WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 2026
The fruit of Ted Turner's idea: At the time, it seemed like a good idea.
We'd have 24-hour TV news! Cable news would be available all the time! What in the world could go wrong?
It was the late Ted Turner's idea. CNN appeared on cable screens on June 1, 1980.
In 1982, along came Headline News, "a sister network to CNN that broadcast a looping, half-hour cycle of segments covering various news topics."
In the long run, it turned out that we the people didn't want a round-the-clock, half-hour digest of major news. Today, the channel is called HLN—and this is its current profile:
HLN (TV network)
HLN is an American basic cable network. Owned by CNN Worldwide, the network primarily carries true-crime programming, recently drifting away from limited live news programming.
[...]
In 2005, HLN began to...air more personality-based programs, including a primetime block featuring pundits such as Glenn Beck and legal commentator Nancy Grace. In the mid-2010s, HLN repositioned itself as a social media-centric network, highlighting headlines popular on social networks, and introducing social media-themed shows. Under CNN president Jeff Zucker, the channel began to backpedal on this programming in 2016, gradually shifting to a focus on crime, "regional" headlines, and entertainment stories (in contrast to CNN's current focus on politics) during its daytime programming, with true crime programs airing at all other times.
Entertainment stories, but also true crime!
In fairness, it's also true that the History Channel is now said by eggheads to be built around "pseudo-documentaries and pseudoscientific, unsubstantiated, sensational investigative programming."
(Bravo, originally designed as the fine arts channel, is now Real Housewives pretty much right down the line.)
So many projects have changed! But 24-hour news is still with us, or at least imitations of same. And as "the democratization of media" spread, new subgroups took root in the soil.
As new platforms appeared, these subgroups took root. That brings us to the members of one such subgroup who were sent on a stage last Thursday night to offer an hour of "news:"
Gutfeld!, May 21, 2026
Emily Compagno: co-host, Outnumbered
Sherrod Small: comedian
Greg Gutfeld: host
Jim Florentine: comedian
Tyrus: comedian, former "wrestler"
They would serve as the news analysts for this hour-long "cable news" program.
With the possible exception of Small, they were wholly reliable members of one of our flailing nation's hardened cable news subgroups. On this night, they would start by pretending to tackle this topic:
Did the Cambridge city council make a mistake in ending the SpotShotter program?
That was the policy topic these tools would pretend to discuss. The pseudo-discussion started with an overview of the situation, fashioned as a "monologue" by the host.
In yesterday's report, we laid out some of the basics about the topic at hand. We drew our information from the two news reports the host would soon cite—news reports by Boston.com and the Harvard Crimson about the decision the council had made the previous Monday night.
Should the council have ended their city's use of the ShotSpotter program? Based on the limited information available, we ourselves can't state a firm view.
The program's host was at no such disadvantage. At the start of his monologue, he played brief video clips of two (2) Cambridge residents stating their views to the council that night—two people, out of the "more than thirty" who had spoken that night.
Then, the host began to offer his view of the situation. Luckily, Ted Turner was no longer able to see the way the host pretended to argue what he pretended to be his case.
He started with a comment about BIPOCs whose meaning, in context, we still don't understand. But as he continued, it wasn't hard to discern his displeasure with what the council had done.
We'll highlight his key points. Videotape of the segment starts here:
GUTFELD (5/21/26): Who knew BIPOC were such gangsters?
Who are these fruitcakes? Who put these laid-off carnival workers in charge? The danger these idiots lecture us about isn't the ones outside their home—the bullets, the guns, the criminals. They harm the same community these [BLEEPS] claim to protect. Luckily for these morons, a bullet to the head won't make them any dumber.
That's how the analyst started—but who were the fruitcakes in question? Was he talking about the members of the Cambridge city council? Or was he talking about the two Cambridge residents we'd seen on our cable news screens?
(For the record, the host had referred to those people as "activists." One of the two seemed to be a high school aged kid who, like the other "activist," could hardly have been more courteous or more composed.)
To whom was the host referring when he started his news analysis? Who were the "fruitcakes / idiots / carnival workers" to whom he now referred?
It wasn't clear who the fruitcakes were. But the studio audience enjoyed a good laugh when the analyst said how dumb these "morons" were.
Now, he played tape of two more Cambridge residents addressing the council. Then it was back to this:
GUTFELD: So once again, these creeps aren't concerned citizens. They aren't at-risk families ducking from gunfire, putting cages on their windows. No, they're far removed from reality of any daily life. They live in their heads.
How did the host know such things about this pair of "creeps?" He made no attempt to say—but the exercise in name-calling continued:
GUTFELD: They're professional, entitled arrogant activists whose destructive nature would rather put others at risk. Safety is not the goal, feeling superior is.
It still wasn't clear who he was describing—the four citizens we had now seen, or the nine city council members. Nor was it clear how the host could know so much about the intentions and motives of the arrogant activists he was now describing.
That said, the host was working from a familiar script—a script about the extremely bad values of anyone said to be "on the left."
With apologies, one of his favorite insults emerged before he finished his presentation. After describing a violent gunman, he proceeded to offer this:
GUTFELD: That's who these smug narcissists are protecting by trying to ban something that helps actual people, not phonies like them...
According to these douchebags, the real victim isn't the person dodging gunfire, it's the fictional over-policed.
Whoever he was talking about, they weren't just fruitcake and phonies. As it now turned out, they were douchebags too!
Is this the fruit of Ted Turner's idea? With apologies, the program's host soon placed this astonishing bit of swill atop his growing pile:
GUTFELD: And this insanity spreads to other Blue cities. Mayor Brandon Johnson got rid of the system, despite Chicago being responsible for more coffin sales than a coffin saleswoman with big tits.
Yes, he actually said that. His analysis ended like this:
GUTFELD: Effectiveness doesn't matter. ShotSpotter could be 100% effective and they'd call it racist.
The fact is, they aren't happy that murderers are being stopped. They're mad that most of the murderers aren't white. And the people paying the price aren't these city council dopes, it's the people who are getting shot. And for them, getting shot is the least of their problems. It's these gasbags bent on making sure that they do.
So ended this furious person's latest imitation of human life. He started with fruitcakes and he ended with gasbags, having made many stops in between.
On the other hand, he had presented virtually none of the information found in the two news reports which had flashed on the screen. Instead, he had delivered a string of insults, along with a deranged reference to "a coffin saleswoman" he described in a typical way.
At the time, cable news had seemed like a good idea! Eventually, a corporate group decided to pay this person $9 million per year to sell their political messaging in this deranged way—and when he threw to the lady on his panel, she took the baton and she ran:
COMPAGNO: In one scenario that these freaks are putting forth, it's all potential. It's all hypothetical. The potential for over-surveillance. The potential for BIPOCs to be harmed, the potential for somehow our conversations to be picked up.
She was discussing a bunch of "freaks." As she continued, she brought the super-inanity in:
COMPAGNO (continuing directly): That's not what this is. As you pointed out, any type of noise that has been mistaken for gunfire sounds really close to it, like a car backfiring and like fireworks. We're not talking about Jerry Nadler's farts.
Yes, that's what she said.
For the record, the news reports had seemed to say that ShotSpotter's reports of gunshots were wrong 65% of the time. That apparent claim went unmentioned by the analysts on this show.
As she continued, Compagno soon heightened the earlier insult:
COMPAGNO: But now, because this is being removed, these white BIPOC carnival freaks will render more dangerous, and more hurt, all of these people that they pretend [to care about].
At this site, we have no idea what a "white BIPOC" is. But Compagno had heightened her original insult now, rendering the "freaks" in question as a bunch of "carnival freaks."
Other panelists played by similar rules. When it came time for Tyrus to speak, he instantly derided the four Cambridge citizens who had now been seen on tape as "the weirdest, gayest-looking white people" around.
As he continued, he offered a bit of advice regarding the "narcissism" of the weird, gay-looking people who spoke against ShotSpotter:
TYRUS: Nobody cares about how painful your nose ring is, or the fact that your mom didn't put anything on your card.
No one was wearing a nose ring that night, but this program's bloated blowhard was on a bit of a roll. For his part, Florentine offered an ugly idea about why a person might have said that ShotSpotter wasn't helpful:
FLORENTINE: Most mass shooters are white. So they're OK with a white person going into a neighborhood with a lot of minorities and shooting them up and giving them a head start.
For those who doubt that dark money is being used to fund Republicans and right wing organizations who are pretending to be liberal, here is another example:
ReplyDeletehttps://popular.info/p/a-gop-dirty-tricks-operation-exposed
A GOP dirty tricks operation, exposed
Following the breadcrumbs from a “progressive” super PAC to a powerful Republican operative
Judd Legum
May 27, 2026
On April 24, a new super PAC called Lead Left quietly filed a Statement of Organization with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). According to the group’s website, “Lead Left PAC stands against MAGA extremists who will infect our country with Donald Trump’s agenda.”
On May 7, Lead Left began spending heavily in Democratic primaries. Since that time, the group has spent over $3 million in support of Democratic House candidates in key races across the country.
But, as Punchbowl News and others have noted, Lead Left’s spending patterns are unusual. It is backing Democratic candidates in competitive districts with major political liabilities. For example, in Texas, Lead Left has spent over $900,000 supporting Maureen Galindo in the Democratic primary. Galindo, a sex therapist, has made a series of antisemitic comments. In an Instagram post, Galindo pledged to transform ICE detention centers into a “prison for American Zionists” and a “castration processing center for pedophiles which will probably be most of the Zionists.” Galindo’s campaign has raised less than $11,000, of which $4,100 was a contribution from the candidate.
Galindo is running in Texas’ 35th District, a seat that was redistricted to favor Republicans. The DCCC has endorsed Galindo’s primary opponent, Johnny Garcia. Lead Left has also intervened in Democratic primaries in swing House districts in Nebraska and Pennsylvania.
Lead Left has gone to great lengths to conceal its identity and backers. It listed its address as a mailbox at a Staples on 2241 North Monroe Street in Tallahassee, Florida. Its treasurer, Tammie Cannon, has no political connections or online footprint. It was also created to maximize the amount of time it could operate without disclosing its donors. Although it has already spent millions, Lead Left will not have to disclose the source of its funds until June 20, after most primaries are over. The money is being funneled to two shell companies that have been formed in the last few weeks.
A Popular Information investigation, however, found that Lead Left is linked to Caleb Crosby, a Republican operative. Crosby is the treasurer of the Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), the primary super PAC of the House Republicans. CLF raised over $250 million last cycle. Crosby is also the treasurer of the Senate Leadership Fund, the super PAC for Senate Republicans.
Despite this Republican meddling, Garcia won the TX 35th District primary:
"Johnny Garcia wins the Democratic primary for Texas' 35th U.S. House District [PBS News]
National Democrats stepped in to help Johnny Garcia win House nomination as the party was seeking to defeat his rival, Maureen Galindo, who has repeatedly expressed antisemitic views.
Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York called her comments "disgusting" and said it shouldn't be near "our politics." Democratic leaders Hakeem Jeffries and Suzan DelBene also weighed in.
Republicans redrew the 35th District to help the GOP win more House seats, but Democrats think they may have a chance to flip it. They worried that if Galindo won, her past comments would hurt the party."
When you control more money than God, I suppose you can do any fucking thing you want. We are no longer a democracy per Grand Wizard John Roberts and his gang. $900K is chickenfeed to these barbarians. I am old enough to remember when republicans claimed they were the party of ideas. LOL
DeleteSomerby might note the existence of Punchbowl News, an independent media source that Ground News calls "center" in terms of partisanship and "high factuality" in terms of reliability of content. It focuses on congress and capitol hill and was founded by former Politico and NBC News writers.
DeleteElon dropped $49million to demoralize Jewish Democratic voters by telling them Kamala is pro Palestinian; and worked to convince Muslim voters that Kamala wanted to blow them the fuck up like idiot Trump actually is. Putin spent millions paying key influencers to tell their followers how rotten Ukraine is and how they do not deserve American assistance. Just like the idiot Trump do not help them kill Russian swine. Fucking assholes, the whole lot of them.
Delete"A democratization has swept through the land. This undisguised serving of swill is part of what remains. "
ReplyDeleteIt is too bad Somerby paid so little attention during his civics courses back in the day. The price we pay for our constitutional freedom of speech is that we must tolerate assholes who are not only saying things we disagree with but also are crass boors. Before Gutfeld, there was Limbaugh and before that there was Paul Harvey and Joe Pine and Father Coughlin. The internet didn't invent these guys -- they are merely platforming them. I used to find The Man Show disgusting, but Kimmel grew up a bit. But even if he had stayed a jerk, he had the right to speak his mind as do Gutfeld and others Somerby complains about here.
What does Somerby think we Blues are supposed to do about those we disagree with or find nauseating? We present many alternatives which Somerby never discusses. It sounds like he wants to suppress speech via gatekeepers but that is much worse than tolerating the freaks. That way leads to authoritarianism, undermines our democracy and promotes dictatorship (benign or otherwise), a step back from the freedom we Americans cherish, even when it lets Republican spew garbage the way Trump and his meme creators regularly do.
The only way Somerby can claim that left media never says a word to oppose the right, is by never watching to anything left wing. That is his problem, not anything the left has or has not done. We have real Blue media that opposes the right, but it is not corporate or mainstream media but the growing Independent media. David Pakman is now pulling a larger audience than Joe Rogan and he hosts Dr. Gartner and Bandy Lee and Mary Trump, all the people Somerby says no one will listen to.
Somerby is a right wing shill who exists to malign Democrats. He doesn't know what he is talking about when he discusses media. He is merely here to amplify Fox and promote Gutfeld and he has nothing to do with Democratic, much less progressive politics. Don't be fooled.
"Over here, another subgroup has agreed that they will never say a word about this! "
ReplyDeleteSomerby is right that Bari Weiss is never going to criticize Gutfeld. Woe is us. Whatta we gonna do?
"In fairness, it's also true that the History Channel is now said by eggheads to be built around "pseudo-documentaries and pseudoscientific, unsubstantiated, sensational investigative programming."
ReplyDeleteIn fairness, the History Channel was never a history channel. It needed to make money and attract viewers in order to obtain sponsors. It was about aliens in Egypt and had so many shows about Nazis that it was informally called the Hitler Channel from the start. This wasn't the drift that Somerby portrays, but an immediate and early side-effect of the lack of funding for less popular shows.
The Public Broadcasting Station PBS was created around that same time. It had a source of financial support that didn't depend on having tons of viewers, being non-profit instead of profit-making, so it could host actual history shows like Ken Burns, documentarys, high quality children's programming (without adds selling toys and cereal), and political shows such as debates, again without commercials or partisanship (Fox's major crime).
Somerby raises these issues in order to blame Democrats for market forces producing awful shows on marginal cable networks. This is about money, funding, and not politics. The clue Somerby should have recognized is Ted Turner's name. In order to attract enough viewers to make cable profitable to its owners, it must have entertainment value. That means someone like Rachel Maddow who tried to make hard news interesting and engaging. Somerby was relentless in his criticism of her. Gutfield attracts viewers by being a very naughty boy who invites class clown accomplices to break rules and badmouth women. The men who are the mainstays of Trump's party eat it up. That doesn't make it the fault of the Democrats or lefties who don't watch Fox, much less women who find those guys repulsive. It is all about money, just like Trump is, and the Republicans are, and the billionaires definitely are. But Somerby pretends he doesn't notice the way money has corrupted politics.
The only time Somerby mentions CSPAN is when a caller says something he wants to use in an essay. PBS and CSPAN are the heart of non-partisan politics on air but Somerby doesn't care, doesn't urge us to support them, appears oblivious to the role they play in maintaining our democracy. He is too busy knocking the left because we do not call for denial of the free-speech rights of anyone else.
Somerby's reference to "subgroups" is new. He doesn't say who he is referring to. Does anyone else here know what he means by it?
ReplyDeleteGutfeld's crew is a subgroup, but that definition is so trivial it cannot mean anything more than "the part of whole group comprised of people willing to share a stage with Gutfeld."
Delete"Should the council have ended their city's use of the ShotSpotter program? Based on the limited information available, we ourselves can't state a firm view."
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me there was sufficient info in the form of statistics on the number of shots reported by shotspotter, a comparison to the number reported via 911 callers, the number of false positives, and the costs involved. The concerns of community members about invasion of privacy and over-policing were also described. What more does Somerby need to form an opinion? We were also told that only 2 council members opposed discontinuing the service whereas 5 were in favor and 2 abstained (voted present). That should tell Somerby what the city council thought about the plan. What is missing from that? Why can't Somerby form an opinion, aside from not wanting to make his view known to his readers here?
Someone who still can't form a firm view despite having facts and opinions and arguments by others as input, should never be elected to public office. Their job is to hold firm views and represent those views in meetings and decision-making. Someone who cannot make a decision simply cannot do the job at all.
Somerby seems to think there is some virtue in holding no firm view on an issue. However, it makes him frozen when it comes to action, much less change and improvement in people's lives. When it is apparent no further info is available, a reasonable person makes a choice, a decision, based on the best opinion that can be formed under the circumstances. There is no waiting for closure, no perfect state of knowledge possible to human beings living our lives.
I have no idea why Somerby puts these kinds of sentences into his essays. They portray him as an idiot, not a serious thinker. The further make him sound evasive, since few people go through life holding no opinions in a state of neutral indecision. That makes it more likely he does have a view that he does not want to state, and that makes him dishonest in his commentary here.
Maybe Somerby is saying he can't form a firm view because Gutfeld didn't supply any of the facts readily available at other sources, just attacks on activists present at the council meeting? If Somerby is arguing that Gutfeld's show doesn't provide real news and information, we already knew that. It is a propaganda outlet for Trump and the Republicans.
DeleteNo doubt Hegseth would like to be using robocops on residents of cambridge. AI-driven robotroops are not far away and Trump already wants to use military against the citizenry. I doubt he sees much difference between that and the cage-match he is setting up on the White House lawn, other than the fatality of bullets. But anyone who dies is a loser.
Delete"the news reports had seemed to say"
ReplyDeleteWhy can't Somerby use more definite words? The news reports said 65% false reports. It didn't create that illusion but actually reported that figure. So why the word "seemed"? These weasel words are annoying and do not communicate. They are perhaps the reason Somerby was never successful in his brief attempt to become a journalist himself. When a news report cites a fact or statistic, Somerby should accept it as a fact or statistic, unless he believes the report is lying, in which case he should investigate and confirm the truth, or else he is demeaning the reporting on no basis, which is a form of propaganda itself. Undermining the reliability of reliable sources is what those opposed to a free press do, in service of creating an autocracy or totalitarian regime. Is that Somerby's intention?
A proper evaluation of Shotspotter should reflect the time element. Even in cases where a shooting is reported by someone, ShotSpotter might get the report to the police sooner. A quicker police response can mean the difference between life and death.
ReplyDeleteAssuming facts not in evidence.
DeleteAny thoughts on the main topic today, DiC, which is the ugly, childish mockery of the Cambridge city council by Gutfeld and his guests?
DeleteYes, @2:05. I think the mockery by Gutfeld and his guests was ugly and childish.
DeleteFuckity , fuck, fuck. I had hoped David had died. Dammit.
DeleteWhy was the decision about Shotspotter made by the City Council. Even overruling the police. The. Council was reacting “to concerns over high false-positive rates, privacy risks, and the potential for increased surveillance in Black and Brown communities.”
ReplyDelete