I finally got to watch the mini-series, The Kennedys. I don’t know what was so controversial about it – maybe I just know too much about the Kennedy’s. I didn’t learn too much new – it was a surprise to me that Jackie smoked... even when she was pregnant. And got happy juice shots. I knew JFK was all hopped up on pills and had a body that failed him all day, everyday. Is that what the Kennedys didn't want people to know? Didn't change anything for me...

But there was another thing that did surprise me… In this version, the creators suggested that JFK’s philandering was a matter of weakness, not dominance. There was one scene when he admitted to Bobby that it wasn’t even about the sex; He did it just because he was alone and couldn’t sleep. I’m not sure about that. Rich and powerful men generally cheat because they can, not because they need to. I think he did it because he could. The creators of this version also made JFK out to be a bit sheepish overall. Don’t buy that either. You don’t get to be one of the most revered Presidents' of the United States by being sheepish.

Of note: The casting was outstanding – spot on. From Joe Sr. to Rose to Barry Pepper as Bobby. Spot on. Katie Holmes as Jackie showed the only flaw and that was in her dialect in some spots. She sounded like she was from Brooklyn sometimes. But, it wasn’t bad enough to make a difference. And the look of the series was as neat as all the scotch they drank.

One noticeable omission was Teddy. There was absolutely no mention of Teddy at all. No mention of Joan either and Joan and Jackie were quite close. It’s a well known fact that Jackie and Eunice weren’t the best of friends, but, Joan and Jackie were. Teddy also worked on JFK’s presidential election campaign, so, he should have been a part of this story as well. Glaring omission...

It was nice to hear more details about how and where Joe Jr. fit in the picture. The stories usually start at JFK and focus mostly on him, Bobby and Teddy. This version started with Joe and showed his place and interactions with his siblings and Joe Sr. Now had they added Teddy to the story, it would likely have been the most authentic, revealing version to date. The ending could have been better, but, all things considered, this version gets an A from me.

I’ve been into the history of the Kennedys since I was a kid, so, for me, this was just another way to confirm the recurring facts and sift out the ones that don’t jive. But, in all that I know, I think this version is one of the best I’ve seen and would give the casual Kennedy-phile a great true-to-life reveal.

I highly recommend this mini-series. All that BS over getting it on air was stupid. And to the Kennedy family – let the truth be what it is. No family is perfect, not even an American dynasty. At least yours has had a significant impact on the history of the United States…

It’s been almost 2 months since Scott Pelley took the anchor chair and he’s away on his first assignment for 60 Minutes. 2 Days into his absence and I’m back on board. Bob Schieffer is awesome.

Day 2 with Bob Schieffer... A paraphrase of his opening line: Rupert Murdoch was in front of the British Parliament today to testify - took a flurry of questions... then he got hit in the face with a cream pie... LMAO.

If CBS wasn’t sure they made a mistake before yesterday, they should be sure now. Even CBS’s Business Correspondent Anthony Mason had to LOL during his introduction from the ease at which Schieffer delivered that line. It was refreshing... it was honest. Fact is, Bob don’t give a damn - He’s not trying to prove anything to anyone. He’s the first anchor CBS has had in that chair since Walter Cronkite who convinces us that he’s genuine. Scott Pelley is killing me...

This is reminding me of NBC’s big gaffe when they gave The Tonight Show to Conan O’Brien and put Jay Leno at 10. Stupid. I understand they were attempting to move the brand forward, but, they would have been better of leaving Jay on The Tonight Show and trying Conan at 10. No disruption of the brand. Now NBC Entertainment just looks like idiots.

This is where we are with CBS. I see it coming - by the end of the summer, there’s going to be another change. I said in my very first blog post that they should have just given the chair to Harry Smith. With good reason, Harry has now left to go to NBC. What were they expecting? You would think they would have learned from the mistakes they made passing over John Roberts years ago. Looks like news executives haven’t gotten any more in-tune with society...

But, my guess is that Bob Schieffer is not interested in a full time job like the evening news 5 days a week. My bet is that he’s perfectly happy living here in WDC, taping Face The Nation every Sunday and thinking on retirement. I want it on record that I want his job. Face The Nation with Billy Abshaw has a nice ring to it... Stay tuned...

But, in just 2 days, Bob Schieffer has given some life back to the broadcast. Even more-so than Katie Couric. Not hard to do following Dan Rather, but... The word is that during his 17 months anchoring the broadcast before Katie took the chair, ratings were up significantly enough to get CBS in 2nd place. Katie Couric only got to 2nd place once or twice, but, nothing prolonged. What does that tell you CBS?

So, here is my suggestion for how CBS should handle this... I’ll use another NBC situation - this one from the early 90’s. The Today Show. Jane Pauley leaves Today. Her replacement is Deborah Norville. Audiences are not warming up to Deborah Norville. She goes out on maternity leave, in comes pregnant Katie Couric as her fill-in. Perfect plan; Katie goes out on maternity leave, Deborah comes back, all is well. However, audiences LOVE Katie Couric. 16 years later, Katie Couric leaves as the highest paid morning show anchor ever with the highest ratings ever.

When you’re learning the art of writing for television news, there is always someone in the newsroom who is happy to tell you this: Keep it simple stupid (KISS).

Note to CBS: Leave all the bad staffing decisions to NBC. KISS...

That even sounds dirty to me...

Netflix has officially become a pronoun. You’ve been Netflixed! Before I get into the rational discussion of NETFLIX, I have to note the mass amounts of outrage spewing from former Netflix consumers. I’m not sure what made anyone at Netflix think a 50% increase in charges would just slide by. This is just the wrong time for that...

I love Netflix. Been a subscriber since 2003, before it became a household brand. I currently have almost 700 titles in my queue - 388 in DVD; 277 in instant. I’m not starting over again. The truth is, I found it a real-deal that I could have streaming for free. That was until I tried to actually watch streaming.

Netflix instant streaming blows. The picture quality is somewhat grainy, it doesn’t fast forward or rewind very well and it buffers constantly. Yesterday, it wouldn’t load at all. Currently, free means I’m getting my money’s worth. So, by September, will it be working better since I will be paying for it? I bet not...

While I’m not currently prepared to cut the chord, I am prepared to start looking around for other movie rental services. I may even go back to DVD’s in the mail because the streaming is not quality enough to pay for. This creates a perfect business opportunity for the competition. Netflix has basically leveled the playing field - Blockbuster needs to sieze the day.

Hypothesis: Netflix will retract the new charges for something in the middle. If they don’t, there will be a whole host of new players in the field. Just what I think...

I just don't know where to begin with this one. I mean, being a journalist is supposed to equal honesty, integrity, a responsibility to the consumer... What the F? I guess to be fair, News Corp has not been implicated in any of the activities of News of the World, but, if you're a journalist, you know how FOX NEWS operates and the answer to that querie is - start asking a lot of questions.

If you're not a journalist, some background: News International is the european media conglomerate owned by Rupert Murdoch. News Corporation is the American media conglomerate owned by Rupert Murdoch. Not 100% about how they are connected/if they are connected/how they fit - doesn't matter, they are both owned by RUPERT MURDOCH. Never met him, but, would rather meet a Bear. At least I'd know what was coming.

I'll give Rupert a little credit, however. He bought The Wall Street Journal and The New York Post, I think in an attempt to give Fox some credibility, but, I think it's just sullied the reputations of the former. NYP is just not what it used to be and having interviewed at WSJ/Dow Jones some years back, it is really not what it used to be. But, I don't know that they've turned to a life of crime. Speaking of crime, let's get back to Fox News...

To be clear, I am 100% non-partisan. Best candidate wins for me. But, there is an unconfirmed rumor of a liberal media bias. I disagree with that with exception of Fox News. I find that the problem is not an inherent liberal bias in the media as much as there is a political slant to the media which manifests itself in partisan individuals. I've witnessed this first hand in the field with other reporters and see it everyday on the news. My rule of thumb - if you can tell which side the interviewer is on, there is bias. Journalism is supposed to be unbiased.

Fox has taken this to a new level. They emphatically take the right, sometimes just for the sake of taking the right. Like News of the World, Fox attracts the people who will do ANYTHING for a story. But, politics aside, when Fox began growing here in the USA, many of the people who went to work for them were the people who lacked credibility in my newsrooms. Therefore, politics aside again, the level of quality they brought to this new network was low. It's still not there and those of us who regard journalism with only the highest standards consider Fox, “The red-headed stepchild.”

Criminal activity at a Rupert Murdoch publication? Should anyone who knows anything about the media be surprised? I don’t think anyone is surprised. I’ll be surprised if there is no criminal activity found at Fox or WSJ or NYP.

I’m curious to hear what people on the outside of the media think about this…

OKAY, I’m being overly dramatic. NASA is not actually going away, just the space program. But, that’s not clear in the way it’s being reported in the news. The news filter is clearly clogged. Important details are not making it to the final product - even I was slightly alarmed at the idea of no more NASA. But, I knew there was more to it than we were hearing as consumers. Full explanation:

NASA has four principal organizations: Aeronautics, Exploration Systems, Science and Space Operations. The organization that is essentially ending is Space Operations - for now. And because Space Operations gets the most coverage for NASA, it appears that there is nothing left for them to do. There is plenty for them to do.

Think about it like this: All those things we used to learn at the planetarium in grade school and in Astronomy 101 in college is what three-fourths of the people at NASA do. They research space, analyze atmospheric details like stars and planet alignment and constellations. They follow the Sun’s movements and patterns, research climate changes - they have plenty to do.

They also build robots and other technological apparatus to conduct research. Somebody has to build the next most powerful telescope, ‘cause, it aint me. The need for rocket scientists still exists. The question at this point is if there is still a need for Astronauts, which, is a bit disheartening. It’s like someone saying, we’re doing away with brain surgeons. Try taking your kid to a planetarium, getting them interested in Space and then telling them there used to be this position called Astronaut that is no longer available.

My thought is that in a year or so, someone will figure out that hitching a ride into space with the Russians is not the best idea. This sounds like we’ve resigned ourselves to taking a back seat in space technology. How is that at all progressive or forward thinking for the World’s foremost super-power?

Recently, the CEO of Dow Chemical did a series of interviews where he talked about how difficult it is to find top talent in the field of engineering and as much as it distressed him, he will need to go to other countries to recruit. Sad. This is why we have stagnant unemployment numbers. Jobs are available, we just haven’t been educated to be qualified for them. And putting the breaks on moving forward in technology is not going to get us qualified.

And since you brought up education, just a thought about how this pertains to future generations. It’s already a well known fact that we trail most other countries in science and math education. We’re just not producing the level or volume of quantitative thinking scholars here. So, is this us throwing in the towel and accepting that we are inferior in science and math? Decisions like this only confirm our hypocrisy about education. As a society, we preach about the importance of education, but, our actions reflect the opposite. No more Astronauts sounds like the opposite to me.

What does it sound like to you?