Support NeoGAF

[Raistlin]

Bill O'reilly claims to be an independent though who doesn't spin...

Your point? I don't see him getting election coverage.

 

[Kusagari]

Bill O'Reilly's better than Hannity. There should be a law against letting Hannity speak on television. All he does these days is turn any conversation into AYERS AND WRIGHT!

 

[Gaborn]

Bill O'Reilly's better than Hannity. There should be a law against letting Hannity speak on television. All he does these days is turn any conversation into AYERS AND WRIGHT!

Amazing how quick some people are to jump towards the authoritarian solution

Spoiler

that's a joke

 

[Weapxn]

Keith is not leaving MSNBC. His 8 PM political show (the highest watched non-fox news poltical show period) is remaining.

And he is contracted through 2013 at this point. He is very much the star of the network still.

neither are gone. wtf does anyone read anymore these days?

Keith and Chris's show remain they just wont anchor election nights/debates/conventions

Cheebs is my hero.

I do not particularly like Olbeerlelrmananmelrman, but at times I find him humorous. I would hate for him to disappear. Especially because he too hates Bill O'Reilly.

 

[LCGeek]

Bill O'Reilly's better than Hannity. There should be a law against letting Hannity speak on television. All he does these days is turn any conversation into AYERS AND WRIGHT!

Rather than a law against hannity, maybe you shoud be asking for a law against BS period on the networks either total dishonesty or spin in it's many forms. Wait a minute that won't happen as the entire media structure that helps keep the country divided would go out of business if they weren't allowed to stir the pot for the sake of profit or ratings.

 

[Mahadev]

UPDATE: There's one other point really worth making here. Throughout the primary season, Clinton supporters were furious at what they endlessly complained was MSBNC's biased coverage in favor of Obama and, more so, its intensely hostile coverage of Hillary Clinton. Whatever one's views on the primary war were, there is no question that Olbermann and Matthews in particular were extremely hostile to Clinton and supportive of Obama. But MSNBC executives ignored those complaints, even derided and mocked them, with MSNBC executive Phil belittling angry Clinton supporters in The New Yorker as nothing more than abused, disillusioned girlfriends with nowhere else to go:
...

And this is why american politics/journalism are fucking pathetic and democrats are still pussies (this is coming someone who likes democrats). You have an entire network like Fox that only spreads lies and propaganda and you MSNBC with Olbermann and Mathews that although biased support their opinion with numbers and facts.

Fox has been spreading lies and smear for years ignoring severe criticism from the democrats. MSNBC backs down and removes two of their most known journalists from the election coverage because the republicans started bitching about "LIBRUL MEDIA" even though the channel has been ignoring for months cries of bias from the Clinton campaign.

 

[Raistlin]

Fox has been spreading lies and smear for years ignoring severe criticism from the democrats. MSNBC backs down and removes two of their most known journalists from the election coverage because the republicans started bitching about "LIBRUL MEDIA" even though the channel has been ignoring for months cries of bias from the Clinton campaign.

They aren't journalists.

 

[Mahadev]

They aren't journalists.

Oh please don't start with terminology because we'll start arguing and we'll end up realizing that the only real journalists in USA are the Daily Show writers.

 

[Raistlin]

Oh please don't start with terminology because we'll start arguing and we'll end up realizing that the only real journalists in USA are the Daily Show writers.

There's really nothing to argue about. Sure, everyone has bias, that's not the point.

They normally host shows that are actually meant to pick a side (analyze), and people are obviously fine with them in their role when you look at the ratings.

For coverage of these events however, people don't that sort of thing ... they want straight journalism. There's nothing wrong with using analysts for such an event, IF they show the appropriate restraint.


In this case, they basically discussed things just like they were on their shows.

 

[PantherLotus]

I'm as elitist of a liberal as they come, and Olberman's dramatic hysterics were a bit much for me to ever sit through an entire show of his. Matthews, on the other hand, I had pegged as the successor on Meet the Press. Clearly I was wrong, as Matthew's slack-jawed adoration of Obama during the event became clear.

I'm disappointed, but pleased MSNBC will be moving in a postive and more neutral arena. It doesn't help to fight FOX with the opposite. Only the (unbiased) truth will set us free.

 

[Mahadev]

There's really nothing to argue about. Sure, everyone has bias, that's not the point.

They normally host shows that are actually meant to pick a side (analyze), and people are obviously fine with them in their role when you look at the ratings.

For coverage of these events however, people don't that sort of thing ... they want straight journalism. There's nothing wrong with using analysts for such an event, IF they show the appropriate restraint.


In this case, they basically discussed things just like they were on their shows.

My point is there are no real political journalists in this country. There are all a bunch of network drones who make fake discussions based on points that were fed to them in the spin rooms from each party. They're hacks, all of them. At least Olbermann and especially Mathews had the balls to go off the "script" and make very good points or fact checking unlike most of their colleagues. So if you get to call the other hacks political journalists I can definately call Mathews or Olbermann one.

Btw according to your definition noone at Fox is a journalist.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

O'Reilly sucks, but I loved the shit out of him that day Tony Snow was on and O'Reilly grilled him about what it meant to win the Iraq war and how it's not winnable.

Olbermann is corny a lot of the time, but like others have said in here, it's one thing to be on Fox News and spreading lies and not sourcing anything you say, and it's another to be like Olbermann and to source and quote nearly everything he talks about. The whole argument for balance in reporting is fucking stupid, because the real problem people have with Fox News and journalism in general these days is a lack of research, not that a talking head might say something that isn't totally respectful and pandering to every person watching. Fuck that cheesy bullshit.

Olbermann ruled the television the days he ranted on Bush saying he's giving up golfing to support the dead troops, Clinton talking shit about Obama while at the same time telling him not to talk shit about her, and when he rightfully called out the RNC for using dead people from 9/11 to pander to voters.

 

[Zeliard]

I'm as elitist of a liberal as they come, and Olberman's dramatic hysterics were a bit much for me to ever sit through an entire show of his. Matthews, on the other hand, I had pegged as the successor on Meet the Press. Clearly I was wrong, as Matthew's slack-jawed adoration of Obama during the event became clear.

Tim Russert also didn't try very hard to hide his fondness for Obama. He actually mentioned at one point that it was very difficult for him to remain objective when it comes to Obama because he genuinely liked him a lot.

 

[dead souls]

Your point? I don't see him getting election coverage.

Yeah Fox News gives their election coverage to Brit Hume, a completely unbiased voice, as Greenwald notes in his piece quoted earlier in this thread.

Liberal media, I wish.

 

[Cheebs]

Tim Russert also didn't try very hard to hide his fondness for Obama. He actually mentioned at one point that it was very difficult for him to remain objective when it comes to Obama because he genuinely liked him a lot.

Russert of course loved him. Russert used to work for Democrats like the Gov. of NY before NBC hired him

 

[Raistlin]

My point is there are no real political journalists in this country. There are all a bunch of network drones who make fake discussions based on points that were fed to them in the spin rooms from each party. They're hacks, all of them. At least Olbermann and especially Mathews had the balls to go off the "script" and make very good points or fact checking unlike most of their colleagues. So if you get to call the other hacks political journalists I can definately call Mathews or Olbermann one.

Btw according to your definition noone at Fox is a journalist.

And my point is that that doesn't matter. People want them to just STFU during these types of coverage.

 

[Kittonwy]

Story Here

Saw that on yahoo. Good job NBC, good job.

 

[APF]

Good call, but the real absurdity is that it's not like they're restructuring to have a more metered and objective team of political analysts for these events, they're just reshuffling the cast's roles because some veteran journalists are rightly concerned their own reputations are being tarnished by an obvious editorial shift to the left. As Olbermann said, there's a surreal quality to the idea that it would be ok for him to do his shtick if only he was wearing a different "hat," but that's cable news for you.

 

[Lelielle]

Rather than a law against hannity, maybe you shoud be asking for a law against BS period on the networks either total dishonesty or spin in it's many forms. Wait a minute that won't happen as the entire media structure that helps keep the country divided would go out of business if they weren't allowed to stir the pot for the sake of profit or ratings.

Yup, If you want to hear informed,intelligent, constructive criticism stay far far away from the MSM. Thank god for Stewart and Colbert, you know your MSM is in a pretty sad state when the only people cutting through the piles of BS in the news are on a comedy show....

 

[Cloudy]

Olberman might be biased but he doesn't make shit up to further an agenda like O'Reilly and Hannity

Matthews is a straight shooter and he calls BS wherever he sees it. Unfortunately the GOP is full of crap..

 

[Ninja Scooter]

it was a little embarrassing during the DNC. Matthews came off like he literally would have blown Obama right then and there if given the chance.

 

[Tim-E]

it was a little embarrassing during the DNC. Matthews came off like he literally would have blown Obama right then and there if given the chance.

I know I would have.

 

[laserbeam]

Olberman might be biased but he doesn't make shit up to further an agenda like O'Reilly and Hannity

Matthews is a straight shooter and he calls BS wherever he sees it. Unfortunately the GOP is full of crap..

Your missing the point. Their TV shows they can be as crazy Obama maniacs as they want thats the purpose of their show.

Anchoring the Conventions etc they are expected to be neutral. They failed that horribly.

As the article says

"The assignment was akin to having the Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly anchor on election night — something that has never happened — MSNBC insisted that Mr. Olbermann knew the difference between news and commentary. "

 

[bafflewaffle]

From what I saw of Olberman's comments about the 9-11 video, I thought he was speaking more as a resident of NYC who was personally affected by those events rather than as a "left-wing blowhard". But he really shouldnt have interrupted the RNC to comment, and saved it for his show or something.

 

[scorcho]

i'll step back from Greenwald's criticism to note that ratings still trump ideological bickering, and MSNBC's performance during both conventions was the lowest to CNN and FOX. Olbermann still has a gargantuan contract at the network that isn't likely to end any time soon, with Maddow's show following.

 

[Miroku]

Your point? I don't see him getting election coverage.

I guess you didnt watch any Fox news when the DNC was on then.

oReilly "Thats nancy pelosi, bloviating in the background..."

 

[speculawyer]

Bill O'Reilly's better than Hannity. There should be a law against letting Hannity speak on television. All he does these days is turn any conversation into AYERS AND WRIGHT!

It's is hard to pick which is worse, but I think you have a good point. O'Reilly is clearly a reactionary blow-hard but Hannity is just plain stupid. He's got a real limited set of material.

 

[Odrion]

I'm as elitist of a liberal as they come, and Olberman's dramatic hysterics were a bit much for me to ever sit through an entire show of his. Matthews, on the other hand, I had pegged as the successor on Meet the Press. Clearly I was wrong, as Matthew's slack-jawed adoration of Obama during the event became clear.

I'm disappointed, but pleased MSNBC will be moving in a postive and more neutral arena. It doesn't help to fight FOX with the opposite. Only the (unbiased) truth will set us free.

This isn't seen as "moving towards the center" as it is "buckling down to the conservative narrative."

 

[Steve Youngblood]

"The assignment was akin to having the Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly anchor on election night — something that has never happened — MSNBC insisted that Mr. Olbermann knew the difference between news and commentary. "

You know, the thing is that personally I wouldn't care if they had O'Reilly anchoring the coverage. The fact of the matter is that, though I might lash out and Fox from time to time over what I deem to be distortions of the truth to pander to the right, I understand that they do lean to the right and are entitled to do so.

My point with that is to say that I don't mind independents criticizing MSNBC for biased coverage if they really were tuning in under the expectation that they were going to get straight news with no editorial slant, but I will completely disregard any critiques from the right. After all, the right has already written off MSNBC for their liberal slant, so I don't see why it would be unfair for a network that they've already derided for a liberal bias actually followed through with a liberal bias.

 

[Juice]

This is probably a good move from an integrity/journalism stand point, but the opposite of a good move from an entertainment standpoint. Election night is going to be boring as hell if it's David Gregory, Chuck Todd, and a panel. I'd rather just have Chuck Todd in a basement with a white board if those are my options.

It isn't like Fox News removes all the opinionated people from its news shows. There's no perceivable difference. They started it when they started having Hannity of all people start covering events, and he's not a journalist at all!

 

[Zeliard]

It's is hard to pick which is worse, but I think you have a good point. O'Reilly is clearly a reactionary blow-hard but Hannity is just plain stupid. He's got a real limited set of material.

I think Hannity is worse, because the guy is simply a lot more hateful (along with being very stupid). O'Reilly isn't exactly a nice guy but he's had good things to say about Obama, for example. Think Hannity could ever bring himself to mutter or write a single decent thing about the guy?

Having said that, I'm not at all saying O'Reilly's a good person or anything. Compared to Hannity, though, everyone is saintly. Except Ann Coulter.

 

[Blackhead]

i'll step back from Greenwald's criticism to note that ratings still trump ideological bickering, and MSNBC's performance during both conventions was the lowest to CNN and FOX. Olbermann still has a gargantuan contract at the network that isn't likely to end any time soon, with Maddow's show following.

you read the article (and Mahadev too).

Well first, I disagree that "ratings trump ideological bickering." As Greenwald pointed out, they have canceled their highest rated show because of ideology before. They canceled Phil Donahue's show in the run up to the Iraq purely because they didn't like his inclusion of anti-war voices, even though his was the highest rated show at the time. So I'm not sure why you'd think "ratings still trump ideology" when it's unlikely it ever did.

Second, in this particular case I think ideology does trump ratings as well. Your argument is that the demotion from anchor to pundit is because MSNBC's ratings for that were low. But all the actors have clearly said that isn't the reason for the decision. In the NYT and Washington Post articles, all the insiders say the reason is because of complaints from the McCain and Republican camp. And while you might argue that the MSNBC president isn't ideological here, the McCain and Republican complaints are clearly ideological... (the president is 'neutral' haha as he accedes to right wing demands but ignores left wing ones).

 

[Karma Kramer]

People spinning this and saying Fox News is better cause they don't put O'Reilly in as an anchor don't get it.

After the DNC speeches everyone on these boards was laughing and bitching about the amount of spin Fox News was doing. For FUCKS SAKE! BRIT HUME"S FIRST WORDS AFTER OBAMA"S ACCEPTANCE SPEECH WAS... "Well there we have it... Barack Obam... uh... Barack HUSSIEN Obama... accepting the presidency for the Democratic Party."

If you want to take a scale and see which network is more biased with coverage... Fox News outweighs all the other's so called "liberal bias" combined.

Just because one network doesn't call it a duck... doesn't mean its not a duck.