Kathleen Parker ousted from CNN for the same reason she was hired.
Posted by iusbvision on February 27, 2011
I was tossing and turning in my mind if I should write this article or not. It is the same old story with so called “conservatives” who have little intellectual substance who, in an act of desperation for attention, start attacking conservatives of substance with with name calling or unsupported accusations to get “instant stardom” by the leftist elite media; just ask Davids Brooks and Frum who now only have traction within New York City. Ask John McCain who used to say that the elite media was his constituency till he ran against The One. The day after McCain won the primary, the love affair was cut off, the elite media turned on him in unison, the NYT falsely accused him of having an affair and for the first time refused to publish his letters to the paper.
As a former radio talk show host myself if I switched sides and attacked there is little doubt that I would get offers from leftist media and or newspapers to work. It is a story that has happened a dozen times. What a conservative says is not “newsworthy” to the elite media until said conservative attacks a Republican candidate with something “saucy”.
The elite media makes its news decisions based of leftist dogma. Conservatives know that and when they want to cash in they know what to do to get attention. However that success is very limited and such so called “conservatives” cannot draw in a wider audience because they lose credibility with conservatives, traditionalists and independents. I did not watch the show more than a few times because it was boring and neither of the people on had much substance in their views. Besides who wants to watch a “crossfire” like show with a liberal Republican sellout and a leftist politician who likes prostitutes? There just isn’t enough substantive conflict to make the show interesting.
Imagine if you will, “CROSSFIRE” with David Frum & Joe Lieberman. They would agree 70% of the time and it would be a snoozer. But at least Joe is an honest man who I can respect.
With that said there is NO chemistry between these two. Let us say the obvious. Parker finds Spitzer revolting because he is. He is dismissive of her and talks over her in a way that is misogynistic and she is trying too hard to be liked by CNN’s small audience. This does not make for good TV.
I am way behind in my writing anyway so I was going to just blow this off, but then John Ziegler wrote the article I would have written, but included a dimension to it that only he could deliver.
But the primary reason why the program couldn’t work is also the very reason Parker got the gig in the first place [Emphasis ours – IUSB Vision Editor]. She was clearly hired because she was perceived as a “conservative” who was willing to vigorously attack Palin, while not holding any particularly strong conservative opinions which might offend the largely liberal CNN audience. It is hardly a secret that the best (and perhaps only) way for an unknown or career-challenged conservative to achieve mainstream media acceptance is to be a sellout to their supposed cause (just ask Arianna Huffington, Peggy Noonan, David Brooks, David Frum, Michael Smerconish, or Joe Scarborough, to name only a few).
Criticizing Palin (along with endorsing Obama) has quickly become the most reliable path to instant notoriety/credibility for ambitious “conservatives,” and Parker became the poster child for this phenomenon. When I went on CNN during my film’s first release, I was actually asked to respond to a Parker quote about Palin. This was especially absurd because Parker had no special knowledge of Palin and was virtually unknown before she “led” Palin’s “assassination.” Had Parker praised Palin, CNN would never have found the quote remotely newsworthy.
However, there is apparently a downside side to getting a show this way. Much like a guy who spends all his cash to get the girl and has nothing left to keep her, Parker had no capital with which to make the show a ratings success. Conservatives, most of whom don’t trust CNN to begin with, had no reason to tune in, and she was such a soft and colorless “conservative” that she didn’t even make for a fun punching bag for the liberal audience, or her overrated co-host (based on my experience Spitzer is actually quite dumb). The sad reality of cable news television today is that you must be polarizing to “succeed.” Moderation or wimpiness simply won’t work, especially when such a temperament is clearly contrived, and not backed up with any real talent.
With no spark, no friction, no talent, and no audience base, Parker brought nothing to the table, and the show was clearly doomed. In the end, she got the fate that she clearly deserved, only probably better.
There is also an interesting secondary element to Parker’s demise which might make media pundits a little more hesitant to attack Sarah Palin. Since the 2008 election, many of her biggest media critics have found themselves out of a job. Keith Olbermann, Rick Sanchez, David Shuster, Alan Colmes, Campbell Brown, John Roberts, Larry King, Harry Smith and Parker are all prominently mentioned in my documentary and all of them have been let go from TV jobs since Obama got elected.