GOP pressure on MSNBC showed in coverage from St. Paul

UPDATE September 8: The GOP landed a huge shot by getting Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews thrown off the anchor desk and replaced by status quo, corporate stooge David Gregory. The left complains a lot about right-wing media bias and nothing gets done. The right whines a little and instant success.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
by Chad Rubel 

Republicans like to think of themselves as strong. Yet the few times they get attacked, they think of themselves as "whiners."

The GOP has attacked NBC News and MSNBC for their "left-wing" take on the race, and how in the pocket Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, among others, are for the Democrats. Well, Hillary Clinton supporters would vehemently disagree about Matthews, and Olbermann's "sin" has been to be tough on people when someone needs to be tough on them. Right now, that is the Republicans.

When Joe Biden and later Barack Obama gave their speeches last week in Denver, the coverage went right to the panel. "What did you think about the speech?" A seemingly logical conclusion to do - need to know right away the first impressions after a speech.

So you figure if MSNBC is so "left-wing," they would do the same thing this week in St. Paul - go right to the analysis. But no, it didn't happen that way.

First we had to go to the convention floor to talk to delegates and gauge their reactions. WTF? Really? Let's ask people who are there who you know will love the speech if they loved the speech. It would be like being at a Dallas Cowboys game and going up to someone in a Dallas Cowboys' hat and asking, "So, do you like the Cowboys?"

If you thought some delegates wouldn't have liked the speech, and you found someone who thought that was true, that would be news. Asking a dog owner if he likes dogs isn't news.

The nauseating display of sucking up to Republicans was depressing in itself. After a considerable period of time after Palin's speech, we finally got to the panel. After two people on the panel spoke, there was breaking news: Rudy Giuliani, who had already spoken earlier in the evening, was with Andrea Mitchell. That is not %$@#ing breaking news: that is more hype. Giuliani, standing next to his third wife, was asked about his own speech and Palin's speech - more free time for Rudy to throw more cheap shots at Barack Obama.

Last night, more of the same: asking Republicans if they loved McCain's speech. Surprise! They all loved it.

The charade would have been equally as poor if MSNBC had done the same thing in Denver. But if they had, then there would be equality.

The impression was that MSNBC felt it had to do this since the panel would trash the speeches, and if they didn't offer "good things" about the speeches, even if the sources were heavily biased, the right-wing would have blasted MSNBC. And that is the wrong reason to make a news judgment.

There is a rule in baseball that if the skies are getting darker, you can't turn on the lights in the middle of an inning. You have to wait until the next inning to turn on the lights, so neither team has an advantage.

Yes, when you are far to the right, everyone else looks left-wing. But MSNBC is trying to balance out the news world a tiny bit. The network of Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough, and David Gregory is still there for the right-wing fans.

The Republicans successfully did this to PBS. Their political team used to be Mark Shields and David Gergen, two centrists with no extreme agenda. Perfect for PBS. Then, the GOP whiners went on the attack. Now, PBS has Shields and Brooks, the right-wing columnist from The New York Times. For the GOP, balance means favoring the right-wing.

MSNBC, along with CNN, needs to do a better job at counterbalancing the far extreme right-wing agenda of FOX "News" Channel. And Republicans need to have a thicker skin when it comes to the media, perhaps a skin like an elephant.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Technorati Tags:

AIN'T IT THE TRUTH!!!

It's sooo funny that MSNBC and NBC have both sucked up over the past 7+ yrs to BUSH, well....mainly CHENEY!! He could call the day before and the next thing......he's on Meet The Press for a whole hour........that's a long time listening to him drone on!!! They seem to have realized that their 8 yrs are almost up so they have started sucking up.....sometimes Matthews makes ya wanna puke with his suck up smirk............ and then comes the Republican convention. they've continued on and probably will thru the end of the week. Then, I think they'll go back to the Dems. I have three born-again friends....don't talk about religion or politics.......however, they have called me to tell me they all think Palin is like Jezebel!!!!! WHAT A HOOT!! I think between McCain and Palin it won't take long....you watch.........he's already squirming because she's getting alot more press ogling over her than he is. Just wait and see..........nauseating to the max!! gizmoe

Rush Planted the Rumor...

I figured there must be some rumble going on. Rush Limbaugh today said that he had an email from "someone he knew" who said that the Code Pink protestors got into the convention with passes given to them by MSNBC.

Then he said that he didn't know for sure if it was true, and HE PROBABLY SHOULDN'T EVEN REPEAT IT, but that's what SOMEONE said.

Judy Woodruff on PBS last week seemed to be scouring the place for a Hilary supporter too pissed to vote for Obama

We no longer have any objective broadcast news in America

We no longer have any objective broadcast news in America and very little unbiased news reporting in print. Aside from the fact that six mega-corporations control all the news we see on TV, hear on radio, or read in newspapers (which are increasingly becoming under the same ownership as the broadcast "news"), they don't even report "news", but rather prepackaged propaganda provided by a small number of public relations "packagers". "Fairness" to the news reporting organizations today doesn't mean discriminating on what will be covered based on truth or validity, but rather equal time and/or equal promotion of what they think the public's perception will be - as we have seen in the coverage of the Republican convention. What was "reported" in the live coverage of the Republican convention was who the candidates were going to be, lots of party and candidate propaganda, and full time coverage of the smears against Obama and Biden without any confrontation, refutation or exposure even in cases when the smears were known by the "reporters" to be falsehoods. Our newsmedia has abdicated the responsibility given it in the First Amendment of the Constitution under which a "free press" gets special protection under the Constitution. We no longer have a "free press". What we have is obvious - a propaganda circus - and that negates the possibility of an informed electorate.

Fairness t PBS

In fairness to PBS, David Gergen left The News Hour to be Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff, because he "didn't want to see a failed Presidency," for which he will have my eternal respect.

Mark Shields is polite to David Brooks, but Brooks is nowhere near his league. But more clueless than ideologue, I think.

But the MSM is starting to buck back at McCain, perhaps out of irritation at his prickly nature, or perhaps the choice of Sarah Barracuda just was more than a sane person could tolerate. Or maybe it is dawning on the corporate execs that our economy is going in the tank, and Republicans offer nothing more than cut taxes and drill. If you are objective enough to have doubts that will work, you will be more attracted to a man with Hope and Vision.

news?

Asking anybody what they think - a pundit or a delegate - isn't news at all. I like MSNBC BECAUSE it has a more left leaning bent than FOX or CNN. Why, Rachel Maddow is a genuine liberal - a rare and wonderful thing on TV news. So, to complain that asking delegates about the speech isn't "news" is disingenuous. It's not unbiased analysis - but then, neither is most of the pundit class. To pretend otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Unbiased

No, the analysis isn't unbiased, but the speech isn't either.

There should never be a complaint about fact checking analysis. It's basicly an admission that you lied, or you don't know what you're talking about.

"Horse race" analysis, debating how the public will respnd to the speech, is unnecessary and prejudices the audience. Let them decide for themselves. It doesn't matter who's ahead in the race. Only whether they speak truth or truthiness. Polls don't matter either; this is a job interview, not a popularity contest.