Cable TV pundits reach stardom

By Cary Darling

Thanks to the presidential election, CNN’s John King and his Magic Wall have become a sensation.

Charges of celebrity and rock-star royalty have arced through the 2008 presidential election like lightning in a spring downpour. But it’s not just the candidates who’ve morphed from pols to players.

A new breed of media star has exploded into its own in this year’s ballot-box drama: the cable-TV pundit.

No, this isn’t about the big-shot, big-time hosts, whether they be Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly on the right, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann on the left, or CNN’s Anderson Cooper trying to glide down the center. Instead, it’s about those whom they gather around their electronic campfires; those who enchant them (and us) with tales of tracking polls, pit bulls, pumas and mysterious, faraway lands called battleground states.

Of course, pundits — or “political analysts” as they prefer — have been around a long time. But in a year when, as Broadcasting & Cable magazine noted in the spring, cable-news viewership is up (58 percent for CNN, 46 percent for MSNBC, and 19 percent for traditional ratings-leader Fox) and candidates’ convention speeches can corral nearly 40 million viewers and a vice presidential debate can lure 70 million, these talking heads are gaining a wider audience.

CNN’s John King has become something of a media sensation thanks to his brightly colored electoral map dubbed “the Magic Wall.” He has even earned such nicknames as “the wall magician” and “chairman of the board.”

MSNBC’s Chuck Todd now has fan sites — such as Chuckolyte and Viva Chuck Todd — devoted to all things Todd, all the time. (He now has his own snazzy, interactive map, though when an MSNBC rep was asked if it had a cool name like CNN’s, the best the spokesman could offer was “Microsoft Surface.”)

This season, three of these analysts have been given their own soapboxes: MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow hosts her self-named show on the network weeknights at 9, while over at CNN, former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett and Roland Martin have hosted special reports.

Fox has hired Karl Rove, President Bush’s controversial former deputy chief of staff, to critique and summarize the election.

No surprise

The networks certainly aren’t surprised that the analysts are becoming attractions in their own right.

“This is an unprecedented election,” says Bill Wolff, MSNBC’s prime-time programming vice president. “It’s unbelievably dramatic and unpredictable. No one could have predicted the rise of [Barack] Obama, the demise of [Hillary] Clinton, the return of [John] McCain, the fizzle of [Fred] Thompson and [Rudy] Giuliani. No one could have predicted the latest thing, Sarah Palin. Not only is it unprecedented in the [viewer] figures but in terms of drama and surprise. It’s been an unbelievable story for people to follow, and they turn to folks like Chuck [Todd].”

Not all analysts aren’t created equal.

Some are on staff. Others are brought in as independent voices.

Some, like Todd and King, came to fame through their current TV incarnation. Others — such as Juan Williams (Fox), Jonathan Capehart (MSNBC), Jeffrey Toobin (CNN) and Martin — first made their mark in print journalism. (Martin worked at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in the ’90s). Still others come from the online world, from such news/opinion sites as Politico, Huffingtonpost, Townhall, and Salon.

Many, though, come directly from politics and government, ranging from Fox’s Rove and CNN’s Amy Holmes (former speechwriter to retired Tennessee Republican Sen. Bill Frist) on the right to CNN’s Donna Brazile (former campaign manager for Al Gore) and the same network’s James Carville (former senior political adviser to President Clinton) on the other side. (With the exception of an occasional guest like Ralph Nader or Ron Paul, there’s little representation of views outside the mainstream.)

But there are some attributes the networks seek out in all of them. “We look for people who’ve had experience, who know what they’re talking about, who may have run campaigns or have been in and out of government,” says CNN political director Sam Feist. “But we also want people who aren’t predictable; people who can discuss an issue and surprise viewers by their perspective.”

Almost as important is that the analysts need to be available to put in long days and nights, especially at peak times such as the conventions or the debates. Sometimes it seems as if the network keeps them on a shelf in a backroom and hauls them out to trot around the morning, afternoon and evening news shows.

“There are very few times when I really can’t do it,” says Martin of his CNN appearances. “When you’re traveling, if you can get to a satellite, you can do it from anywhere.”

Some are unhappy

While the pundits might have more viewers these days, not all of those watching are happy. Some media critics charge this new generation of analysts is much more interested in adding to the cultural cacophony than cutting through the clutter, that it’s less about politics as reality than politics as reality TV.

“It’s mostly static and noise,” dismisses Jeff Cohen, author of the book “Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media” and an associate professor of journalism at Ithaca College, where he founded the Park Center for Independent Media. He also founded the media watchdog group FAIR, is a former producer of Phil Donahue’s MSNBC prime-time show, and has been a guest on CNN, Fox, and MSNBC news shows.

“Most of what the pundits discuss is irrelevant to what voters need to know ... All (the pundits) know is tactics. They give you all this analysis of ... what these candidates are doing to win and often it’s inaccurate. This year, it’s reached a new low,” he says. “It’s horse racing. If you want to cover horse races, move to sports. If you want to cover fashion, move to the style pages. If you want to cover society, which is what they’ve turned politics into, move to the gossip pages. They insist on reducing who’s going to run our country to celebrity, tactics and horse racing. It’s a disservice.

“Once you get into the (pundits) club, it’s very hard to be ejected. They say the same things, go as a herd and take themselves over a cliff. They were wrong about Hillary, Obama and McCain, and we’re supposed to pretend these people ... aren’t discredited? It’s beyond belief. I’ve always felt that if they had fresher voices and tougher journalism, they’d have bigger ratings.”