MSNBC moves Keith Olbermann from sober news chair to color commentary. Wait, he was doing “news?”
By LisaB on September 8, 2008 at 2:00 PM in Arrogance, Barack Obama, Current Affairs, Keith Olbermann, MSNBC
1) Well, MSNBC is going to change its political line-up. A bit. Today’s NYT has a story about MSNBC moving Keith (I’m not going to Russert’s memorial without a first class ticket) Olbermann and Chris (Tingle Leg) Matthews from the political anchor chairs to something like political “color commentary.”
Uh, that would be “political analyst.”
MSNBC tried a bold experiment this year by putting two politically incendiary hosts, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, in the anchor chair to lead the cable news channel’s coverage of the election.
That experiment appears to be over.
Read the rest ->
After months of accusations of political bias and simmering animosity between MSNBC and its parent network NBC, the channel decided over the weekend that the NBC News correspondent and MSNBC host David Gregory would anchor news coverage of the coming debates and election night. Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews will remain as analysts during the coverage.
This means they won’t be gone. They’ll simply slide to another chair. However, it is clearly a demotion and a recognition that these boys weren’t getting the job done.
The success of the Fox News Channel in the past decade along with the growth of political blogs have convinced many media companies that provocative commentary attracts viewers and lures Web browsers more than straight news delivered dispassionately.
“In a rapidly changing media environment, this is the great philosophical debate,” Phil Griffin, the president of MSNBC, said in a telephone interview Saturday. Fighting the ratings game, he added, “the bottom line is that we’re experiencing incredible success.”
“Incredible success.” Huh. Well, apparently not entirely. You know, I think MSNBC has fundamentally misunderstood something. While shows like Hardball and Countdown may attract viewers, they do so because they are entertaining, not because they are NEWS shows. They are the snark shows people watch because they want to feel their point of view is heard. But they aren’t news shows.
And many people think we need old-school dispassionate news right now. News shows used to function as referees in political mud fights. Not any more. MSNBC has a mud cache just like politicians and operatives. While that is entertaining in an opinion-based format, it is NOT entertaining at a political convention or when pursuing news.
Keith somehow doesn’t understand that. Referring to yet another kerfluffle over Keith’s runaway mouth, he said:
In an interview on Sunday, Mr. Olbermann said that moment — and the perception that he is “not utterly neutral” — restarted months-old conversations about his role on political nights.
“I found it ironic and instructive that I could have easily said exactly what I did say, exactly when I did say it, if I had been wearing a different hat, and nobody would have taken any issue,” he said.
“Ironic and instructive?” Dude, that’s the POINT! You’re not supposed to say the same thing when you are supposed to be filling a different function!!!!! Snark all you want on your opinion show, but leave it on the floor when you’re supposed to be a news man! Jeeeeeeeezzzz. How hard is it to get that????
Of course, it’s all about Keith:
Some staff members said the tension led to the network’s decision to keep Mr. Olbermann in New York for the Republican convention, after he ran the desk in Denver during the Democratic convention. MSNBC said that he stayed in New York to anchor coverage of Hurricane Gustav. But some workers say there were other reasons — namely, that Mr. Olbermann was concerned about his safety in St. Paul, given the loud crowds at MSNBC’s set in Denver.
Concerned about his safety. Heh. Apparently he thinks he’s a genuine muckraker and not just a loudmouth who can’t tell news from opinion.
NBC Universal executives are also known to be concerned about the perception that MSNBC’s partisan tilt in prime time is bleeding into the rest of the programming day. On a recent Friday afternoon, a graphic labeled “Breaking News” asked: “How many houses does Palin add to the Republican ticket?” Mr. Griffin called the graphic “an embarrassment.”
While executives also said it was “grossly unfair” that other NBC “news” people were being lumped with Matthews and Olbermann (such as Andrea Mitchell), I think many viewers would point to “partisan tilt” “bleeding into the rest of the programming” and its people.
The WaPo has a tidbit that further explains the internal fight at NBC/MSNBC.
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.
Looks like the NBC uber-journalists have won this round. We’ll see. Keith, though, claims it was HIS idea:
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.
So, we’ll continue to get more of the Keith and Chris show and with an even smaller nod to objectivity. Of course, some cooler head will, presumably, anchor, but will it make any real difference? Tune in to find out or wait to see it on YouTube. I recommend YouTube.
(At the bottom of this post, you’ll find some “classic” NQ stories related to Keith Olbermann. Please enjoy as we all reflect on Keith the man, the journalist and the legend in his own mind.)
2) The Australian has a veeerrrrryy interesting story today. While other stories have circulated about Hillary speaking against McCain, this story focuses on her “refusal” to attack Palin.
HILLARY Clinton may be the most obvious choice to throw into the ring against the new darling of American politics, Sarah Palin, but the failed Democratic presidential candidate is refusing the job.
“We’re not going to be anybody’s attack dog against Sarah Palin,” a Clinton insider said yesterday.
This story is not sympathetic to Hillary, casting her as selfish and not working for her party.
Her refusal to roll up her sleeves against Palin, who describes herself as “a pit bull with lipstick”, has already come under questioning by Democratic apparatchiks. “The strategic imperative right now is to do something about Palin and prevent her cutting through the race,” said Democratic strategist Tad Devine. “She is practising the same slash-and-burn politics of division of the Bush years. Hillary Clinton can make the charge that Governor Palin represents the far Right.”
——————-. . . [Hillary] will be joining the roster of prominent women deployed by Obama to such good effect against Clinton herself during the primary campaign. Politicians such as Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and Missouri senator Claire McCaskill have made the case that women could in good conscience vote for Obama rather than Clinton.
Now they are using the same tactics against Palin.
If Clinton is uncertain about going for Palin’s jugular, she may like to recall the words of a woman delegate at the Republican convention who described Palin as “more of a woman than Hillary and more of a man than Hillary”.
We knew this would happen if Hillary did not come out strong for Obama. We also knew that Obama would “up the ante” and require her to do even more at some point. Well, it’s “some point” now. Pathetic – and particularly so if Hillary is required to use anti-Hillary tactics herself.
3) A writer at Counterterrorism blog says the MSM is taking reporters off counter-terrorism stories to put them on political “investigations” like those running on Sarah Palin.
I see one after another of the mainstream media outlets which have made important contributions to the factual underpinnings of the counter-terrorism effort dropping off that beat. Editors in the print media are shifting terrorism experts on their staffs towards investigations of political candidates. At least three such reporters at three major papers are now chasing Sarah Palin stories. . .
4) Well, for those Obama supporting Democrats still flogging the Roe v. Wade angle, here’s this. The NYT is reporting today that Joe Biden believes life begins at conception.
WASHINGTON — Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic nominee for vice president, departed Sunday from party doctrine on abortion rights, declaring that as a Catholic, he believes life begins at conception.
While Mr. Biden’s views may not be new to Democrats in his circle, his comments, in an interview on “Meet the Press” on NBC, came at a time when his party is confronted with a new face: Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, whose anti-abortion stance and decision to give birth just five months ago to a baby with Down syndrome have revved up the conservative base of her party.
Hmmmmmm. OK, VP’s don’t matter that much. I’ve said so before. So, any chance we’ll stop hearing about Sarah Palin’s view on this?
5) Financial Times has a story on media in this election cycle. (You may need to register to read the entire thing.)
Democrats speak up for the less prosperous; they have well-intentioned policies to help them; they are disturbed by inequality, and want to do something about it. Their concern is real and admirable. The trouble is, they lack respect for the objects of their solicitude. Their sympathy comes mixed with disdain, and even contempt.
Democrats regard their policies as self-evidently in the interests of the US working and middle classes. Yet those wide segments of US society keep helping to elect Republican presidents. How is one to account for this? Are those people idiots? Frankly, yes – or so many liberals are driven to conclude. Either that or bigots, clinging to guns, God and white supremacy; or else pathetic dupes, ever at the disposal of Republican strategists. If they only had the brains to vote in their interests, Democrats think, the party would never be out of power. But again and again, the Republicans tell their lies, and those stupid damned voters buy it.
It is an attitude that a good part of the US media share. The country has conservative media (Fox News, talk radio) as well as liberal media (most of the rest). Curiously, whereas the conservative media know they are conservative, much of the liberal media believe themselves to be neutral.
Their constant support for Democratic views has nothing to do with bias, in their minds, but reflects the fact that Democrats just happen to be right about everything. The result is the same: for much of the media, the fact that Republicans keep winning can only be due to the backwardness of much of the country.
———-For days, the derision poured down from Democratic party talking heads and much of the media too. The idea that “this woman” might be vice-president or even president was literally incomprehensible. The popular liberal comedian Bill Maher, whose act is an endless sneer at the Republican party, noted that John McCain’s case for the presidency was that only he was capable of standing between the US and its enemies, but that should he die he had chosen “this stewardess” to take over. This joke was not – or not only – a complaint about lack of experience. It was also an expression of class disgust. I give Mr Maher credit for daring to say what many Democrats would only insinuate.
——————-If only the Democrats could contain their sense of entitlement to govern in a rational world, and their consequent distaste for wide swathes of the US electorate, they might gain the unshakeable grip on power they feel they deserve. Winning elections would certainly be easier – and Republicans would have to address themselves more seriously to economic insecurity. But the fathomless cultural complacency of the metropolitan liberal rules this out.
The attitude that expressed itself in response to the Palin nomination is the best weapon in the Republican armoury. Rely on the Democrats to keep it primed. You just have to laugh.
The Palin nomination could still misfire for Mr McCain, but the liberal reaction has made it a huge success so far. To avoid endlessly repeating this mistake, Democrats need to learn some respect.
It will be hard. They will have to develop some regard for the values that the middle of the country expresses when it votes Republican. Religion. Unembarrassed flag-waving patriotism. Freedom to succeed or fail through one’s own efforts. Refusal to be pitied, bossed around or talked down to. And all those other laughable redneck notions that made the United States what it is.
Sounds about right to me.
A partial list of NQ Olbermann-related articles
Special Comment for Keith Olbermann [with Video Update]
The Madness of Keith Olbermann
Chris Matthews Leg Tingling Nearly Official But Olbermann’s Blatant Sexism Is
Olbermann v Milbank – The Back Story
, the basis for the Best Motion Picture Nominee (Golden Globes) starring Brad Pitt.
, the novel by John Le Carre, a new motion picture starring Gary Oldman and Colin Firth.
by 
* (Included in the 
* 
.by David Fredosso who wrote 2008's 
- You'll have access to 18 million movies, TV shows, songs, magazines, and books, as well as ultra-fast Web browsing with Amazon Silk -- faster than iPad. Full e-mail and document access and a keyboard. Fire can transmit what is on your screen onto a connected TV or monitor without an accessory. It runs Flash (iPad doesn't). 
