Olberman and Matthews no longer anchoring NBC's election coverage

Printable View

September 8th, 2008, 08:32 PM
leira

Olberman and Matthews no longer anchoring NBC's election coverage

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/bu...gewanted=print

I, for one, am glad this happened. I'm a pretty liberal person, but there's no way I can support their level of bias. The duty of the news media is to report in an unbiased fashion, particularly when it comes to matters of government. There's no way those two names and "news" should have ever been put in the same sentence. This is a great first step. The next step is to get them off the "news" network, along with the rest of their like from both ends of the political spectrum. Political commentary isn't news, and shouldn't be treated as such.
September 8th, 2008, 08:43 PM
Aristotle

Olberman is an absolute atrocity. He is a mirror image to Michael Savage. Facts are irrelevant. They are just vitriolic, hateful, pieces of crap who should not have a job anywhere on any kind of mass media network. They both also happen to be mind numbingly stupid. Their reasoning power is just embarrassingly shallow and weak.

Chris Matthews is someone I used to really enjoy. For 5 or so years I watched Hardball at least 3 or 4 nights a week. I loved his show. I loved his format. I loved his guests. I even bought a few of his books.

I always knew he leaned left, because of his work experience mainly (Jimmy Carter, Tip O'Neill, etc.). But that was no problem for me at all. He still did his job objectively, while occasionally adding his own viewpoint - but never in an overbearing or "jammed down your throat" way.

Then the Iraq War happened, and he snapped. He completely lost his objectivity. I tried to watch him, but I couldn't.

It is sad to me to hear that he has continued in this direction, and now even NBC has had to own up to it and make a change. This is a positive move, but it is evidence of the really sad direction mass media news has gone.
September 9th, 2008, 01:39 PM
kestra

Quote:

Olberman is an absolute atrocity. He is a mirror image to Michael Savage. Facts are irrelevant. They are just vitriolic, hateful, pieces of crap who should not have a job anywhere on any kind of mass media network.

I disagree. Olbermann (with 2 n's, not one) was one of the few who stood up to the Bush Administration while all the other network hosts were locked-stepped in supporting the invasion of Iraq. He routinely holds Bush accountable to words and actions in his Countdown program, while most other news programs sucked on the administration's proverbial teet.

Keith Olbermann certainly isn't perfect, and he has allowed his emotions to cloud his journalistic integrity. Given the alternative choices in the media today, I'd take him over most other news show hosts in a heartbeat.
September 9th, 2008, 04:19 PM
Aristotle

Quote:

Originally posted by kestra
I disagree. Olbermann (with 2 n's, not one) was one of the few who stood up to the Bush Administration while all the other network hosts were locked-stepped in supporting the invasion of Iraq.

I'm so shocked!

He did something you like, so the fact that he is a hate spewing troll who lies and doesn't care about facts is forgiven.

Funny how the only people he "holds accountable" are conservatives. Great journalism!

You certainly are predictable, Kestra.
September 9th, 2008, 04:49 PM
Jyn

Quote:

Originally posted by kestra
I disagree. Olbermann (with 2 n's, not one) was one of the few who stood up to the Bush Administration while all the other network hosts were locked-stepped in supporting the invasion of Iraq. He routinely holds Bush accountable to words and actions in his Countdown program, while most other news programs sucked on the administration's proverbial teet.

Keith Olbermann certainly isn't perfect, and he has allowed his emotions to cloud his journalistic integrity. Given the alternative choices in the media today, I'd take him over most other news show hosts in a heartbeat.

You've pretty much just admitted that you prefer to have biased news fed to you. Man, I don't see the point in complaining about the media being biased and trying to influence opinions when there are people who are so quick and willing to brainwash themselves and do the job for them.
September 9th, 2008, 07:24 PM
kestra

Quote:

He did something you like, so the fact that he is a hate spewing troll who lies and doesn't care about facts is forgiven

I didn't like his attitude at the RNC, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. Please provide context and reference to Olbermann lies.

Quote:

You've pretty much just admitted that you prefer to have biased news fed to you.

Please provide a source that is proven to be unbiased and I'll check it out.
September 9th, 2008, 07:49 PM
Malacasta

I think it’s problematic that people are weighing in against Olbermann and Matthews for being biased in favour of the Obama campaign without acknowledging that Foxnews is more deeply biased against the Democrats with basically every program it runs (‘Hannity and Colmes’, ‘Fox n Friends’, Grapevine, Cavuto, that comedy show, and even 'On the Record') and pushes lies and half truths such as Palin’s opposition to the ‘bridge to nowhere’, and ‘earmarks’ that are sympathetic to the GOP while keeping alive outright lies such as ‘Obama has not authored a single piece of legislation’, ‘Obama is a Muslim’ (not that there should be anything wrong with that even if he were) or likening Obama’s name to bin Laden’s on the chryon etc. (And before I’m accused of repeating talking points found on MoveOn, these are things I’ve seen myself by being a regular FoxNews viewer).
People will have seen that Daily Show clip showing Foxnews analysts and commentators Rove, O’Reilly and Morris totally contradicting themselves over experience, teen pregnancies and sexism if it suited the GOP’s interests. Stewart did a pretty funny job, but the issue is serious because this is constant and loud on foxnews, and it really IS doing a disservice to Americans (and for what it’s worth, foreigners) who watch the network.
To my eyes, there is no contextual difference between Foxnews and MSNBC; they’re both cable channels, they both editorialise their news programs, I know that Foxnews broadcasts almost totally a GOP bias, I don’t really know how much MSNBC broadcasts its Dem bias since I don’t get it on cable, but its Foxnews critics slam Olbermann all the time, Tweety sometimes and they’ve already started slamming that ‘lesbian’ Maddow (no sexism there!). Maybe there are other vocal Dem supporters on MSNBC, but I just don’t get the impression that it’s as complete a package as is Foxnews.
In any case, Olbermann and Maddow (her show is brand new, so it might not be important) get massive audiences as do the prime time Foxnews shows. There is a market for the dishonesty, snark and nastiness that these biased programs sell. TV audiences are much more interested in gossip and gotchas than they are serious analysis. I think it’s really bad politically for a whole gamut of reasons. I do think though, that some of the stuff the GOP campaign is pushing this election can be loudly condemned without the condemners being labelled as biased.
September 9th, 2008, 08:22 PM
Aristotle

Quote:

Originally posted by Malacasta
I think it’s problematic that people are weighing in against Olbermann and Matthews for being biased in favour of the Obama campaign without acknowledging that Foxnews is more deeply biased against the Democrats with basically every program it runs

Well, I rarely watch any of those networks anymore, so I think I can comment somewhat objectively.

According to the article, they had Olbermann and Mathews doing "straight news." That's a problem since they are clearly commentators and were behaving as such.

All those Fox News shows you mentioned are not straight news programs. They are explicitly commentary. Yes, Fox News channel is like 80% commentary. They aren't hiding that. I think the only straight news guy they have on Fox News is that Brit Hume guy. He's so boring I doubt there is a bias problem there.

Further, you already have ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, The New York Times, NPR (paid for with tax dollars), MSNBC, the LA Times, and almost every other major newspaper heavily leaning left. So the fact that Fox News leans right is kinda spitting in the wind. That, in addition to the fact that they admit 80% of their shows are commentary is what makes for a pretty significant difference.

To make a comparison... I don't care about the crazy ramblings of Maureen Dowd on the editorial page of the New York Times. What disgusts me about the NYT is the fact that they also editorialize on the front page, and pretend it is objective news.

That said...... I can't tolerate Fox News either any longer, because the partisan garbage there annoys me as much as it does on the 1000000000000 leftist media spew houses.

Basically, I don't trust a single person reporting on the news from any organization. They are totally crooked and corrupt, they only care about profits, and they are no longer a "4th branch of government." I guess this makes sense, as the other 3 branches of government are corrupt and worthless now as well.
September 9th, 2008, 08:46 PM
Malacasta

Quote:

Originally posted by Aristotle Well, I rarely watch any of those networks anymore, so I think I can comment somewhat objectively.

I don’t know why this is the case. Having not witnessed something first hand means that you are relying on reporters (who you later dismiss as crooked and corrupt) to inform you of the issue.

Quote:

According to the article, they had Olbermann and Mathews doing "straight news." That's a problem since they are clearly commentators and were behaving as such. All those Fox News shows you mentioned are not straight news programs. They are explicitly commentary. Yes, Fox News channel is like 80% commentary.

I agree that it’s a problem that ‘straight news’ people editorialize, but I also think it’s a problem that so many people get their information from Foxnews as a ‘fair and balanced’ source which informs them and helps shape their worldviews. It would be interesting to see what percentage of the FoxNews audience watched the channel with the understanding that it was 80% commentary and thus untrustworthy in a objective sense, and what percentage watched it to get their news, and what difference that actually made to their views on the world.

Quote:

They aren't hiding that. I think the only straight news guy they have on Fox News is that Brit Hume guy. He's so boring I doubt there is a bias problem there.

Brit Hume has a segment called “the grapevine” which is where he spreads gossip (normally already debunked). It’s pretty vitriolic actually, but spoken with gravitas (which is probably why you thought he was a straight commentator).

Quote:

Further, you already have ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, The New York Times, NPR (paid for with tax dollars), MSNBC, the LA Times, and almost every other major newspaper heavily leaning left.

In what way do they regularly demonstrate this on their news broadcasts? As I’ve said before, the NYT disgraced itself during the lead up to the Iraq war by spreading the inventions of a corrupt Iraqi expat in support of the war. This was front page news and helped to bolster the pro-war argument. So one of the most glaring examples of bias in the NYT was actually in favour of the GOP’s Whitehouse.

Quote:

So the fact that Fox News leans right is kinda spitting in the wind.

Except that talk radio leans significantly to the right.

Quote:

That said...... I can't tolerate Fox News either any longer, because the partisan garbage there annoys me as much as it does on the 1000000000000 leftist media spew houses.

I don’t think your hyperbole helps your argument here, and makes me resent that I largely agree with your concluding sentence.

Quote:

Basically, I don't trust a single person reporting on the news from any organization. They are totally crooked and corrupt, they only care about profits, and they are no longer a "4th branch of government." I guess this makes sense, as the other 3 branches of government are corrupt and worthless now as well.
September 9th, 2008, 10:20 PM
Aristotle

Quote:

Originally posted by Malacasta
I don’t know why this is the case. Having not witnessed something first hand means that you are relying on reporters (who you later dismiss as crooked and corrupt) to inform you of the issue.

I didn't say I never watch them. I watched them voraciously for about 20 years, but of late I can only occasionally force myself to watch them. The objective part comes in where I think they are all corrupt. They are all disgusting, biased, hateful, and care only about making money rather than delivering news or challenging The Powers The Be.

Quote:

Originally posted by Malacasta

but I also think it’s a problem that so many people get their information from Foxnews as a ‘fair and balanced’ source

Honestly, I put the blame for that on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, New York Times, etc. They had about 50 years where they were the only game in town. They got progressively more and more biased. Eventually people got so fed up that Fox News came along. But more people still get their news from the networks, CNN, and the liberal newspapers of the US. So the recent success of Fox News is not that significant in the big picture.

Everything I hate about Fox News is about 33% Fox News' fault, and 66% the fault of the main stream media for "creating" the angry spawning pool that eventually birthed Fox News. And frankly, as bad as Fox News is, I'd rather watch it than watch CNN. They all blur the lines, but Fox News is a lot clearer about what is commentary and what is news. And CNN also throws in some classic elitism in the form of "The USA sucks, Europe is soooooo much better, smarter, wiser, and elightened." No thanks.

I think it is a problem that people get their news from ANY commercial news operation. Or heck, even non-commercial ones. NPR is flamingly liberal, and conservatives are forced to pay for it with tax dollars.

Quote:

Originally posted by Malacasta

In what way do they regularly demonstrate this on their news broadcasts?

Hahahaha seriously? You are seriously asking this? Wait, maybe you are seriously asking this. Sorry (sincerely). Maybe you're asking this because you aren't an American and just don't know. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there. Start with Bias, by Bernie Goldberg. He is a lifelong democrat and main stream media reporter that eventually got fed up and blew the whistle. He was then ostracized for having the temerity to tell the truth.

Before Chris Mathews went off the deep end because of the Iraq War, he used to criticize his main stream media colleagues for their massive left wing bias and their continued insistence on labeling every conservative "stupid."

I could go on, but I don't think it is necessary. The left leaning bias of the major networks, CNN, and most American newspapers is one of those things that has been proven so far beyond a doubt that arguing it is like arguing 2+2 = 4.

Quote:

Originally posted by Malacasta

Except that talk radio leans significantly to the right.

Another drop in the bucket compared to the networks and the major newspapers of the US. But at least conservatives are willing to admit talk radio leans right. Many (if not most) lefties in the US still try to argue the major networks and the New York Times don't lean left.

Quote:

Originally posted by Malacasta

I don’t think your hyperbole helps your argument here, and makes me resent that I largely agree with your concluding sentence.

Sorry. 1000 newspapers? Does that make you feel better? It is seriously somewhere around 1000.

Newspapers, academia, and the television networks are massively dominated by the left, and they let their bias show on a daily and nightly basis. Fox News and Talk Radio is all you get on the other side. Fox News you have to pay for, and talk radio is de minimis compared to the networks and newspapers.

What does it make me when I think every single elected official and every single "journalist" (*cough*) should be sacked and replaced - possibly by absolutely anyone chosen at random? Am I an anarchist now? Is this what it has come to?

*sigh*
November 7th, 2008, 12:59 PM
leira

This clip reminded me of this thread.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=214673

Apparently it's Chris Matthews job to make the Obama presidency work.
November 7th, 2008, 01:54 PM
Aristotle

Gah. :(