Nice commentary on TomPaine.com about the mud-wrestling going on between CNN and Fox, and how at the end of the day it's doing a disservice to the news consumer.

Former "George" editor Richard Blow (and check out his piece on Michael Moore vs Ann Coulter) makes the point that was the stuff of much debate for the best part of the past year, when he says that in CNN's desperation to compete with Fox - even though CNN pulls in more ad revenue, it's losing in the ratings - the network that built its reputation on adventurous, exciting and intelligent journalism is being dragged further down into the mud; not least because it seems to be believing the negative vibes being thrown its way.

With the departure of Walter Isaacson, it remains to be seen whether the 'Chicken Noodle Network' still has the stomach for a fight based on journalistic integrity and important debate instead of tabloid hype and opinionated, screaming personalities.

Meanwhile, this side of the pond, the BBC looks set to cut a bunch of jobs in its newsgathering operation. Part of the cost-cutting will come, according to the memo, from the merger of Ceefax and the BBC's online set-up. As the Guardian points out, the cuts come at a time when the Beeb is re-vamping its main television news bulletins, as well as using the new BBC3 to reach out to the ever elusive younger audience demographic.

Comment

The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll shows support slipping for an attack - particularly a unilateral attack by the US - against Iraq. Interestingly, also, the survey shows that majority of Americans disapprove of Bush's handling of the economy for the first time since he took office.

More than 60 per cent believe the next round of the tax cut stimulus package only benefits the rich. Despite Bush's hackneyed protestations that anyone who criticises the tax cut is guilty of "class war", maybe people are starting to disentangle the leader of the war against terror from the pal of big business. As Maureen Dowd says in today's New York Times, "...there's nothing more effective than deploring class warfare while ensuring that your class wins."

Whether dissatisfaction on those two fronts would translate into a vote against the incumbent in a presidential election obviously depends of course on what happens in the Gulf and on who the Democrats run against him; but it might be worth both parties considering the Paul Tsongas factor.

In the aftermath of Bush senior's previous military adventure in the Gulf, he headed for a re-election year with a historic high approval rating. Tsongas was the first Democrat to declare his candidacy for the 1992 election, and enjoyed reminding voters he was the only candidate brave enough to declare with his opponent's popularity rating over 90 per cent.

And we all know the eventual outcome of the '92 election.

There seems little doubt that once any kind of military conflict starts, Americans will rally round the flag and Bush's popularity will edge higher; particularly if the conflict is mercifully short and "successful", however that is defined.

But with such a groundswell of popular opinion against a war in the first place - and with Iowa and New Hampshire only a year away - it might prove a challenge for the White House to build a winning platform without the fundamental trust of the people on the two crucial planks of foreign policy and domestic prosperity.

Expect a lot more inter-twining of foreign policy with homeland security in the months to come, and maybe - if Karl Rove dosen't think the numbers are coming around - even the dropping of the plan to end tax on stock dividends.

According to Reuters today, Mexican President Vicente Fox's campaign for the July mid-terms now apparently features his unborn grandson flashing a "V" for victory - and Vicente - sign from inside the womb.

The Reuters story says:
"Fox's office released the image of the sonogram showing the outline of a tiny hand flashing the two-fingered salute that Fox made his trademark in his 2000 presidential campaign. The sonogram was made public after Fox's claim at a public appearance last week that his unborn grandson had adopted the sign was met with widespread incredulity."

No. Really?

I sense the hand - pardon the pun - of James Carville at work ....

I just watched Fergal Keane's terrific piece of undercover reporting from Zimbabwe on the BBC. Well done to him and his crew. Wonderful journalism. The world needs to know what's happening there.

Interestingly, though, an important aspect of the story appeared as no more than a peripheral image.

Fergal's film showed a line of cars queuing for petrol in Harare, illustrating the economic hardships that Mugabe's rule has wrought.

But the cars were lined up in front of a BP station!

If we're serious about bringing about any kind of change to that regime, our government has to address the issue of British businesses who operate there, hand in glove with the regime.

As Jeremy Clarkson said on "Question Time" the other night; the whole furore over the cricket world cup is meaningless if the government isn't going to tell British Airways not to fly there.

Did we ever think that the current manifestation of media "competition" was healthy for democracy?

And do we really think the situation is going to change anytime soon? In today's New York Times, William Safire does a pretty good job of updating Ben Bagdikian's "Media Monopoly" theory; specifically pointing to the fact that - despite protests of how their content is being undermined by the internet - the top twenty web sites by traffic are, unsurprisingly, owned by the usual conglomerate suspects.

Safire also makes the connection between the obscene numbers of campaign advertising dollars that are spent on television ads and a continuation of the status quo; again, in spite claims of potential penury from the boardrooms of the media giants.