Either Relevant or True » “It used to be people didn’t have to worry about MSNBC because it was an also-ran cable channel”

“It used to be people didn’t have to worry about MSNBC because it was an also-ran cable channel”

Since last week’s scathing letter from White House wonk Ed Gillespie the chattering classes have been directing their chattering towards the distinction - or lack thereof - between staid, straight-news NBC and the opinionated prime time fare on MSNBC. Everything was apparently fine and dandy until MSNBC moved to 30 Rock, became a player, and drew from the entire pool of NBC/MSNBC talent on election nights. Howie Kurtz gives us a nice roundup in today’s WaPo:

NBC News President Steve Capus says the distinctions between reporting and opinion are clear. “We happen to have programs that at times are driven by opinion on MSNBC, and we have a worldwide news organization driven by NBC News,” he says. “The only people trying to lump it all together are people who tend to view these things through a political filter or are our competitors.”

But news and opinion often seem to merge on primary nights. MSNBC’s coverage is anchored by Matthews, a onetime Democratic operative, and Olbermann, the “Countdown” host who recently finished one anti-Bush commentary by instructing the president to “shut the hell up.”

On election nights, Griffin says, Matthews and Olbermann “put on different hats. I think the audience gets it. . . . I see zero problem.” MSNBC, he adds, offers “a little irreverence, entertainment, and sometimes it’s even borderline dangerous.”

It is certainly more entertaining than the other cable channels, I don’t think anyone can argue that!

You all are news junkies, what do you think? Are Keith and Tweety rubbing their opinionated cooties all over Timmeh and BriWi? Does the general, non-wonkish public see it that way? Or is this all so inside baseball that the only people fretting about it are partisans and beltway types?

Tweety has been doing Hardball since 1997 and KO has been on Countdown since 2003. Where’s the beef before then?

I think cable news and network news are on two different wave lengths (excuse the pun). Cable news, needing to fill the 24/7 news cycle, must have more analysis, commentary and opinion than network news. Network news has limited time enough for news, let alone commentary or opinion pieces. And when programs from the “news” side do produce more lengthy pieces, we tend to get “Dateline” or “20/20″ which seem more crime documentaries than straight news.

That said, I do think ALL cable news tends to allow more opinion by its hosts than the network newscasts. I think that is the nature of the beast. But I really do not see how one can determine what KO’s, Tweety’s, Rachel’s or anyone’s true feelings are. At one point, KO said he did not vote so as not to appear partisan. And at one time he was accused of supporting Hillary. Sometimes you just cannot win.

However, critics should be reminded that the old “liberal media” label has been slapped on network news organizations since they began — even in the heyday of Murrow, Cronkite, Huntley/Brinkley, et al. Killing the messenger historically has been the way to excuse and to react toward news reporting.

Newspapers always have had a political bent — look at Hearst and others. Compare the coverage of an issue in the New York Times, WSJ (pre-Murdoch), Washington Post, NY Daily News and NY Post. Same story — different interpretations. Newspapers also endorse candidates and editorialize on issues. That’s an expected and traditional role of the Fourth Estate.

Is KO a hard-core straight news reporter? Probably not. Does he tell the truth? Absolutely. Therefore, I think he can wear the cape of hallowed network anchors before him…because the bottom line is that journalism must report the truth and the facts.

(Aside — I have become so tired of watching CNN lately, that I now keep my TV on MSNBC all day. For the most part, its anchors have a more straight news bent. I cannot stand the long-haired models anchoring CNN news any more. Blitzer is okay, King leans celebrity, and the HLN primetime is a joke! MSNBC with its strong daytime anchor lineup including Andrea Mitchell and Shuster make it the cable news network of choice for me.)

This is very inside baseball. I doubt most viewers think long and hard about issues like objectivity and opinion vs. news. They just watch what they like, whether it’s network news or cable news.

Even when Williams and Russert go on MSNBC, it’s clear they’re different than Matthews/Olbermann. They’re much more traditional, and Keith and Tweety have their own distinct styles.

Houstonian, I loved your question “where’s the beef before then?” That people are complaining about MSNBC now means that the network is more relevant now — and many more people are watching them than ever. We’re not the only ones anymore.

Here is more pointed article about Keith’s special comment specifically (from TIME):

“…but Saturday Night Live, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and my old employer Salon.com have all taken criticism for carrying water for Hillary, from the same sorts of people who loved them when they were knocking Bush and Cheney.”

http://www.time-blog.com/tuned_in/2008/05/keith_olbermann_blows_last_rem.html

Funny, I think quite a few Clinton folks said this about Keith. It has been amusing seeing the neocons & the Clinton folks in such agreement (which was Keith’s point).

I know many here chided me when I pointed out his subtle, but clear Clinton bias early on in this primary. (Thankfully he admitted to “being on her side” a few weeks ago on Countdown). Do I think his now supporting Obama a bit too pronounced, from a straight news point of view, absolutely. But when you have the garbage like Sean Hannity and Karl Rove, (and many, many others mainly at FOX), I am glad we have Keith as our lefty pitbull.

Keith’s ratings have been really cranking lately. Heck, his demo is nearly half his entire audience. That is the bottom line, ratings, ratings and did I mention: ratings. I think that is one of reasons for the sudden ‘pushback’ from those in the ‘media’ so very ‘concerned’ about NBC journalistic integrity. (If any have ever seen Bill Moyer’s program about the media’s accountability in the run up to the Iraq war, then you saw how Tim Russert, “Mr. #1 Sunday Political Show” was pretty thin in the journalism dept., not to mention, not all that bright). So, I look forward to the day when Keith’s #5 story shows Karl Rove doing a perp walk…good times ahead.

I dunno. I don’t think about it a lot since I flip between channels for election coverage. (I just make sure that when Maddow is speaking, I am listening.)

And really, I always think of that one time Keith was interviewing Rudy just days after he’d ripped the man appart in an SC. And he was perfectly civil. So Keith can compartmentalize his leftyness, I think.

I have no idea about Tweety tho. Whenever he starts to speak, I hit the mute button. Too many stupid remarks when speaking to women or PoC.

And to GM: I think Keith has a very clear anti-Clinton bias now, but not so much because he’s for Obama but because HRC has done so many incredibly stupid things, he’s disgusted with her. I think he made that very clear in the last SC.

It’s kind of sad, actually. A year ago, he was one of their more ardent defenders. Now, they’ve turned into something completely different.

That said, Dan Abrams seems to still be pulling for her. He’s pushing for the unity ticket like it’s goin’ outta style.

From TVnewser (who got a quote from an MSNBC insider) concerning the Time critic article about Keith (and all the recent articles about NBC leaning left):

“…An MSNBC insider gave TVNewser another take. “MSNBC has doubled down on Keith Olbermann, but they give up a lot in doing that,” our insider said. “They didn’t set out to be left wing, they didn’t want to be left wing. But Keith Olbermann let the freak flag fly and did huge numbers as a result. I believe there’s a revolt coming.”"

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/msnbc/olbermann_edging_evercloser_to_selfparody_85734.asp#disqus_thread

I find that quote a little troubling, especially the “there’s a revolt comming” part.

GM — It is a little troubling, but the cynic in me says that as long as he keeps getting ratings, it won’t matter.

MSNBC/NBC/GE and any corporation, more than anything else, is in the business of making money. If KO gets them ratings, he’ll stay.

Read the Time Magazine blog — my take –

One needs to remember that Time Magazine is owned by Time Warner which owns CNN, MSNBC’s biggest competitor. Time also competes head-to-head with Newsweek and many of the top Newsweek reporters/columnists are analysts on MSNBC, including Countdown.

Are we a bit jealous perhaps? Don’t you think if CNN and MSNBC ever merged (as if the gossip was true) that CNN would grab up KO in a minute. (Now KO may not want to go there, but that’s another story).

More and more, I’m respecting MSNBC’s overall coverage, day part as well as prime time (except the crime docs). I seem to get much more intelligent and current news/commentary all day long from MSNBC…cannot say the same for CNN, and I do not watch FNC unless I’m forced to,

Funny, in this world of 24/7 news coverage, often times — late at night, weekends, one cannot get the latest news…too many reruns and special shows like “News to Me” — give me a break!!

RSS feed for comments on this post.