If you read the whole article, you’ll see that the precipitating cause was their anchoring of the Democratic and Republican Conventions, and especially Keith Olbermann’s outraged remarks after:
This is also somewhat motivated by charges of unfair treatment of Sarah Palin, according to the article. Apparently it’s ok to whine if you’re Sarah Palin; it’s only if you’re Hillary Clinton that you have to suck it up.
Note: MSNBC is not firing Matthews or Olbermann; they’ll continue hosting their programs. It’s just that they will not anchor any more news programs such as the debates or election night coverage - they’ll function as analysts instead.
Now, I didn’t watch MSNBC during the Democratic convention, because there was too much talking all the way around and I was more interested in the convention. I didn’t watch the Republican convention at all, because, although I meant to, I realized it was just going to make me sick and angry, and I just didn’t need it. It turned out just as well, since they didn’t talk about their positions or plans at all anyway, from what I’ve gathered from my mom and you folks. So I can’t judge Matthews’ or Olbermann’s behavior except to say that what little I did see seemed kind of silly to me - more concentrating on the people outside the convention than on the convention itself.
Do you think this action on the part of MSNBC was justified, and if so or not, why or why not?
I wish the networks would do much more to separate news and opinion. Olbermann and Matthews are not reporters, they’re commentators, so I’m fine with this move regardless of the validity of any bias charges.
I’m fine with the move but K.O. was right about the 9/11 footage. That was pretty despicable and, predictably, McCain has gotten a free pass for it. If Obama had used that footage, he media (especially on the right) would have burned him at the stake for it.
That sounds good to me, Marley. I won’t say I wasn’t surprised, or disappointed on Olbermann’s behalf, though. (Never did much care for Matthews) I imagine he was truly shocked and horrified at what he viewed as crass exploitation of that tragedy for political gain.
Because he did nothing wrong. I don’t get how remembering the event that killed 3,000 people and put us on notice that we were at war with radical Islam is in anyway wrong. We need to be reminded of reality, what the stakes are. Some more than others.
So, fuck Keith Olberman. I’d like to hit him in the face with balsa wood bat filled with loose dog shit. I watched most of the nights on MSNBC. It was annoying how he ALWAYS had to try to make some partisan point, denigrating something Republican. A few times when he would ask Matthews or Brokaw a question you could almost see the annoyance of having to field something that was inappropriate or out of the blue. I kinda like Matthews, and I had no problem with his contributions. Some of it was partisan, but in a healthy, critical analysis kind of way. Brokaw, I think, tried to remain middle-of-the-road, and did a pretty good job of it. But I think his bias has been clearly established and should not moderate a debate. Not that I mind all that much if he does.
I’m sure he meant what he said, but regardless, he’s biased, he’s a commentator, and he’s good at it. So MSNBC put him front and center, and not only did he editorialize, he made the apology in such a way that he appeared to be speaking for the network.
The New Yorker did a story on Olbermann a few months back that touched on these same issues: his outspokenness, how it relates to objective journalism, the crossover between MSNBC and NBC and so on. Here is a link to that story.
Nothing except publicly rape the corpses of 9/11 victims for personal political gain. That footage is snuff porn. It’s indefensible to show it as entertainment.
Personally, whenever I have the misfortune to see or hear Chris Matthews on TV, I think of a profile of Tim Russert that ran shortly before Russert died. It was made clear that he held Matthews in deep contempt and that Matthews absolutely didn’t understand why, and was desperate for Russert’s approval. To me, Matthews is not capable of understanding that he is basically a breathless, vapid cheerleader, constantly trying to fluff his audience with comments about how exciting the political process is. (Nowhere was this clearer than his comment about Obama sending “a thrill up my leg,” which must’ve been almost as embarrassing for Obama as it was for everybody else who heard it.) Unfortunately, there are more Matthewses out there than Russerts, and that goes both for people who don’t aspire to be any more than Matthews is, and those who simply aren’t capable of being any better. I guess Matthews is in the ‘not capable’ category.
Its an accident of history, we live in interesting times. There are sometimes issues that can be reported upon without bias, and with a clear eye to simple exposition of fact. A country board hearing on park appropriations, for instance.
But these times don’t permit. How to report, say, Ms Palins bald lies about “opposing earmarks” without seeming partisan? You say someone is lying, she is lying, but that is partisan, can’t be any other way.
Its bound to be ugly, sloppy and half insane. Such is democracy, and you take her as she is, or look elsewhere.
Who needs to be reminded? Democrats? Do you honestly think they have forgotten about this?
If this had been done in a history or news setting, or in some truly national event, then that would be one thing. But to show graphic footage of the deaths of thousands of people in an effort to get one american elected president, instead of another american, is despicable.
What are they supposed to do when a politician lies outright? At what point does covering what a candidate says without refuting it become partisan for the candidate, and at what point does demonstrating a candidate’s lies become partisan against the candidate?
Personally, I’m all for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth for all candidates all the time. But I don’t think I’ve ever seen a network news story that said “Although the candidate stated that the sky was orange today and has always been orange, we have this footage from June 13th of this year, showing the candidate under a blue sky and stating that the sky will always be blue.” I think I’ve seen a sidswipe at refutation once or twice on PBS, but it’s been very limited and infrequent.
Maybe they could stop covering all four days of the nominating conventions from the inside, as if each day was the Superbowl, and skip to the important stuff and then evaluate it in that fashion. But I’m probably talking crazy.
In general, I’d stick with the same answer with that as an example. I think political coverage on the news combines the worst parts of celebrity coverage and the worst parts of politics. There’s a lot of focus on personalities and a lot of focus on what everybody said and how it will make people vote, but little focus on the ideas and whether or not the statements are actually true. So nobody is particularly well served, with the exception of some of the politicians.
I think we ALL should stay reminded of it. That and the beheadings. We should never loose sight of it.
What, this wasn’t a national event? In what world is the nomination of one of the two people who will be our next President not a national event? The democrats were free to handle 9/11 any way they saw fit. Maybe if they did this people wouldn’t think that they don’t fully understand the threat against us. They’re so afraid that the response will be what it should be: utter hate a contempt for the murderous barbarians, and heightened vigilance for signs of radical Islam within our borders.
By the way, it is both correct and customary to capitalize “American”.
Depends on what you’re watching. WRT network TV, on PBS, they simply tell you what the candidates said and did. They usually don’t make any comparison to reality, and except for Friday nights, they don’t have commentary on how it’s likely to affect voters. I honestly have no idea about CBS, NBC, and ABC.
My understanding is that FOX has less political coverage than the other cable news channels, and MSNBC has quite a bit more than the other two. I know that on MSNBC they definitely do talk about “personalities and a lot of focus on what everybody said and how it will make people vote,” but there is also quite a bit of focus “on whether or not the statements are actually true,” at least when it comes to McCain. Obama gets more of a pass, but, frankly, given the recent history of the two parties, I find that somewhat understandable. It’s kind of like airlines viewing young middle-eastern men with more suspicion than they do little old ladies with no discernible accent - you know you’re not supposed to do it and you may miss something really bad, but everything in your gut says the likelier threat lies in the young men. ETA: This is not due to McCain himself, but to Rove and the neocons. But McCain takes blame for allowing these tactics to be used.
But you’re right; there is virtually no analysis of the ideas as ideas. I guess that’s what the Dope is for. I know it’s where I go to understand things better. If it’s not already being discussed, I ask. I’m very grateful to have it.
You say milked, I say keeping it in the fore where it belongs. It’s interesting that during the Democratic convention there was no mention of radical Islam. Do you not find that odd?