MSNBC becoming DNC-NBC?

[kchoya]

This was touched on in the DNC thread, but what's the deal with MSNBC becoming the official propaganda machine of the Democratic party? To hear orgasmic tones of Olbermann and Matthews after Obama's speech on Thursday made me want to puke. I understand they want to become the left-wing version of Fox News, but at least retain some sensibility of professionalism. Even Andrea Mitchell seems to have crossed over. And now they're giving a nightly show to this Rachel Maddow chick?

I'm obviously conservative, but I don't watch Fox News, or any cable news, all that much, unless there's a big event going on. And then I turn in to get some commentary on what's happening. I like listening to those that lean to the left to get perspective on what they think - people like Juan Williams on Fox, Carville, Gergen and others on CNN, etc. I used to like Chris Matthews because he seemed to hit both sides equally hard, but not anymore. (I could never stand Olbermann). Maybe he's gearing up for his run for the Senate?

[Boz]

The problem I have with MSNBC is not the obvious left bias of their hosts.

Fox's hosts are obviously conservatives, every one except Alan Colmes, so that balances out pretty well.

The channels are right next to each other on my cable lineup and I usually flip between the two to listen to both.

My problem with MSNBC is that, unlike Fox's liberal guests, their roster of conservative commentators is woefully thin and they don't try very hard to engage in debate. They have Joe Scarborough -- which Keith Olbermann clearly hates -- and that's about it. (please don't mention Pat Buchanan; he is not a conservative, he's a lunatic). Fox's liberal roster is much, MUCH deeper.

O'Reilly is a blowhard and a doofus, but he invites the other side on all the time to debate with him. Olbermann, his counterpart, never does that. In fact, he gets people fired who don't say what he wants, as Dana Milbank and Dan Abrams will attest. I really can't understand how anyone takes that guy seriously.

Hannity & Colmes may just be a newer version of Crossfire, but it is unique today in having both a conservative and liberal host questioning both conservative and liberal guests. Chris Matthews used to be an honest questioner (& still is sometimes, like on his college tour shows), but for the most part, he has gone off the reservation.

I think CNN did a pretty good job. Even -- and this is the first time I've ever said this -- Larry King. His show during the DNC, and the one he is planning for the RNC, is a good idea.

[EasyEd]

"They have Joe Scarborough -- which Keith Olbermann clearly hates -- and that's about it"

Above quote referring to liberals on Fox. How about Juan Williams, Susan Estrich, Alan Holmes, Geraldine Ferrara and Lanny Davis, to name a few?

[strummer8526]

(I'm thinking maybe, just maybe, people on both political ends might agree with this)

I think we'd be 100% better off if MSNBC becomes the liberal FOXNews, and then both completely vanish. I think that 1 hour a day on CNN devoted to a liberal-leaning commentator and 1 hour a day for a conservative would be just about all we need of this over-simplified, biased, flame-fanning nonsense. It will never happen, but I just think that at some point, facts should be more valuable to people than skewed facts shouted at someone who doesn't agree.

Then again, what good are facts if they're not being manipulated to SOMEONE'S benefit, so...maybe it's just the nature of politics. Why know something if it's not advancing one side?

[EasyEd]

Aug 30, 2008 18:54:47 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

(I'm thinking maybe, just maybe, people on both political ends might agree with this)

I think we'd be 100% better off if MSNBC becomes the liberal FOXNews, and then both completely vanish. I think that 1 hour a day on CNN devoted to a liberal-leaning commentator and 1 hour a day for a conservative would be just about all we need of this over-simplified, biased, flame-fanning nonsense. It will never happen, but I just think that at some point, facts should be more valuable to people than skewed facts shouted at someone who doesn't agree.

Then again, what good are facts if they're not being manipulated to SOMEONE'S benefit, so...maybe it's just the nature of politics. Why know something if it's not advancing one side?

You leave out left leaning NBC, ABC and CBS.

[DFW HOYA]

I usually vote Republican but still enjoy MSNBC--its reporters are consistently a step ahead of Fox across the board (esp. Chuck Todd) and lack the phony gravitas of CNN and Wolf Blitzer (When Blitzer starts each hour with "Stand by, stand by ...we now welcome our viewers from the United States and around the world"...what is that?)

MSNBC also gains from the use of a broadcast network's resources that CNN and Fox do not. Tim Russert was a calming influence and perhaps Brian Williams can help with that going forward. (Tom Brokaw could do this but I think he would rather be retired at this point.) I don't get twisted with Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann and think of that pair as 2000's version of the old NFL Today--Brent Musberger and Jimmy the Greek never saw eye to eye but it was good TV nonetheless.

And how did Patrick J. Buchanan morph into the kindly old uncle at MSNBC? A generation ago, he was calling the 1984 DNC convention a gathering of Sodomites, and now he's on the dais with Rachel Maddow saying this was the greatest convention speech of his memory. Check out Olbermann's reaction at the end of Buchanan's review:



But the real story is that no one talks about Katie Couric or Charlie Gibson or Jim Lehrer or any of the broadcast networks anymore. With an average age of 63 for network news, it's long since jumped the shark, and maybe MS(NBC) is a step ahead of everyone else in knowing that the shift is inevitable.

[jerseyhoya34]

I think most would agree that I am a liberal, but I like Pat Buchanan. Why? He represents what I liked about the Republican Party before the neoconservatives took hold. He is one of the Brent Snowcroft, H.W. Bush, et al. branch of the party that basically lost out when we invaded Iraq and never re-gained stature/control of the party. These are the statesmen who did not overreact after 9/11 and argued for a more moderate course. I gained new respect for Buchanan when he assessed the Obama speech as he saw it and not as the Swift Boaters would want you to see it.

I prefer MSNBC to CNN and Fox News. I don't know how someone could argue that CNN is pro-Obama or was last week. Larry King had Republicans on all week, and James Carville is a PUMA. This being said, I found MSNBC's coverage to be problematic in that they did not cover key speeches. Their set was dumb. Who ever thought of setting up next to a train station? Brokaw is a shadow of his former self, and Brian Williams does not have the presence of a news anchor. David Gregory is trying too hard to audition for a bigger role at NBC, and it shows.

[DFW HOYA]

Aug 30, 2008 21:03:58 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

This being said, I found MSNBC's coverage to be problematic in that they did not cover key speeches. Their set was dumb. Who ever thought of setting up next to a train station?

My guess was that the convention apportioned one arena setup per network, so NBC got the inside space. MSNBC wanted a nearby place where non-credentialed people could watch the show, so Union Station was just across the highway. Too bad the trains didn't cooperate... but how many trains come through Denver anymore, someone must have thought. Answer? A lot.

[hifigator]

Ambassador, you are right ... at least when you said that you are a liberal. How you can wonder how anyone thinks CNN leans to the left is beyond logic. They admit it themselves!

Secondly, the party might have deserted GHW Bush, but he did it first. He is not/was not a true conservative. I am with you in as much as I wish we had more Reagan-like Pubs now, but let's not rewrite history. GHW Bush, at the democrats beckoning, signed into law the largest tax increase in history and as a result became a closet democrat, in spite of what his voter identification card said. Two years into his term, it was almost unfathomable that he wouldn't be reelected. But he brought it on to himself. So when you say you like the "older" conservatives -- those prior to the so-called neo-cons -- remember that if you are talking about the elder Bush, all you are doing is repeating your first statememt -- most people agree that you are liberal.


easyed wrote:

You leave out left leaning NBC, ABC and CBS.

You beat me to it.


Lastly, Keith Olberman just might be the worst talking head on the planet. He sucked when he was at ESPN, but now he sucks out loud -- to steal the phrase from the younger generation.

[kchoya]

Aug 30, 2008 21:03:58 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

I think most would agree that I am a liberal, but I like Pat Buchanan.

I like Pat Buchanan too:

www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=74137

Oh, and I don't know whether most would agree that I'm a conservative, but freely admit that I am and have no need to hide the fact.

[kchoya]

I see it's perfectly OK for keith olbermann to be in Denver to service Obama in person, but during the RNC he's in New York City? What's up with that? I guess it served him better to be able to personally counter inaccuracies in each GOP speech last night. What was up with that? Since when is it an anchor's job to go back an examine George Washington's farewell to argue with Joe L. as soon as the speech ends? At least try and appear professional, dip.


And Chris Matthews might want to look into some hair gel - he was looking pretty disheveled last night.

[Boz]

Sept 3, 2008 9:46:22 GMT -5 kchoya said:

I see it's perfectly OK for keith olbermann to be in Denver to service Obama in person, but during the RNC he's in New York City? What's up with that? I guess it served him better to be able to personally counter inaccuracies in each GOP speech last night. What was up with that? Since when is it an anchor's job to go back an examine George Washington's farewell to argue with Joe L. as soon as the speech ends? At least try and appear professional, dipEdited.


And Chris Matthews might want to look into some hair gel - he was looking pretty disheveled last night.

I think the network wanted to avoid any more open mic embarrassing moments, which would have been more probable if he was outside and on site with Matthews instead of 1,500 miles away in a studio. ;D

If he was in the same city as Joe Scarborough, we may have had some entertainment though....maybe even a bloody nose or two.

Obviously, I hate Olbermann for his views, but that's OK. If liberals like him, great. More power to him on his own show. My only problems with him really are this:

1. He calls his show a "news program." It is not that. It is an opinion program.

2. NBC is effectively making a commentator, a very biased one, the anchor of its cable special events political broadcasts. I don't think Olbermann has enough credibility across the board for that. I think it reflects poorly on the network and I think Tom Brokaw agrees. Even though they are both liberals as well, I think either Chuck Todd or David Gregory are much better suited to that job than Olbermann is (though Greogry would want it and I don't think Todd would). They are much more capable of presenting both sides evenly than he is.

[SFHoya99]

I don't watch any of these guys.

Pundits are pointless in terms of finding out real information. And for being on 24 hours and having the ability to go in depth, they don't. It's like constant ESPN News, not Outside the Lines.

[The Stig]

I'm a liberal who's friends with a lot of liberals, and I don't know one person who likes Olbermann. In fact, aside from the universally respected people (i.e. the ones who moderate the Presidential debates), I can't really think of one talking head on a major news network who's widely liked among liberals.

Among liberals, I think Stewart and Colbert are far more popular than anybody on the major news networks.

[Elvado]

I t was enjoyable to watch Matthews last night. From the look on his face and the "mouth service" he gave Obama last week, Barack must have been eating spicy food yesterday.

[hifigator]

Sept 3, 2008 17:59:33 GMT -5 The Stig said:

I'm a liberal who's friends with a lot of liberals, and I don't know one person who likes Olbermann. In fact, aside from the universally respected people (i.e. the ones who moderate the Presidential debates), I can't really think of one talking head on a major news network who's widely liked among liberals.

Among liberals, I think Stewart and Colbert are far more popular than anybody on the major news networks.

I really am glad to hear you say that stig. Because I just absolutely can't stand him. I hate him in the same kind of way that I hated Molly Ivans, rest her soul. It wasn't just that I disagree with them. They are just unlikable. I can handle Alan Colmes or Anderson Cooper or even Chris Mathews, but I just can't stand Olberman. I'm glad to hear that it isn't just my political views. I felt the same way about Ivans. All of her articles were just bitter. It wasn't just that they came from the other side of the aisle. I can enjoy articles for other liberal journalists, but hers were different.

[kchoya]

Since when did newscasters take the advance copy of speeches from the convention and do counter-research in order to be able to rebut specific points right after the speech? I don't remember this happening before, and I don't remember Olbermann doing this during the DNC. Maybe Obama had him too occupied?

[hifigator]

kc, for at least the past couple of major speeches -- conventions, state of the Union etc... -- they are released sometime prior to delivery. I thought it was almost a bit anticlimactic when leading up to the speech, some talking head would tell me what I was about to hear and what I wasn't going to hear. I don't remember the particular speech, but I do specifically remember hearing one of the commentators say something like "about a third of the way into the speach, there will probably be the line drawing the most applause." He then went on to say that "he isn't going to address the such-and-such issue." I don't remember what the issue was, but I was hoping that He would comment on it.

In any case, I think they should have the speeches printed up in advance, but not realease them until the speech begins.

[Boz]

Olbermann is such a joke. I can't believe he called her "Tracy Flick" last night (and Delores Umbridge too).

No, Keith, it wasn't funny (and you weren't joking anyway). It was petty and small.
You sounded like the tool you are.

(And Tracy Flick won the election....so there!)

[kchoya]

Sept 4, 2008 15:41:29 GMT -5 hifigator said:

kc, for at least the past couple of major speeches -- conventions, state of the Union etc... -- they are released sometime prior to delivery. I thought it was almost a bit anticlimactic when leading up to the speech, some talking head would tell me what I was about to hear and what I wasn't going to hear. I don't remember the particular speech, but I do specifically remember hearing one of the commentators say something like "about a third of the way into the speach, there will probably be the line drawing the most applause." He then went on to say that "he isn't going to address the such-and-such issue." I don't remember what the issue was, but I was hoping that He would comment on it.

In any case, I think they should have the speeches printed up in advance, but not release them until the speech begins.

Oh, I know they've been releasing advance copies for years so the networks can plan their camera shots and so on. I was specifically talking about olbermann's petty little cheap shots.