dell

Howard Stern, the reason why many people subscribe to Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. (NASDAQ: SIRI), has upset country legend Dolly Parton.

The singer is madder than a rattlesnake trying to bite a fencepost at the self-styled King of All Media for splicing together audio segments that made it appear that she was saying nasty things about celebrities including Kenny Rogers, Linda Rondstadt, Burt Reynolds and Johnny Carson, according to the Associated Press.

In a statement posted on her Web site, the singer/songwriter said she had never been so "shocked, hurt and humiliated in my life...Please accept my apology for them and certainly know I had nothing to do with this. If there was ever going to be a lawsuit, it's going to be over this."

I am sure that any lawyer Parton contacts -- or an law student for that matter -- will tell the writer of "I will always love you" that she doesn't have a snowball's chance of prevailing against Stern. The First Amendment gives performers the right to say vile things about celebrities in what is obviously a parody. Remember Jerry Falwell's fight against Hustler magazine which he lost in the Supreme Court? The same concept applies here.

Who is the boss of Bloomberg News?

During my career there, there was no question that Matthew Winkler was in charge. My colleagues laughed hysterically when I told them I asked Winkler about his bow ties during my interview with him before I was hired. Bloomberg's editor-in-chief is not known for his sense of humor. Good thing I didn't bring up bow ties -- which he wears every day -- again.

That's why I found the appointment of former Wall Street Journal top editor Norman Pearlstine as Bloomberg's chief content officer so curious. Does this mean that Pearlstine, who was Winkler's boss at the Journal, will supervise him again? What exactly does a chief content officer do that's different than an editor-in-chief? I am not sure of the answers to those questions and neither is the New York Times.

As the Times opines, "the move suggests that Bloomberg, whose fortunes have been buoyed by the selling of its hugely profitable data terminals to brokerage firms and investment banks, plans to expand the journalism side of its business."

About every 10 seconds or so this season, "American Idol" host Ryan Seacrest or one of the judges brags about how this group of contestants is the most talented in the show's history. They speak about the huge number of votes being cast and the huge number of song downloads sold on iTunes. Well, as the Associated Press points out, the American people would beg to differ.

"The 21.8 million people who watched last Tuesday's competition was the show's smallest Tuesday audience in more than five years," the AP said. "The show did better the next night, with 22.9 million, but that was the smallest Wednesday audience in three years, according to Nielsen Media Research."

But Idol fans and shareholders of News Corp. (NYSE: NWS) should not get too down since the show can be saved if producers follow my advice:

Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. (NASDAQ: SIRI) Chief Executive Officer Mel Karmazin seems exasperated that the Federal Communications Commission has yet to rule on his company's merger with XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: XMSR) which was filed more than a year ago.

"We share the reasonable frustration that many of our investors feel regarding the time it has taken," said the loquacious CEO during yesterday's earnings conference call (via SeekingAlpha). "We also share the outrage that some have expressed to me regarding press reports of opportunistic parties trying to take advantage of the process and extract value for themselves that properly belongs to SIRIUS subscribers and shareholders."

Karmazin has a point. The FCC review of the satellite radio merger has moved at a glacial pace because of the opposition of the terrestrial radio industry which figures that any medium that employs Howard Stern needs to be stopped at all costs. As yesterday's earnings report indicates, the industry is not big enough to support two companies.

Sirius reported a first-quarter net loss of $104.1 million, or 7 cents a share, narrower than $144.7 million, or 10 cents a share, a year earlier. Revenue rose 33% to $270.4 million. The results, which matched Wall Street expectations, were helped by a drop in SAC per gross subscriber addition to $91 in the first quarter from $101 a year earlier. The company ended the quarter with 8.64 million subscribers, up 31% from a year earlier. Average revenue per subscriber was little changed at$10.42,

Anyone looking for insights into Barack Obama's economic policy might want to take a look at how he has handled his personal finances. According to Slate.com, the Illinois senator and Democratic front-runner invests his money as if he were in his 60s instead of his 40s.

Thanks to the success of his two books "Dreams of My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope," the Obama family is wealthier than most. In 2007, the Obamas earned $4.1 million, thanks to the books that have sold more than 2.25 million copies, according to Bookscan data cited by Slate. Both John McCain and Hillary Clinton, however, are much wealthier. None are waiting with anticipation for their fiscal stimulus checks to arrive.

"Obama has not donated the proceeds from his books to charity, as John McCain has, but then Obama did not marry an heiress with $40 million in assets," Slate noted. Good point. In addition, McCain's wife Cyndi has refused to disclose her tax returns, which she files separately from her husband. That will be an issue during the general election. Bill Clinton's lucrative speech-making business has already caused problems for his wife's campaign.

Voters worried that Obama is a tax-and-spend liberal should take some comfort from the conservative -- Slate says too conservative -- approach in his portfolio that it is too weighted toward bonds and not enough toward stocks. Unlike former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Obama has no hedge fund investments or much of anything else exciting. Most of his money is in mutual funds.

"Unlike the average American, however, Sen. Obama had the wherewithal to save the maximum allowable amount ($45,000) in his retirement plan last year," Slate says.

Shareholders of Cablevision Systems Corp. (NYSE: CVC) must be scratching their heads over the company's $650 million purchase of Newsday from Tribune Co., the latest in a long series of baffling moves by the Dolan family, which controls the New York-based cable company.

The theory -- if you want to call it that -- is that Cablevision would be able to market the newspaper to its customers and that the company would be able to add additional content to its cable news channel. This makes no sense. People have stopped reading newspapers in droves. The only way that they would even consider subscribing is if Cablevision practically gave the newspaper away. Newsday could have struck an alliance with the cable channel to share content without the paper changing hands; these sort of deals happen all of the time.

Maybe advertisers will be more interested in Newsday now that Cablevision will be able to bundle ad space in the paper and its website along with cable commercial time. The problem, though, is that residents in Long Island have a plethora of media choices including the New York Times, New York Daily News and The New York Post. Like the readers, the only way that advertisers that aren't in the newspaper now would consider doing business with Newsday would be with steep discounts.

Add Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. (NASDAQ: SIRI) to the list of stocks Wall Street thinks are undervalued. You heard that right.

If anyone wants to take the advice of these analysts, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you. Sirius, which reports earnings next week, is expected to lose 7 cents per share, down from 11 cents a year earlier, according to Thomson Financial. Revenue is due to rise more than 33% to $272.3 million. Their average price target is $3.86, higher than the $2.80 where the stock currently trades. The high target is a whopping $8.

I am still not convinced this is a good stock. Even if the XM Satellite Radio Inc. (NASDAQ: XMSR) merger happens, I don't see the company's prospects improving.

First of all, people aren't buying cars of any sort including those that come with satellite radio pre-installed. Moreover, Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) has a device called the iPod. Perhaps you have heard of it.

"Now that many new cars offer input jacks to broadcast media player content through car stereo systems, won't that compete with the commercial-free digital music that makes satellite radio so appealing?" asks Rick Aristotle Munarriz of the Motley Fool.

Good point. Keep in mind that I am a satellite radio subscriber. In fact, I am listening to Howard 100 over the Internet right now. I also like my iPod. I find Howard Stern as amusing as most people and enjoy the commercial-free music such as the Grateful Dead Channel. But I am not sure whether I am going to need both devices in the future.

Until its future is cleared up, investors should avoid satellite radio even if they are fans of Howard.

When it comes to big merger news, investors let the media get away with making sleazy deals with sources in exchange for access. The case of the aborted Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT) -- Yahoo Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO) deal is no different.

Investors would be nauseated by the amount of butts that get kissed behind the scenes during these drawn-out sagas. Reporters suck up to companies, public relations people and investment bankers and vice versa. I saw some of this first hand when I worked for Bloomberg and would write about deals from time to time.

Since the number of people who actually know anything about an acquisition is fairly small, members of the media contort themselves into rhetorical knots to protect the identities of the people who are spilling the beans. That's why these types of stories are filled with phrases that no one would ever utter in daily conversation such as a "person familiar with the situation" or a "person familiar with (insert executive's or company's name) thinking"or my personal favorite "a person close to the company."

Shares of Sprint Nextel Corp. (NYSE: S) are rising on a Wall Street Journal (subscription required) report that Deutsche Telekom AG (NYSE: DT) is poised to make a bid for the wireless telecommunication company. If the report is accurate, Sprint's long suffering shareholders should do as the Steve Miller Band song suggests "take the money and run" because the deal may not happen.

For Sprint, though, this may be its only hope. Sprint shares have slumped almost 40% this year as the Overland Park Kansas-based company tried in vain to gain marketshare against larger rivals including Verizon and AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T). The commercials starring the company's affable CEO Daniel Hesse haven't helped much either. Remember when Hesse was named CEO last December, board member Irvine O. Hockaday Jr. remarked that Hesse "has the board's full support to take decisive actions necessary to improve our performance."

Does that mean a sale to the former German telecom monopoly? The deal makes sense in theory because combining Sprint and Deutsche Telekom would create the top wireless company with more than 82 million customers. Verizon, which is a joint venture between Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE: VZ) and Vodafone Group Plc. (NYSE: VOD) has 67.2 million customers while AT&T has about 71 million wireless subscribers.

But as Bloomberg News points out, analysts argue that integrating the Deutsche Telekom and Sprint Nextel networks wouldn't be easy. Moreover, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security may not look kindly on a foreign company taking over a U.S. telecom provider for national security reasons, the news service notes.

Even so, the arguments for the merger are so compelling that it might be worth the risk.

This post is part of our Battle of the Brands feature. Let us know which brand you prefer, and check out other Battle of the Brands posts.

My son is an Elmo addict. He has Elmo clothes, Elmo books, and Elmo toys. He insists on listening to an Elmo CD whenever he rides in my car and watches the furry Muppet almost every day on "Sesame Street." Oh yeah, he calls his binky Elmo.

And you know what? This doesn't bother me.

Sesame Street, which has been on the air for about 40 years, is still a quality show. It teaches kids the alphabet, how to count and other important lessons in an entertaining manner. The show has some aspects of Saturday Night Live to it with clever bits like having Oscar the Grouch host something called the "Grouch News Network," which featured CNN's Anderson Cooper.

I realize that his Elmo fascination won't last. My son recently discovered Mickey Mouse on one of Walt Disney Co.'s (NYSE: DIS) cable channels. Eventually, Mickey will give way to Dora the Explorer and SpongeBob SquarePants on Viacom Inc.'s (NYSE: VIA) Nickelodeon.

This post is part of our Battle of the Brands feature. Let us know which brand you prefer, and check out other Battle of the Brands posts.

The heads of CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC along with their corporate masters at Time Warner Inc. (NYSE: TWX), News Corp. (NYSE: NWS) and General Electric Co. (NYSE: GE) must be giggling with delight at the prospect of the Democratic presidential race continuing past the hotly contested race in Pennsylvania.

After all, controversy means more viewers, which of course means more advertising dollars. They probably wish that the Democrats would beat each other up in 30-second TV spots every year, but alas Americans elect a president every four years, which is probably a good thing for everybody. Still, the cable networks are going to ride this gravy train for as long as they can.

Like anything else in cable news, picking a winner in this battle of the brands depends on how you look at it. Fox, the home of Bill O'Reilly and Shepherd Smith, attracted 1.89 million viewers during Monday's prime time, the most of any network, according to Nielsen data cited by TVNewser. CNN attracted 1.03 million on its main network and 572,000 on its Headline News channel, while MSNBC was watched by 676,000.

Before conservatives start declaring Fox the top cable network yet again, remember that statistic does not represent the whole picture. Cable news advertisers are most interested in viewers aged 25 to 54 who are most likely to be interested in buying mutual funds and other products that they are shilling. That's where things get interesting.

Exxon Mobil Corp. (NYSE: XOM), whose huge profits have made it one of the most vilified companies in America, was brought down to earth today after posting disappointing earnings.

Net income at the world's largest oil company rose 17% to $10.9 billion, or $2.03 per share, from $9.3 billion, or $1.62 per share, a year earlier. Revenue rose 34% to $116.9 billion. Analysts had expected profit of $2.13 on revenue of $124.4 billion, according to Thomson Financial. Shares of the company fell.

Just because oil prices remain above $100 per barrel doesn't necessarily mean everything is going Exxon's way. For one thing, high oil prices resulted in "significantly lower" refining margins, which pushed down downstream earnings by $746 million to $1.16 billion. Lower margins also pushed down profit in Exxon's chemical business by $208 million to $1.03 billion. Moreover, spending on capital and exploration projects soared 30% to $5.5 billion "as we continued to actively invest in projects to bring additional crude oil, natural gas and finished products to market."

The problem is that's proving to be difficult. For one thing, production at the company's oil wells dropped as did natural gas production in the Middle East, The U.S., Canada, South America and Asia. This is happening as surging demand from the developing world is keeping oil prices at record levels. Exxon is "having trouble raising production, and that's not a good sign,'' Leeb Capital Management's Stephen Leeb told Bloomberg News.

This post is part of our Battle of the Brands feature. Let us know which brand you prefer, and check out other Battle of the Brands posts.

The battle between QVC and HSN is really about celebrity entrepreneurs.

QVC counts the likes of Joan Rivers and Marie Osmond in its stable of shills. Suzanne Somers and Susan Lucci hock their wares on HSN, which is owned by Barry Diller's IAC/InterActiveCorp (NASDAQ: IACI) conglomerate.

Somewhere around the 1980s or 1990s, Rivers lost her sense of shame and began opening up about everything, including her numerous plastic surgeries. Rivers still is hysterical. Typical is a recent blog post about Passover in which she joked that people eat Matzo (unleavened bread) "Because, you pig, you inherited your mother's big, fat thighs and you should lay off the carbs for at least one day every year."

Anyway, you just gotta love Rivers. She's survived her husband's suicide, the scorn of Johnny Carson and the ridicule of celebrities on the red carpet. Granted that I won't be buying products such as the Joan Rivers Lilly of the Valley Bee Pin, which according to the QVC website "shines with orange and green epoxy enamel and cream simulated pearls as the buds."

Sounds lovely, no?

The special committee set up by Rupert Murdoch to ensure the editorial independence of the Wall Street Journal is about as useful as a referee at a professional wrestling bout. The sad thing is that News Corp. (NYSE: NWS) is paying members of this committee $100,000 a year to let Chief Executive Rupert Murdoch do whatever he wants to do anyway.

A case in point is the abrupt resignation of Managing Editor Marcus Brauchli. The lackeys -- oh, I mean the special committee set up following the Dow Jones acquisition -- felt compelled Monday to issue a press release to show publicly that they were on the case. At least, that's what it tried to do.

"Although our charter does not directly envision a process for dealing with a resignation, Committee members expressed the view that learning of the Brauchli matter after the fact failed to meet the letter and the spirit of the agreement," the committee said in a statement. The committee met with Brauchli alone and was told that "his action was not the result of any problem with editorial interference or attempts to impose an ideological viewpoint. He insisted that News Corp. has been `scrupulous' about the integrity of the paper."

Yeah, right.

Murdoch has meddled in his media properties for decades. No special committee is going to stop his lust for power. Anyone who expected otherwise is either naive or deluded. Murdoch will have no inhibitions of messing with Newsday if he succeeds in buying Newsday from Sam Zell's Tribune Co. because beggars can't be choosers.

Earlier today, my colleague Douglas McIntyre argued that the Rockefeller family shouldn't "bite the hand that feeds" it at Exxon Mobil Corp. (NYSE: XOM), a company founded by ancestor John D. Rockefeller. I couldn't disagree more.

The family is advocating a series of proposals such as creating an independent chairman and pushing the world's largest oil company to be more environmentally friendly seem pretty sensible to me. First of all, corporate governance experts advocate separating the role of chairman and chief executive as a good idea for all companies, not just successful ones. This is a good way to prevent a company from falling under the control of an imperial CEO.

Also, I can't understand why McIntyre thinks that "developing new forms of alternative energy is essentially the job of smaller companies which will eventually compete with Exxon for business." Other oil companies including BP Plc. (NYSE: BP) are moving headlong into alternative energy. Even Exxon, which argues that wind, solar and biofuels will account for 2% of global energy demand by 2030, isn't totally opposed to the idea of alternatives to oil.

According to a statement on its Web site, "ExxonMobil is taking to address the risk of climate change. These included working to improve energy efficiency and fuel economy, and groundbreaking research into low-emissions technologies." The company, of course, argues that the world will need petroleum-based energy for some time to come.

Finally, the idea that shareholders should just sit back and let management do whatever it wants couldn't be more wrong. Companies are owned by shareholders and are supposed to be working in their best interests. Despite record profits, Exxon shares have barely budged this year. If the Rockefellers think the company can do better, the company should at least hear them out.