Planet Abell

Embedded video from CNN Video A brief appearance on a CNN piece about Tweeting TMI. Don't blink!

T he gifted former TV Newser blogger Brian Stelter , now a New York Times media correspondent, has one of the first stories about the consequences of CNN's decision to dissolve its 27-year-old relationship with Reuters: they missed the story. I say this not to gloat, since I am not short Time Warner and neither employed by (anymore) nor a shareholder (anymore) in Reuters, but to commiserate . Because if CNN's stated reason for dropping Reuters is basically accurate there will be quite a bit more of these gaps in coverage until the cable news network realizes its goal of taking the money they have saved and putting it to work for them on the street. And there is serious reason to believe that it won't be remotely possible to replace the coverage organically. This kind of money won't go far spent a la carte. I shudder to think that CNN hopes a big part of the slack will be picked up by iReporter contributions -- but these days you never know A Few Million Bucks Doesn...

R emember the name Mark LaCroix. Lacroix, a guy who lives in Minneapolis, carried CNN and blew away local coverage for the first crucial 20 minutes of today's collapsed bridge story , proving compelling, articulate live accounts after sending about five pictures of the destroyed span -- about what a pro's first dump would be. He even had the presence of mind to send CNN a filer, only a week old, of the intact bridge. CNN's producers didn't think to immediately make use of that image until LaCroix mentioned it in passing to a surprised Wolf Blitzer, who asked on the air that it be broadcast immediately. Because of LaCroix, CNN's coverage was superior to that of their local affiliate, whose on-air anchors were reduced to time-killing babble over the ambiguous video of a fixed-position (likely security) camera somewhere off in the distance, which did not even cleraly show the collapse as well as it did a nearby intact span. LaCroix's work is on the CNN online story...

P ut aside the considerations about free speech and commercial political speech. Recognize that there are no losers when enemies from opposite ends of the political spectrum mud wrestle. By the way, the clearest winner is always the feral beast , of course. Score one for MSNBC , which cracked the Ann Coulter lightning and stole a lot of thunder from CNN's get of that other tabloidly blond . The question is: will you have any impact when you "politely ask" a leopard to change her spots? Should you even bother? (remember, we're putting aside commercial political speech. It always make sense to raise money by demonizing your enemies.) The best-case scenario for accountability zealotry is that everyone will then know Coulter for what she is. Trouble is, her fans already know, and love it. We Can't All Get Along? OK. Some people can't be ignored because of the damage they may do. But Elizabeth Edwards v. Ann Coulter isn't Joseph Welch v. Joe McCarthy. Reuters ...