show co-hosted by a conservative columnist, Kathleen Parker, and former New York Gov. and Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer. They're pairing a conservative with "the sheriff of Wall Street"? Where's the balance? I guess they want to give Fox News a run for their money.

CNN should stick to reporting the news and skip the talk shows. It's what they are known for and it's what they do best. Their pundits are their weakest link and this pairing hardly seems like a fresh approach.

Anyone think this show has a chance of succeeding?

< Obama Announcement: Live Thread | Nigeria Asks Court to Allow It to Monitor Abdulmutallab Proceedings >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Spitzer has been fairly entertaining (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 08:55:18 PM EST
    when I've seen him on Real Time and the like but this pairing doesn't interest me at all. I don't think it will be a win for CNN. They haven't put a good pair together since Miles O'Brien and Soledad O'Brien did the morning show imo.

    I'm skeptical too (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 09:53:03 AM EST
    but on the bright side it could have been worse.  CNN has quite a few other quite wacky RWers and GOP party hacks on staff who could have been tapped.  At least Parker occasionally displays signs of sanity and fairmindedness, and her personality isn't a complete turnoff.

    But not a lot of pizzazz for these two in the charisma dept.  Spitzer possibly can make up for it with his in-depth knowledge of areas like finance and governance and politics, and in these areas at least I sense the lib side has a decided advantage over the conservative commentator -- not always the case when cable decides to pair up a lib with a con.  Remember the first two limp-wristed "libs" who hosted Crossfire for 15 yrs or so against fire-breathing types like Buchanan and Novak?

    As for Miles O'Brien, I miss his science reporting.  In fact, I miss CNN's science reporting which used to be a regular feature of their several key daily newscasts.  His sister Soledad O'Brien strikes me as lighter and fluffier than Anderson Cooper (who's actually doing a decent job of reporting on the BP oil disaster, and who did well on Katrina).  She needs to hit the books and find some courage, imo.


    Spitzer is brilliant (none / 0) (#10)
    by norris morris on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 10:28:44 PM EST
    Yes he has a first rate brain and energy to match. Smart and capable of entertaining and lively talk, etc. Might make a good show.

    It all depends on the "chemistry" (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 09:04:24 PM EST
    of the pairing.  Spitzer has been OK and getting better subbing for Ratigan on MSNBC, and Parker is, as she describes herself, a fairly rational conservative, though I haven't seen that much of her on TV.

    Spitzer is smart and interesting and knowledgeable and thoughtful, which makes him unfit for TV in many ways.  He's also never exactly been Mr. Personality.  So I think whether this works at all depends a lot on how he and Parker get along.

    I'll give it a look-see.  I had zero interest in Campbell Brown and Anderson Cooper gives me hives these days.

    I doubt this is going to be a big ratings success, but it may not suck as badly as Brown's show. <yawn>

    I haven't watched prime time cable (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 09:10:27 PM EST
    for more than 5 minutes at a time in years. This pairing is unlikely to change that. But I'll bet they'd be more interesting to watch than Campbell Brown.

    Gosh,how do you stay so well-informed? (none / 0) (#8)
    by observed on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 09:27:28 PM EST
    Is it cause and effect?!

    My Google Reader (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 09:35:37 PM EST
    is like a fire hose of news and opinion.

    I wonder (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 03:58:20 AM EST
    if a woman who had engaged in the kind of activity for which Mr. Spitzer resigned the governorship would now be doing her own show on CNN.

    True that... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 08:00:23 AM EST
    and the only way this show beats O'Reilly is if Spitzer's co-host is a different poor slob locked up under his reign as AG & Gov every night, for sh*t the former AG and Gov has done himself...that's a ratings winner right there!

    spitzer (none / 0) (#1)
    by jharp on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 07:49:18 PM EST
    Yes, I think it has a chance.

    Disclaimer. I don't watch TV.

    Yet I might turn it on to watch Eliot Spitzer. I'm a big fan who was very disappointed with his transgressions.

    Welcome Spitzer (none / 0) (#2)
    by Missblu on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 08:07:09 PM EST
    I disagree Jeralyn. CNN is tedious news all day long. Listening to Spitzer is a good gymnastic exercise for the brain unlike O'Reilly's simplistic rantings. As for Olbermann I left him during the 2008 primaries when he went into his Hillary diatribe. Parker offers some good commentary in her columns. Hopefully they will be the CNN of old and not qualify everything according to management's preference.

    Olbermann, et al (none / 0) (#12)
    by norris morris on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 10:32:57 PM EST
    Yes, after the Hillary rants and continual lousy barbs I left Keith. He's also pompous and often boring.

    Spitzer has a first rate mind and knows what he's talking about. He could be a biting and interesting commentator. I actually like listening as I learn from him and then I fact check. He's been right on.  He's not a usual TV talking head, so he actually could be interesting and real.


    Perhaps interesting... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 07:51:00 AM EST
    and no doubt intelligent, but real?  The guy is a first rate fraud, locking people up for behavior he himself enjoyed...the poster boy for "different rules for different fools."

    He's a big fat phony...the opposite of "real".


    Really? You think Spitzer engaged in (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by observed on Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 08:49:02 AM EST
    insider trading??
    Two points:
    First, I think pretty much every male in  power engages in similar behavior at some point.
    Second, he was taken down because he was such a thorn in the side of Wall St.
    He was too much on the side of the little guys.

    You mean the little guys... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 09:13:57 AM EST
    he didn't oversee being sent to prison? :)

    Point taken though, he at least made an effort regarding that high-crime area in lower Manhattan...that's better than most AG's and Gov's...he's not all bad, few are.  It's just the hypocrisy I can't stand...and my general distaste for lawmen:)

    And if almost all men in power do it, why are men and women outta power punished for it...why is it illegal?  Of all people, he shoulda advocated for ending the prohibition on prostitution when he had the opportunity to do something about it.  But apparently he was fine with caging and harassing people for the hobby he enjoyed.


    What qualifies as "conservative"? (none / 0) (#3)
    by ecrive on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 08:29:18 PM EST
    Hi Jeralyn,

    Thanks for an impressive work ethnic and attention to detail.

    I never post, but registered this one time so that I could ask you what qualifies Ms. Parker's communications or her positions as conservative?

    I think I know what conservatism is as a political philosophy and few who are currently characterized as conservative actually are.

    she describes herself that way (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 23, 2010 at 08:56:49 PM EST
    according to the CNN article I linked to.

    Parker, whose columns appear in over 400 newspapers twice a week, in April received the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary. She describes herself as a "rational" conservative.

    NOT CONSERVATIVE (none / 0) (#28)
    by DaveCal on Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 03:30:47 PM EST
    She can call herself whatever she wants, but I find it hard to believe she will represent a conservative viewpoint on the show.  

    But then again, I won't be watching.  I'll be doing my part to help ensure Spitzer won't get ratings. Based on CNN's track record, it's not likely.

    I was about to say that it couldn't be any worse than Campbell Brown, but never say never...


    Spitzer's work on Slate suggests he'll be good (none / 0) (#13)
    by Swiggs on Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 01:16:24 AM EST
    Jeralyn, you should read some of Spitzer's work in Slate.  I have no idea who the counterpoint woman is - but I think Spitzer will be good and interesting.  Much better than the usual drivel on cable.  As someone else mentioned, it will probably come down to chemistry and how well both hosts can actually "think" on their feet.

    I shudder (none / 0) (#16)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 03:59:05 AM EST
    to think of "chemistry" with Spitzer.

    I've debated (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 10:56:03 AM EST
    Spitzer on TV several times, on everything from the Clinton impeachment to legalization of marijuana. He's a crime warrior. I find it disturbing that he'll have his own talk show on a network like CNN without someone to counterbalance him on those issues.

    Make that criminal crime warrior... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 11:50:29 AM EST
    not to nitpick:)

    CNN (none / 0) (#14)
    by lentinel on Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 03:55:58 AM EST
    has been the pits since the era of Bernard Shaw. That was quite a while ago.

    They drummed up the fever for the war in Iraq as ferociously as anyone.

    And I wouldn't lionize Aaron Brown.
    I watched him being contemptuous of people trying to offer the point of view that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

    For me, they are now useless. And that's even giving them credit because they have become advocates for the status quo and for the agendas of the rich and powerful.

    Not that it was exactly (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by brodie on Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 09:34:31 AM EST
    a Golden Era of Journalism at CNN under Bernie Shaw either.  

    I seem to recall CNN was the outlet that went live with the Gennifer Flowers joke of a tabloid press conference in the 1992 NH primary.  And I don't recall CNN as an oasis of sanity and fair play during the 98 MonicaMadness, nor do I recall Bernie & Co offering anything other than typical GOP-friendly coverage of the Repub/Scotus theft of the 2000 election.  Earlier, many had problems with the way Bernie over-personalized and sensationalized the death penalty question he put to Mike Dukakis in that debate.  

    What Bernie and Aaron had was the ability to project gravitas with their sober voices and steady, experienced-anchorman demeanor.   But at key points in recent political history, I'm not sure the substance of their news broadcasts always matched the promise of their style.

    Overall though, I wouldn't doubt that the network is delivering less news in a 24 hr cycle than it did 24 or 14 yrs ago.   Almost certainly the coverage of int'l news has dropped considerably.


    fair and balanced (none / 0) (#32)
    by diogenes on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:42:56 PM EST
    You don't say whether Bill Clinton in fact had an affair with Gennifer Flowers, an affair with Monica Lewinsky, or whether he committed perjury in testifying about that affair.  Perhaps you think that CNN made all this stuff up.  
    Or does a good news network just "not report" events that affect one political party.

    Spitzer is smart (none / 0) (#20)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 09:02:12 AM EST
    He's smart and a good talker and I've liked him for a long time. Unfortunately he's also an AIPAC-butt-kissing Israeli Firster, and we have way too many people espousing that viewpoint both in the media and in our government. Because it's so commonplace, I feel I can be forced to accept some measure of that (much though I loathe it) if someone is really good on a lot of other issues...but Spitzer's ravings about the massacred humanitarians aboard the MarvMari turned my stomach. You can watch it here, as Glenn Greenwald tears him a new one:


    let's not turn this into a (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 10:57:32 AM EST
    discussion about Israel please. Please keep it to Sptizer.

    That's absurd (none / 0) (#29)
    by observed on Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 04:58:02 PM EST
    It's ok to talk about Spitzer's being a "crime warrior", but not relevant to talk about his political views  on Israel?
    If anything, his Neanderthal, racist views in this area are the biggest problem with giving him a show.

    I don't like cheaters, but that's private, (none / 0) (#27)
    by nycvoter on Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 02:12:02 PM EST
    but this scum broke the law while being sanctimonious about enforcing it.  I think it's disgusting to give him a platform.  I was a supporter for years and I wouldn't give him the time of day.

    He was also foolish (none / 0) (#30)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:44:31 AM EST
    He must have known, or figured out, that someone would catch him. I don't care what people do in their private lives and I don't even care that they hire prostitutes, but jeebus, he had a lot of enemies and he handed them the ammunition on a silver platter. He's foolish and irresponsible.

    Well (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 10:04:51 AM EST
    To say the least he either had a blind spot, or could not control himself. Some high achievers seem to do unusual things to balance/fuel, their work. I think Spitzer was one of those types.

    Particularly odd, and psychologically charged, because he was doing a thing that he busted people for.


    Can you say Al Gore? (none / 0) (#33)
    by diogenes on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 09:46:01 PM EST
    What WAS that man thinking?