Jump to content
Flying Spaghetti Monster

Apparently only Fox News anchors can have an opinion: Olberman, Matthews dropped

Recommended Posts

MSNBC Drops Olbermann, Matthews as News Anchors

 

 

MSNBC is removing Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews as the anchors of live political events, bowing to growing criticism that they are too opinionated to be seen as neutral in the heat of the presidential campaign.

David Gregory, the NBC newsman and White House correspondent who also hosts a program on MSNBC, will take over during such events as this fall's presidential and vice presidential debates and election night.

The move, confirmed by spokesmen for both networks, follows increasingly loud complaints about Olbermann's anchor role at the Democratic and Republican conventions. Olbermann, who regularly assails President Bush and GOP nominee John McCain on his "Countdown" program, was effusive in praising the acceptance speech of Democratic nominee Barack Obama. He drew flak Thursday when the Republicans played a video that included a tribute to the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that if the networks had done that, "we would be rightly eviscerated at all quarters, perhaps by the Republican Party itself, for exploiting the memories of the dead, and perhaps even for trying to evoke that pain again. If you reacted to that videotape the way I did, I apologize."

Matthews, who has criticized politicians in both parties, drew less criticism for his convention role but became a divisive figure during the primaries when he described how he was inspired by Obama's speeches and made disparaging remarks about Hillary Clinton, for which he later apologized.

In May, MSNBC President Phil Griffin said in an interview that during live events Olbermann and Matthews "put on different hats. I think the audience gets it. . . . I see zero problem."

But NBC News journalists, who often appear on the cable channel, did see a problem, arguing behind the scenes that MSNBC's move to the left -- which includes a new show, debuting tonight, for Air America radio host Rachel Maddow -- was tarnishing their reputation for fairness. Tom Brokaw, the interim host of "Meet the Press," said that at times Olbermann and Matthews went too far.

Olbermann and Matthews will remain as analysts during major political events, and officials at both networks, who declined to be identified discussing personnel moves, said Olbermann had initiated the discussions to clarify his role. They said Olbermann's influence at MSNBC would in no way be diminished and that the shift would enable him and Matthews to offer more candid analysis during live coverage. Olbermann confirmed yesterday he had initiated the discussions.

"Phil and I have debated this set-up since late winter/early spring (with me saying, 'Are you sure this flies?' and him saying, 'Yes, but let's judge it event by event') and I think we both reached the same point during the RNC," Olbermann said by e-mail.

Olbermann was involved in several on-air incidents during the conventions that drew unwanted attention. He told morning host Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, to "get a shovel" as Scarborough was defending the McCain campaign. And when GOP strategist Mike Murphy was debating Matthews, Olbermann could be heard saying, "Let's wrap him up."

These and other clashes fueled a sense that conservative voices are less than welcome at MSNBC as it has tried to position itself as a left-wing alternative to Fox News Channel. Olbermann disputes this view, calling the incidents "overblown." Still, the network canceled Tucker Carlson's show in March and has diminished his role. And Dan Abrams, the veteran NBC legal analyst and former MSNBC general manager, had his program dropped last month to make room for Maddow, an Olbermann protege.

MSNBC's more liberal outlook has boosted its ratings, though it remains the third-place cable news channel. But both parties began castigating its coverage last spring. Steve Schmidt, McCain's top strategist, called the network "an organ of the Democratic National Committee," and Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said Matthews was "in the tank" for Obama.

 

I personally liked their point of view as an alternative to Fox News. Sometimes the garbage fox puts in their "news" is just outright propaganda. Sometimes they quote word for word Republican talking points, such as the Palin expierience issue. Did anybody ever see this video? It just makes me wish sometimes there really were a "liberal" media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No..it's ratings are much, much lower - but I hear you...I think MSNBC took the high-ground here, and Fox is guilty of not going that direction. H.

Edited by hylanddd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MSNBC is not Fox.

 

Youre right, its much worse. Putting Olbermann on as a host is essentially the same as if fox had made o'reilly a host for its coverage. Look it up, fox has never done that. Look through that idiot olbermanns comments as an "objective host" and its pretty damn clear that he did nothing but yell the democrats talking points at the top of his lungs for a few weeks.

 

And retired, do me a favor, shut up about maddow. Shes the San Francisco elite that a vast majority of the country hates, and thats why her show, much like the show she had on Air America, will fail.

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Youre right, its much worse. Putting Olbermann on as a host is essentially the same as if fox had made o'reilly a host for its coverage. Look it up, fox has never done that. Look through that idiot olbermanns comments as an "objective host" and its pretty damn clear that he did nothing but yell the democrats talking points at the top of his lungs for a few weeks.

 

And retired, do me a favor, shut up about maddow. Shes the San Francisco elite that a vast majority of the country hates, and thats why her show, much like the show she had on Air America, will fail.

 

rachel maddow pwns you and your talking points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And retired, do me a favor, shut up about maddow. Shes the San Francisco elite that a vast majority of the country hates, and thats why her show, much like the show she had on Air America, will fail.

 

She still has the Air America show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rachel Maddow is on a low-rated, finacial disaster of a network which wishes it had 1/10 of Limbaugh's audience...YAWNNNNN...I give her...IDK...a few months, before MSNBC dumps her show for lack of ratings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Youre right, its much worse. Putting Olbermann on as a host is essentially the same as if fox had made o'reilly a host for its coverage. Look it up, fox has never done that. Look through that idiot olbermanns comments as an "objective host" and its pretty damn clear that he did nothing but yell the democrats talking points at the top of his lungs for a few weeks.

 

To me, the difference is that Olberman is not holding himself out as objective. He doesn't make any bones about the fact that he's in the tank for the Dems.

 

I haven't watched enough Fox News to know, but my "gut" feeling tells me that they purport to be objective.

 

The other difference between the two, based on my limited experience watching Fox, is that Olberman will let a conservative answer a question.

 

You might disagree with Olberman, but he's not an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rachel Maddow is on a low-rated, finacial disaster of a network which wishes it had 1/10 of Limbaugh's audience...YAWNNNNN...I give her...IDK...a few months, before MSNBC dumps her show for lack of ratings.

 

You really like that YAWWNN thing, don't you?

 

Just because the majority of Americans like something, doesn't make it good. Have you watched much primetime TV lately?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just because the majority of Americans like something, doesn't make it good. Have you watched much primetime TV lately?

 

Or listened to Obama for that matter.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Putting Olbermann on as a host is essentially the same as if fox had made o'reilly a host for its coverage. Look it up, fox has never done that.
O'Reilly may not have hosted Fox political coverage, but Sean Hannity has. Your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are any of you actually stupid enough to expect journalism on American TV? I thought debaters were smarter than that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And retired, do me a favor, shut up about maddow. Shes the San Francisco elite that a vast majority of the country hates

 

Man, Gallup and Zogby did "Do you hate Rachel Maddow" polls? Must have missed those. Why do you care if Retired is excited about her show?

 

Additionally, FOX immediately trotted out Karl Rove to talk about the DNC. Real objective viewpoint there. But covering a political convention isn't like traditionally reporting the news. You can't give unbiased reporting on a speech in the way you can say "30 people were killed by a car bomb in Iraq today." When you find a way of analyzing political speeches "objectively," let me know.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. You can't give unbiased reporting on a speech in the way you can say "30 people were killed by a car bomb in Iraq today." .

 

Katie Couric always manages to look like shes supressing a smile when she says tragic shit like that. I dont know if its because shes glad theres something to talk about or because shes had a lot of botox, its just unsettling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brit Hume is the host for fox news, not hannity and not rove, the fact that they are on the show is different from hosting. Olbermann and Matthews will still be a part of political coverage for MSNBC, in roughly the same capacity as rove and hannity are for fox.

 

And birdwing, in the article it says Olbermann and Matthews apparently "put on different hats" which would seem to mean they were masquerading as objective hosts while being as partisan as they could be on the air.

 

Anyhow, I wish MSNBC left them on the air, nothing fires up the conservative base more than the extreme left media showing its true colors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyhow, I wish MSNBC left them on the air, nothing fires up the conservative base more than the extreme left media showing its true colors. (emphasis added)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

 

I wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And birdwing, in the article it says Olbermann and Matthews apparently "put on different hats" which would seem to mean they were masquerading as objective hosts while being as partisan as they could be on the air.

 

I guess you can interpret language however you want. MSNBC was my station of choice for watching the conventions. It was always clear to me that they were partisan. I don't think they made any pretense of being objective.

 

Did you watch any of the convention on MSNBC? If so, were you confused into thinking Olberman was an objective reporter?

Edited by birdwing7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is considered "liberal media" is something that says, for example, that the Iraq war is being mismanaged or was a mistake in terms of our larger hegemonic goals. An actual "leftist media" might make the claim that the US does not have the right to invade sovereign nations at all. From what I have seen, no mainstream station has adopted (formally or informally) that viewpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is considered "liberal media" is something that says, for example, that the Iraq war is being mismanaged or was a mistake in terms of our larger hegemonic goals. An actual "leftist media" might make the claim that the US does not have the right to invade sovereign nations at all. From what I have seen, no mainstream station has adopted (formally or informally) that viewpoint.

 

True enough. It's important to make that distinction.

 

I mean, anytime the media in some way criticizes the republican party, they are called out for being "liberal" or "biased." And what is McCain/Palin's response? They blackmail the media into giving them interviews about their talking points which they can cancel if they're asked any hard questions. Sometimes I don't look at it as bias so much as straightforward journalism. Remember, this is the same media that reported on Obama's former pastor for like 2 months or even his clothing to make sure wither or not he was wearing a flag pin. Anyways, I guess I'm just sick of hearing the word "liberal" being used as a negative adjective. I mean wasn't this country founded by "liberals." Last time I checked, "liberal" meant being favorable to progress, change, or freedom. Since when did these things become unfavorable or out of fashion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i stopped paying attention to rachel maddow when, during the height of bitter-gate, she argued that it would actually help obama win pennsylvania. joe scarborough (sp?) actually laughed at her, and joked that she shouldnt speak for blue collar voters she knows nothing about.

 

i love chris matthews. i dont love talking points, conservative or liberal. i get conservative talking points when i listen to hannity, i get liberal ones when i listen to maddow. it doesnt matter to me if i think either one is right, i could just read press releases from the campaigns if i wanted to.

 

for me, this is getting hard. i dont like watching fox because the conservatism is so blatant its embarassing. cnn is boring as all hell, they will have people from both sides just give talking points with someone like cooper or blitzer being moderators with no personality. i always liked watching Tucker Carlson and Chris Matthews on msnbc because they would be themselves on tv. even if i disagreed they seemed to enjoy their job they at least had a mind of their own. yes, keith and rachel have a mind of their own, but more often than not it is straight down the ideological line. i just dont have time for that.

 

keith was good on sportscenter though. i dont know what to watch really anymore. david gregory doesnt do anything for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i stopped paying attention to rachel maddow when, during the height of bitter-gate, she argued that it would actually help obama win pennsylvania. joe scarborough (sp?) actually laughed at her, and joked that she shouldnt speak for blue collar voters she knows nothing about.

 

i love chris matthews. i dont love talking points

 

 

scratches head...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

while chris matthews is undoubtedly a democrat, he loves politics more than anything else. when he is on his show, i can never pick up any type of agenda that he has. he has so much fun on his show because he simply reacts to what is going on and what the people on his show are saying. and he is smart enough politically that he can call out people who are simply spouting off talking points.

 

with rachel and keith, however, i feel like they are much more interested in pushing through a liberal agenda, seeing things through that prism, than they are in cold political analysis. i want pundits to give unbiased political analysis. i am not interested in listening to a liberal say how it helps obama, or a conservative say how it helps mccain. that doesnt get me anywhere.

 

ill give an example. that hopefully will help you stop scratching your head. if not, you can give me a real response and we can have a discussion. It comes out that McCain is putting Palin on the ticket. Keith, Rachel, all of them on msnbc say its a disaster. and they spend the whole RNC talking about how she isnt experienced, troopergate, etc. They just assumed that mccain's campaign was done. Chris Matthews on the other hand, while saying all those things, also gave her a bit more credit and said several times that America loves rookies. Well, here we are and McCain has got a huge boost from palin.

 

so, maybe we just look for different things. i am secure enough in my own political beliefs that i dont need Keith or Rachel or Sean Hannity spinning every piece of news for me. I am interested in who is going to win the election in november. Chris helps, the others dont.

 

and my political beliefs line up with yours pretty well, if i am simply judging by our posts in my memory

Edited by davidzavac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...