ABC News Ready to Trim 300 Newsroom Jobs

It's not a newspaper-related jobs cut, but it's pretty big.

ABC News is ready to cut its news division by as much as 20 percent -- or 300 jobs -- and radically reorder the network’s traditional approach to news gathering, the Los Angeles Times reported today.

The Times, citing multiple unnamed sources, says the network will restructure the labor-heavy newsroom from top to bottom in favor of a leaner, more nimble operation, because of pressures caused by a drop in advertising revenues.

Journalists who survive the restructuring will be expected to both produce and shoot their own stories, acting as “one-man bands,” Matea Gold of the Times writes, a model increasingly being adopted in television news.

The process is expected to begin Wednesday morning when employees receive a letter asking for volunteers to take buyouts and leave the company. Newsroom employees have heard that the network is seeking to shrink the newsroom by as many as 300 positions, about 20% of the 1,400-person staff. If not enough employees volunteer to leave, layoffs are likely to follow.

For the last month, the newsroom has been rife with rumors about the cutbacks, which are poised to be the most dramatic reshaping of ABC News since Roone Arledge revolutionized the division by recruiting a team of high-wattage anchors and launching new franchises during his 20-year tenure as news president. Anxious staffers are not only fearful about losing their jobs but also are apprehensive about, if they remain, how the restructuring will affect their ability to chase big stories and swarm major news events.

ABC executives are internally casting the belt-tightening not as a retrenchment but as a repositioning. By streamlining news-gathering operations now, officials hope to stave off repeated cuts in the coming years. They contend that a smaller news division does not mean a less competitive one. With technological advancements such as hand-held digital cameras, the news division can now dispatch one person to cover a story that once required a correspondent, a producer and a two-person crew.

News organizations large and small have been forced to let go of staff and reduce expenses in the last few years to cope with a drop in advertising revenue caused by the global economic slowdown. Earlier this month, CBS News cut at least 90 positions, shuttering its Moscow bureau and significantly shrinking its staff in Washington, London and Los Angeles.

ABC News has also trimmed staff in the last few years, but this round of cuts is the biggest in recent memory, network sources said, surpassing the 125 positions that the news division lost in 2001 as part of companywide job reductions by corporate parent Walt Disney Co., when correspondents such as Sheila MacVicar and Morton Dean left the network.

The industrywide financial troubles have been felt keenly at ABC, whose flagship morning and evening newscasts remain in second place in the ratings behind NBC. “Good Morning America,” the main revenue generator for the network, has fallen 10% this season in the 25- to 54-year-old advertising demographic.

Dave Westin, ABC News president, released this memo:

Over the past several years, we’ve seen a lot of changes — changes at ABC News and in the news industry overall. I’m proud of the way we’ve responded both to unexpected transitions in our programs and to the economic realities of our business.

We’ve adapted quickly and effectively and — above all — put our audiences first. Our programs are stronger today than they were ten years ago. This is a credit first and foremost to the men and women at ABC News.

But all of us are good reporters. We can see that our entire society is in the middle of a revolution — a revolution in the ways that people get their news and information. The digital age makes our business more competitive than ever before. It also presents us with opportunities we couldn’t have imagined to gather, produce, and distribute the news. We can have great success in the new world — but only if we embrace what is new, rather than being overwhelmed by it.

The time has come to anticipate change, rather than respond to it. We have a rare opportunity to get in front of what’s coming, to ensure that ABC News has a sound journalistic and financial footing for many years to come, and to serve our audiences even better. But we must move boldly and promptly. In the past, we’ve sought out less expensive ways to replicate what we’ve always done. The time has come to re-think how we do what we are doing.

To that end, we anticipate that between now and the end of the year ABC News will undergo a fundamental transformation that will ultimately affect every corner of the enterprise. We will be guided by one central principle: In everything, we will ensure that we put our audiences first — providing them with first-rate journalism covering the things that matter the most to them in ways no one else does. And, we will do it with a business model that ensures we will be here for our audiences for many years to come.

The transformation will have six basic components:

1. In newsgathering, we intend to dramatically expand our use of digital journalists. We have proven that this model works at various locations around the world. We believe we can take it much further;

2. In production, we will take the example set by Nightline of editorial staff who shoot and edit their own material and follow it throughout all of our programs, while recognizing that we will continue to rely upon our ENG crews and editors for most of our work;

3. In structure, we will combine our weekday and weekend operations for both Good Morning America and World News;

4. In special events, we will rely upon our program staff through the day and night to cover unexpected events and marshal personnel from across the division to cover scheduled events;

5. In newsmagazines and long-form programming, we will move to a more flexible blend of staff and freelancers so that we can respond to varying demand for hours through the year; and

6. Overall, we will eliminate redundancies wherever possible.

An essential part of this intended transformation will be extensive training in the new technology — whether in the field or in-house. This is an extension of the digital bullpen training we’ve undertaken already, but it will be on a scale that we have not seen before. This training program and changes it will make possible in all of our operations will make ABC News the place to work in the digital age. We won’t just be preparing people for the new world; we will be living in it.

When we are finished, many job descriptions will be different, different skill sets may be required, and, yes, we will likely have substantially fewer people on staff at ABC News. To ease the transition, we are offering a voluntary separation package to all full-time, U.S.-based, non-union, non-contract employees. Information and details of the program will be sent to your home address in the next few days. The response to this voluntary program will determine the extent to which we will need to make further reductions. I encourage everyone to talk with their supervisor if they have any questions.

Any voluntary separation offers for union-represented employees will be in accordance with our obligations under the applicable labor agreement. Whatever changes we make overseas will be done in compliance with local laws and, where required, include management consultation in advance.

Throughout this process, I will keep you informed of where we are and where we are going with the transformation. Tomorrow, I will discuss this on the 9:30 call, and we will be holding meetings with various groups of staff in New York. Kate O’Brian and I will be in Washington next week to explain what we are planning in person and to take questions. Either Kate or David Reiter will be travelling to the bureaus in the coming days to do the same.

I won’t pretend that all of this will be easy. But I do truly believe that it will be good for ABC News. I believe in this institution. I believe in its mission and in its future. As always, I will need your help in making sure that we are as strong as we
can be for many years to come.
Thank you.

ABC Defends Decision to Broadcast 'World News" From White House

ABC News will broadcast "World News" from the Blue Room in the White House on June 24, sparking criticism on from the right that it gives the impression that President Barack Obama and white House officials will control the content of the nightly news.

Charles Gibson will anchor the telecast, which will focus on the president's health-care reform package.

Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay wrote to David Westin, president of ABC News, and complained about the broadcast. The letter was posted on the Drudge Report:

Dear Mr. Westin:

As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.

Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.

In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.

Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff

ABC News Senior Vice President Kerry Smith on Tuesday responded to the RNC complaint, telling the Drudge Report that the complaint contained 'false premises':

"ABC News prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers -- of all political persuasions -- even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue.

"ABC News alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience."

Hasting Spokesman Stands By Palin Remarks

ABC News is reporting reaction to Rep. Alcee Hastings comments concerning Gov. Sarah Palin. Yesterday, the Florida Democrat told a group of Jewish and African-Americans that “If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention.” He also told the group “anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through,”

The ABC News reports says:

Hastings spokesman David Goldenberg told ABC News that he was trying to argue that Palin is an "extremely conservative woman who is out of touch with mainstream America."

After saying that Palin "don't care too much" about Jews and blacks, Hastings argued that African Americans and Jews should come together behind Obama because there are many issues on which they agree.

"Just like Jews, blacks care about affordable health care, energy independence, and the separation of church and state," said Hastings. "And just like blacks, Jews care about equal pay for equal work, investment in alternative energy, and a woman's right to choose."

Asked about the Hastings criticism, Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella said, "We’re taking a pass."

Video of Palin Interview With Charlie Gibson

ABC News has release some of the Sarah Palin interview. Here it is:



Here are excerpts of a transcript from ABC News:

Sarah Palin on Experience:

GIBSON: Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say "I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?"

PALIN: I do, Charlie, and on January 20, when John McCain and I are sworn in, if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, will be ready. I'm ready.

GIBSON: And you didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"

PALIN: I didn't hesitate, no.

GIBSON: Didn't that take some hubris?

PALIN: I -- I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can't blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can't blink.

So I didn't blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.

GIBSON: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?

PALIN: But it is about reform of government and it's about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.

GIBSON: I know. I'm just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy.

PALIN: It is, but I want you to not lose sight of the fact that energy is a foundation of national security. It's that important. It's that significant.

GIBSON: Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year?

PALIN: Canada, Mexico, and then, yes, that trip, that was the trip of a lifetime to visit our troops in Kuwait and stop and visit our injured soldiers in Germany. That was the trip of a lifetime and it changed my life.

GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we've got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody's big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they've had opportunities to meet heads of state.

Sarah Palin on God:
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when he said -- first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words.

But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side.

That's what that comment was all about, Charlie.

GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God's plan."

PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That, in my world view, is a grand -- the grand plan.

GIBSON: But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God?

PALIN: I don't know if the task is from God, Charlie. What I know is that my son has made a decision. I am so proud of his independent and strong decision he has made, what he decided to do and serving for the right reasons and serving something greater than himself and not choosing a real easy path where he could be more comfortable and certainly safer.

Sarah Palin on National Security:
GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.

PALIN: Sure.

GIBSON: Let's start, because we are near Russia, let's start with Russia and Georgia.

The administration has said we've got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

PALIN: First off, we're going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain's running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep... GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

Sarah Palin on Russia:
We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We've learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.

We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.

GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.

PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.

Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but...

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to -- especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn't have to lead to war and it doesn't have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that's a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

Sarah Palin on Iran and Israel:
GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?

PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes.

GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran?

PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them.So we have got to put the pressure on Iran.

GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.

PALIN: I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.

PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.

GIBSON: We talk on the anniversary of 9/11. Why do you think those hijackers attacked? Why did they want to hurt us?

PALIN: You know, there is a very small percentage of Islamic believers who are extreme and they are violent and they do not believe in American ideals, and they attacked us and now we are at a point here seven years later, on the anniversary, in this post-9/11 world, where we're able to commit to never again. They see that the only option for them is to become a suicide bomber, to get caught up in this evil, in this terror. They need to be provided the hope that all Americans have instilled in us, because we're a democratic, we are a free, and we are a free-thinking society.

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we're going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.

GIBSON: But, Governor, I'm asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.

PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.

GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?

PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.

ABC Releases Details of Upcoming Palin Interview

ABC News has released a few details about Charles Gibson's scheduled interview with Sarah Palin today and tomorrow.

Gibson, who was scheduled to arrive in Alaska on Wednesday, will interview the governor and vice-presidential candidate on "World News With Charles Gibson" and "Nightline" today. The network will broadcast another portion of the interview on "20/20" on Friday. ABC News plans to report on her personal and professional background as well as conduct a live roundtable discussion, which will be hosted by George Stephanopoulos.

Obama Admits Saddleback Abortion Answer Was Probably Too Flip

Sen. Barack Obama told George Stephanopoulos during a taping of "This Morning" that he regrets his answer to Rick Warren on the question concerning abortion and the definition of human life, saying it was probably too flip. During the Saddleback Forum last month, he said that "that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade."

Today, he said, “What I do know is that abortion is a moral issue, that it's one that families struggle with all the time. And that in wrestling with those issues, I don't think that the government criminalizing the choices that families make is the best answer for reducing abortions.

“I think the better answer — and this was reflected in the Democratic platform — is to figure out, how do we make sure the young mothers, or women who have a pregnancy that's unexpected or difficult, have the kind of support they need to make a whole range of choices, including adoption and keeping the child."

The interview will be televised this morning on ABC.

On other questions, he said that he does not believe Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has a resume that would prepare her for the job of vice president.

He also talks about considering joining the military as a young man.

“You know, I actually did,” the presidential candidate said. “I had to sign up for Selective Service when I graduated from high school. And I was growing up in Hawaii. And I have friends whose parents were in the military. There are a lot of Army, military bases there.

“And I actually always thought of the military as an ennobling and, you know, honorable option. But keep in mind that I graduated in 1979. The Vietnam War had come to an end. We weren't engaged in an active military conflict at that point. And so, it's not an option that I ever decided to pursue.”

He also had a gaffe moment. In an obvious slip of the tongue, he talks about his Muslim faith. While clearly he just misspoke, it could cause some problems for his campaign down the road with the Internet-rumor-spreading crowd.

Should Palin Step Aside?

Republican Party insiders are reeling over the cloud storms that have gathered over John McCain's decision-making process in choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate. While the party is unified in her defense concerning the controversial pick, George Stephanopoulos of ABC News wrote this morning that there are three questions the party faithful are asking themselves at the convention:

1) What else is out there about Palin? Monday brought the announcement that Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant; news that Palin was once a member of the fringe Alaska independence party; and the revelation that Palin's husband was arrested for a DUI in the 1980s. The news about Palin has continued to come this morning, with the Washington Post reporting that Palin hired a lobbying firm during her time as the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, to lobby for millions in earmarks for the small town.

2) Was the vetting process complete and professional? Reports in Tuesday's New York Times and Alaska Daily News both suggest the McCain campaign's vetting of Palin was swift and superficial, although the McCain campaign continues to insist that Palin was thoroughly and professionally vetted.

3) And most significantly, what message will voters hear about McCain's judgment that he chose someone to be his running mate who has almost no national security experience and who is so much of an unknown quantity?

The answers to these questions could be deal-breakers, not only for Palin's political future but for John McCain's chances in the election.

For question No. 1, if there are no new revelations, she should survive the political storm. A DUI by her husband two decades ago is nothing to be concerned about. And despite the left's insistence that Palin is a hypocrite because of her stance on family values, evangelicals and social conservatives will see her actions in her daughter's pregnancy as a sign that she lives what she believes. That is, life is sacred at conception.

In regards to question No. 2, there is no real answer. Who is to say what is required in the vetting process? A presidential candidate can request thousands of documents from a potential vice presidential pick but there is always a chance something will fall through the cracks.

But question No. 3 might have produced the most damage for McCain. Clearly, this is a window into his decision-making process and ultimately his judgment. When Americans make their decision this fall, they will want someone in the Oval Office they can have confidence in to make the right call. Rash judgments and ill-advised decisions could lead to disaster for a president. McCain's reputation has clearly suffered in this regard. Palin may be the right person for the vice presidency, but her selection is seriously degrading McCain's chances in being elected. McCain may be forced to ask her to step aside. He could spin it by saying with new revelations, it's become clear that it's time for a midstream adjustment. She could say that she has decided for the good of her family and the party she is not going to run.

One thing is clear, if a move is to be made, it has to be soon, and that means during the convention. That would give him and the party time to recover from this political mistake, and rebuild his reputation for someone who normally has sound judgment.

Lab Results Show Caylee's Dead

In what is a terribly sad story, an investigator in Orlando said today that the lab results on hair samples confirmed that Caylee Marie Anthony's dead body was in her mother's trunk. How the body ended up in the trunk and how she died is still unknown.

"We clearly have evidence that indicates there was a dead body in the trunk of Casey's car and that that body was Caylee's," Sgt. John Allen told ABC News affiliate WFTV.
That station had previously reported that FBI DNA tests confirmed that Caylee's body had been in the trunk and hair and fluid analysis indicated the body was decomposing. The mother, Casey Anthony, remains in jail on an unrelated charge.

Dem Leader: Gustav Demonstrates God's on Our Side

It appears that Michael Moore isn't the only one who thinks Gustav is a sign that God is supporting the Democrats.

A blogger for RedSatate.com sat behind former national chairman of the Democratic National Committee Don Fowler and Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina on a flight from Denver to Charlotte after the convention. Their conversation centered on making fun of Sarah Palin, with Fowler describing her as Dan Quayle on steroids and Spratt saying she was "just terrible." They both agreed that other than the simple fact that she's a female she has nothing to offer.

But the conversation turned ugly as Fowler is caught on camera saying, "The hurricane is going to hit New Orleans about the time they start. The timing is, at least it appears now, it will be there Monday. That just demonstrates God is on our side." He is seen gleefully laughing that the hurricane is going to hit New Orleans, and saying "everything's cool."

South Carolina Republican Chairman Katon Dawson's reaction was to say, "The outrageous behavior of two of the Obama campaign's highest profile supporters in the south is despicable, a cynical politization of life and death. I call on Barack Obama to immediately denounce Fowler and Spratt and demand sincere apologies from these members of the Democratic leadership."

On Sunday, Fowler told The Associated Press that he was making fun of comments made by the Rev. Jerry Falwell, who after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, said the attacks were God's punishment for abortion, homosexuality and other sins.

"I don't believe in a God that's vengeful," Fowler said. "I believe in a God that's compassionate."

"This is a point of national concern. I think everybody of good will has great empathy and sympathy for people in New Orleans," Fowler also said. "Most religious people are praying for people in New Orleans. There is no political connotation to this whatsoever. This was just poking fun at Jerry Falwell and the nonsensical thing he had said several years ago."

There is no mention on the video of Jerry Falwell or of 9/11. The video shows Fowler was pleased that Gustav was slamming into New Orleans as the Republicans were scheduled to open their convention.

ABC News' Teddy Davis reports this Folwer apology:

"If this offended anybody, I personally apologize. It was a mistake, and it was a satirical statement made in jest. And one that I clearly don't believe."

He also took a swing at the blogger:

"One doesn't anticipate that one's private conversation will be surreptitiously taped by some right-wing nutcase," said Fowler. "But that's the nature of what we're dealing with."

ABC News: Palin is McCain's Surprise VP Choice

ABC News says Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska and a staunch conservative, is John McCain's surprise choice as his vice presidential running mate:

John McCain has made his vice presidential pick: the Republican contender will tap first-term Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska.

The 44-year-old Palin brings working class roots and appeal to female voters, becoming only the second female vice presidential candidate on a major party ticket and a first for the GOP.

Being first is nothing to new to Palin (pronounced PALE-IN). She is the first female governor of the Last Frontier, the 49th state to join the Union in 1959 and the 48th most populous state.

Palin is also the youngest governor in Alaska's short statehood history, taking office in 2006 amidst attempts by Democrats to turn the reliably Republican state to their column.

Gov. Palin is married with five children, a staunch opponent of abortion rights, and a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association.

While she is unknown to most Americans, the choice will play well with the conservative base. For instance, take a look at Justin Quinn's blog written in June.

The more I learned, the more I was amazed by this spitfire from the tundra. I checked with a friend who works on The Hill in DC, and sure enough, she was everything the Internet machine said she was and then some. My friend called Palin the GOP's "secret weapon," and said she's got the presence, the substance and the panache to change the election for McCain ... if only he'd consider her.

Obama Tours the Stage at Invesco

Here is raw footage from ABC News of Barack Obama touring the stage at Invesco Field last night.

ABC Producer Arrested in Denver

ABC producer Asa Eslocker was arrested Wednesday while he and his camera crew were trying to take pictures of Democratic senators and heavy-hitting donors who were leaving a private meeting. Eslocker was on the public sidewalk when the incident occurred.

Here is video of the arrest:

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5670682

This is as bad as some of the stuff we saw in Beijing. Eslocker was in a public area doing his job. The Denver police should be ashamed.

CNN, NBC, O'Reilly Top Ratings

Hal Boedeker, writing for the Orlando Sentinel, has the TV numbers for Tuesday night in Denver. Once again, NBC, CNN and Bill O'Reilly are the winners:

NBC and CNN were the big winners Tuesday night at the Democratic National Convention, just as they were Monday.

NBC and Brian Williams were the choice of nearly 6 million viewers for the 10 p.m. hour, when Sen. Hillary Clinton addressed the convention. The Clinton coverage lasted almost to 11:15 p.m.

CNN ran second in that time frame with 4.9 million viewers. The rest: ABC with 4.8 million, CBS with 3.8 million, Fox News Channel with 3.6 million and MSNBC with 2.7 million.

The cable news networks had a tight race in prime time, from 8 to 11 p.m. CNN was the favorite with 3.4 million viewers, followed by Fox News with 3.3 million and MSNBC with 2 million.

CNN had a strong lead in the 25-to-54 age group, the demographic so dear to advertisers. CNN was the choice of 1.3 million viewers in that age category, followed by Fox News with 823,000 and MSNBC with 785,000.

The story was quite different at 8 p.m. "The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox News was the clear favorite with 3.3 million viewers. In that hour, CNN had 2.2 million viewers and MSNBC had 1.5 million.

I still find it amazing that MSNBC, the most liberal-leaning network in America, has consistently been in last place for the Democratic Convention. It should have a ton of followers as this is the shining moment for politically active liberals. In addition, MSNBC certainly has been the most entertaining network with all the on-screen fighting among its commentators. It's just plain fun to watch.

Here's a Test of Balance

I know it's Saturday, and there is not much else going on in the world (except for a little pesky storm in Florida). But the three major cable networks are wall-to-wall on the Biden story. That's fine, although I was not impressed with O.J Simpson-esque motorcade media chase as Biden rode to the Wilmington airport.

The media has been camped out at a number of potential picks' homes for days. In that time, the smart money has moved from Kaine, then Bayh, to an unknown Edwards. The media freeding frenzy has been so intense that Joe Biden had to hand out bagels to reporters at his doorstep a couple days ago:



Even for a "news-politics geek" like me, the coverage has been a bit overkill. Stories based on sources, speculation and paid pundits usually end up biting you in the you-know-where. Just ask Matt Drudge, who was pretty confident that he had the Bayh story nailed down not 24 hours ago. We should keep some prespective in these events. One thing to keep in mind, Biden is, after all, just the No. 2 guy. Nobody in their right mind chooses who they are going to vote for based on the No. 2 guy.

It will be interesting to see if McCain gets the same blanket coverage next week. Will CNN camp out at Mike Huckabee's home? Is MSNBC going to chase Mitt Romney's motorcade? Will Tim Pawlenty have to hand out lunch to reporters from FOX?

The presidential candidates haven't received even play from the large news organizations this year. For example, The Washington Post and Time magazine have admitted running many more prominent stories about Obama than McCain. It is a disturbing trend. As we enter the election prime time, when most Americans will start to pay attention, will we start to see more balanced play?

Edwards Admits to Affair, ABC Reports

ABC News is reporting that former Sen. John Edwards, whose wife is suffering with cancer, is admitting to an affair.

The story reports that:

Edwards told ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff he did have an affair with 42-year old Rielle Hunter, but said that he did not love her.

Edwards also denied he was the father of Hunter's baby girl, Frances Quinn, although the one-time Democratic Presidential candidate said he has not taken a paternity test.

All of this comes after reports in the National Enquirer, which were for the better part of a year ignored by the mainstream media.

So much for becoming the attorney general.

Fox News Channel analyst Bernard Goldberg, while on "The O'Reilly Factor" this Monday, pointed out the hypocrisy of the mainstream media in its coverage of this story. In a response to a question from O'Reilly, he said:

Right. Okay, I did a little research when I learned you wanted to talk about this. In January of 2001, a newspaper broke a story that Jesse Jackson had a baby with a woman he worked with out of wedlock. Jesse Jackson is an important figure. He's a minister. It's obviously a legitimate story. Did the New York Times break that story? No. Washington Post? No. Either of the Chicago newspapers where Jesse Jackson lives and works? No. The National Enquirer broke that story. And when the New York Times finally decided to run it, they put it on page 21 under a one-column headline.

Compare that to a story with two unnamed sources that think that maybe that I'm not sure, but I think that John McCain was having an affair with a lobbyist. That winds up on page one of the New York Times.

Now let me give you one more hypothetical. That really happened. I know the New York Times would say it wasn't a sex story, it was a lobbyist story. Right. Here's a hypothetical. What if Newt Gingrich or our friend Karl Rove, who was just on, were involved with a woman on the West Coast and had a baby with her out of wedlock. Do you think the New York Times would be as squeamish as it is with the John Edwards story? I don't think so.

Goldberg is right, had this involved a conservative Republican, the New York Times would have been much more aggressive in its coverage. And that's the problem with the mainstream media these days. It does not play on an even field.

There are a number of reasons for this. It's not a matter of a vast conspiracy. In all my days in a major newsroom, I never once heard of an editor forcing his or hers political view into a story or coverage. But most reporters and editors look at news from the same prism. We all went to the same schools, we got into journalism to fight "the establishment." Journalism is not a highly trusted profession any more. We rank with used-car salesmen. In order to change that, we have to start leveling our coverage.