September 8th, 2008 By JAZZ SHAW, Assistant Editor
As the New York Times reports, MSNBC is showing Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews the door in terms of election news coverage. Reactions to the announcement were as swift and varied as the responses the pair elicited from their fans and detractors on a daily basis. John Aravosis expressed disgust, saying that the network “fell for the Republican’s crap about ‘bias’ [and] caved in to the Republicans.” Ed Morrissey wondered if they “finally just [got] tired of these two credibility killers?” In one of the strangest responses, Taylor Marsh bemoans the loss of Olberman “just when Democrats need [him] most” but assign the blame to Keith’s unfair bias against… Hillary?
Questions about Olberman seem, at least to me, fairly silly. Back when Keith first popped up on my radar with his “Special Comment” segments on MSNBC, I found myself almost pleasantly shocked. “Wow!” I thought, “There’s a news guy who’s really fired up about something and really stepping outside of the normally neutral tone of news coverage.” But it quickly became obvious that this wasn’t a “normal news guy” having a brief moment of outrage. Olberman was always outraged and it was always against George W. Bush and the Republican Party. To pretend that he wasn’t heavily biased in favor of the Democratic Party is, quite simply, to deny reality.
Matthews was a different story in my view. He took his “Hardball” theory of news coverage well past the nth degree, and brought it into every aspect of his time on camera. But I saw him employ it against people of both parties on a regular basis. The problem was that he would use it no matter what the question was. A guest could comment on how fortunate they were that the weather was nice for a given campaign event and Matthews would find reason to pound on the desk, shake his finger in their face and begin spewing barometric pressure readings with spittle flying from his mouth.
That’s not to say that these two reporters or MSNBC are unique in the marketplace. I watch both that network and Fox News on a regular basis, just to see what both sides are up to. If you think that Bill Kristol or Britt Hume have ever given a fair shake to a Democrat on Fox as compared to their treatment of Republicans, then you’re as far out on the fringes as anyone who thinks Olberman was fair and balanced.
This year I have had the sometimes dubious “pleasure” of conducting a number of interviews with politicians, figures of political interest, and advisors from the McCain and Barr campaigns. I can assure you that it’s been an educational experience which has led to bouts of introspection, self-doubt and questions about the nature of journalism. Many of these quandaries apply to the performance of Matthews and Olberman as well. One of the chief issues, at least for me, is the question of how and where one draws the line between an “interview” and a “debate.” When you invite someone to speak to you for purposes of a published article or radio program, you’re going to have to ask them questions, and you can never know for sure what sort of answers you’ll get. If the subject provides some real jaw-droppers, is it your job to immediately call them out and argue with them? Or do you let the answers stand as given and then choose to comment on them later? When does a “follow-up question” turn into an attack on the subject’s credibility?
An excellent example came when I had the occasion to interview both Silverio Salazar and John Martin. They were, respectively, a former Hillary supporting Democrat now voting for McCain and a Republican backing Obama. Each of these subjects said some things which absolutely had my head spinning, but I had to make the choice to just record their answers, publish them for you here, and comment on them after the fact. I caught quite a bit of flack from the readers in both cases, and it turned into one of my favorite experiences as a TMV author when I was accused of being “in the tank” for both McCain and Obama in a 72 hour period. Believe me; sitting on your hands durng the answers given by some subjects is not easy. Martin was interviewed as part of our weekly radio show, and there were a couple of points where my co-host Cindy had to be restrained with a straightjacket and ball gag, but to her credit, she managed to maintain her composure for the entire thing.
Everyone, including television journalists, has their own political opinion and preferences. How much of that should be allowed to bleed through in the course of reporting? When does a news report turn into an editorial, and at what point does an editorial become a partisan screed? Olberman clearly crossed the screed line far more than once too often, but did he add more spice to televised political coverage? Or did he poison the well?
This is a guest interview by Pittsburgh Tribune-Review columnist Bill Steigerwald with MSNBC conservative pundit Michelle Bernard looking at the Democratic convention, the upcoming GOP convention and Republican Presidential nominee-to-be John McCain:
Michelle Bernard Looks For The Right Mccain
by Bill Steigerwald
MSNBC, which has tried to position itself as a liberal, albeit less-watched, counterbalance to the Fox News Channel, hired Michelle Bernard as a conservative political analyst in January. Bernard, the CEO of the Independent Women’s Forum think tank and a lawyer by training, is a regular panelist on “Hardball With Chris Matthews.” This week she made nightly appearances on MSNBC’s wall-to-wall coverage of the Democratic Convention in Denver, and she will move on to cover the Republicans next week in Minneapolis-St. Paul. I talked to Bernard by phone from Denver on Thursday, just hours before Barack Obama delivered his grand finale at Invesco Field.
Q: Do you think the Democrats have done a good, mediocre or bad job of selling themselves and their ideas?
A: They got off to a slow start. But my observation since I got out here is that they are building momentum. Sometimes when you think about a political convention you are really looking for a lot of excitement and drama, and I had expected more of that earlier in the week. But it seems to be sort of a slow crescendo and I guess it’ll be topped off tonight.
Q: Has anything the Democrats have done or said riled you up in any way?
A: I can’t place my finger on who said what that riled me up. But I have been listening to the Democrats’ vision for the future of the country and what kind of an America they want. I don’t think their ultimate vision is different than the vision the Republicans have for the country. More than anything else that has disturbed me personally is how we get there. Speaker after speaker this week has left me with the impression that for the Democrats the great civil rights issue for the 21st century is nationalized health care. That is something I disagree with. I do believe that people need health care, but I don’t understand the Democrats’ plan on how we get there and how it makes our nation a better nation. We’ve heard it over and over again and I think that ultimately that’s going to be a problem.
I had a discussion with somebody the other day where I was explaining the good things I see about Barack Obama, but my complete and utter distaste for higher taxes and this notion of Robin Hood and stealing from the rich to give to the poor. It’s a message that resonates with Democrats and people here are getting very excited when they hear about it.
But the thing that riles me up is, why is it that people have such disdain for the people who are the engine of the economy and who make it possible for Americans to have jobs, feed their families, send their kids to school and put clothing on their backs? I know that we live in difficult economic times right now, but this disdain for the engine of the country is something that I don’t understand. If we had no quote-unquote “rich people,” if we didn’t have, for example, Bill Gates and Microsoft, what would happen to the hundreds of thousands of people all over the world that he employs? Read the rest of this entry »
August 30th, 2008 By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Democratic Presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama had a massive viewership for his acceptance speech Thursday night in a convention that got the highest ratings in televised U.S. political convention history, the New York Times reports:
At least 40 million Americans watched Senator Barack Obama accept the Democratic nomination for president Thursday night, a record for convention viewership that exceeded even the expectations of his aides.
The historic speech by the first African-American presidential nominee of a major political party reached 38.4 million viewers on 10 broadcast and cable networks, Nielsen Media Research said Friday. PBS estimated that an additional 3.5 million had watched its prime-time coverage.
…..Despite Republicans’ advance ridicule of the enormous venue, Invesco Field, and the set, an elaborate, columned backdrop, Democrats went to bed having heard terrific reviews of the final night of their convention. Indeed, the backdrop, initially derided as resembling a Greek temple — playing into the Republican line of attack that Mr. Obama’s supporters had deified him — turned out to be something of a hit; television reviewers and commentators praised the overall staging.
The ratings set new records:
The four-night convention was the most-watched since 1960, when Nielsen began measuring the events. The 10 p.m. hour, Eastern time, from Monday to Thursday was viewed by an average of 22.4 million households, Nielsen said, surpassing by half a million the Republican convention of 1976, previously top-rated.
The Times notes that there are some other factors that need to be considered, such as convention coverage now being shown on more channels. But even so, getting taht huge an audience for a convention is not easy.
The television audience for Mr. Obama’s speech was half again as large as the viewership for the acceptance speeches by President Bush and Senator John Kerry in 2004.
The biggest network winner: CNN which topped the list.
The lowest: Fox News and MSNBC — personality and ideology emphasizing networks that have started to resemble each other in tone, only with different political viewpoints — were the lowest.
What does this mean for the Democrats and Republicans?
As I have been watching the campaign coverage, I have tried to get a variety of viewpoints by switching between CNN, Fox, MSNBC and the other major networks. I’ve come to expect Fox to be conservative, CNN to be somewhat mixed and MSNBC to be liberal.
Because I like Chris Matthews and think that the speed and quality of MSNBC coverage is a tad better than the others, I have leaned to their reviews of the speeches. Despite his liberalism, Matthews has been fairly-balanced in his look at the convention so far and, while Keith Olbermann is practically on the Obama payroll, he has tried the last day or so to be somewhat careful in his comments.
But tonight they went WAY over the edge.
Yes, Senator Obama delivered a good speech. Yes, it was inspiring and the historic nature of the event is worth praise and reflection.
But to listen to the commentary from everyone on MSNBC, you would think he had raised the dead, personally solved every problem known to man and then levitated himself over the stadium. Olbermann came close to having an on-the-air orgasm over the address.
The other networks (CNN, Fox, ABC, CBS) were fulsome in their praise of the address but were also willing to comment on the potential problems he might face and the places where the speech might not have succeeded. Not only did MSNBC not do this, but they actually had Keith on the air trashing anyone who dared to criticize the address.
I am not suggesting that anyone was wrong to praise Obama. His address was spectacularly-delivered and deserved many positive comments. But there were also flaws and for MSNBC to take such a one sided attitude only serves to support those who accuse them of such biases.
A couple of weeks ago, Ed Rendell was trying to stop supporters of Senator Clinton from signing a petition to put her name in nomination.
Yesterday, Rendell was all over the media expressing his outrage that Senator Clinton was dissed by the MSM. Is Rendell supporting Clinton or not? Will he vote for her on the first ballot if her name is placed in nomination? Does this guy have a semblance of loyalty beyond political expediency?
I must admit to only being a modest fan of the Olympics but I do enjoy seeing some of the more exciting events like swimming and gymnastics. What has bothered me in trying to watch this is the seemingly idiotic coverage by NBC where these important events don’t start until 10 or 11 at night while ‘prime time’ is filled with things like beach volleyball.
Now of course time zones play a role in Olympic coverage and with the games in China it means that the events are 12-15 hours ahead of us (depending on where you live in the US). This mean that in order to air events live here they have to occur sometime in the morning in China.
I understand that NBC heavily pressured the Olympic authorities to move the swimming events to the morning rather than running them in the afternoon or evening. This was pretty controversial because Europe is 5-8 hours ahead of New York, so starting the big events at 10pm in New York means running them between 3am and 6am in most of Europe.
I assume that the fact that the prime events are run at 10pm in New York has something to do with the fact that there was some reason they could not take place earlier (perhaps the athletes require a certain amount of time to prepare and such). Obviously moving things back to 8pm EST would not change the problem in Europe, so there is no logic there.
Nor does it seem to make sense that they put the prime events on later assuming people would already watch between 8pm and 10pm since they put they most boring stuff on then.
So for those on the East Coast having to watch the prime events between 10pm and midnight it would seem to be pretty much a matter of time zones and logistics (either than or the networks are simply choosing to shaft the entire country). But what I do not understand is why we have to do so on the West Coast.
Now having lived in California most of my life I understand that the East Coast is the only thing that matters when it comes to televison and that we in the West are the untouchables. But if you are already making the decision to air them at 10pm-midnight on the East, why cant you air them between 7pm and 9pm in California ?
I don’t think the networks would show the Presidential Debates live in New York and taped in California. They recognize that people want to see the events live. The same holds true for the big events at the Olympics.
Although I sometimes see a story that makes me wonder, I have not generally been one to obsess over media biases against Republicans or the political right.
I recognize that the news media today is a business and that the basic rule is to go after any juicy scandal. My basic view has been that perhaps personal biases sometimes cause the reporter to lean to a Republican scandal versus a Democratic one but that if its a juicy story they will go after anyone.
However in the past couple of weeks I have seen some things that make me want to reexamine this position. The news media has taken some steps that seem to really step beyond just some minor slipups to some fairly serious bias against Senator McCain and the Republicans in general.
One of the biggest examples of this has been the reaction to Senator Obama’s trip to Iraq. All three network anchors (NBC/CBS/ABC) are along for the trip along with over 200 other reporters. They are covering every step of the trip as if it were a major Presidential summit.
Now I certainly understand that you need to cover this story, he is likely to be the next President and this is a major foreign policy trip. But do you really need to send all of the anchors ? The only times I’ve seen all of the anchors travel together in the past has been during events like 9/11, Katrina and the like. It doesn’t seem like this quite rises to that level.
In addition, we can look at what the media did when Senator McCain took a trip to Iraq (in fact he has taken several trips recently). The media reaction there was considerably understated. No anchors went with him, the stories didn’t even lead the news that night. In fact there was less coverage on all three networks combined than there has been on one network for Obama.
As I said above, I certainly understand the desire to cover Obama since he is the presumptive Democratic nominee. I even understand that perhaps he is a newer story. But the level of difference between the McCain coverage and the Obama coverage is well beyond what would seem reasonable.
For example, the New York Times recently carried an editorial on Iraq written by Senator Obama. Senator McCain wrote one in response and the Times refused to publish it. They contend it is because they don’t like the content of the article.
Now as far as I know they did not impose similar requirements on Obama and do we really believe that if the situation was reversed that they would reject Obama’s response editorial ?
Outside the election campaign there has also been some interesting content to the reporting on oil prices and the stock market.
Needless to say both issues are very important and I certainly understand that when oil prices surge or stock prices sag that it is very significant to the viewers. Perhaps all of the special reports and breaking news were a bit of overkill but I chalk that up to media hype rather than bias.
But when the trend was in the favor of the public (IE Oil prices dropping or Stock prices surging) then the media did not simply tone things down they reversed them drastically.
Oil price increases were reported by CNN as ‘Oil prices spike drastically’ while equal drops in prices were reported as ‘Slight reductions in price’ or by MSNBC as ‘Drops that are probably temporary’.
The same thing happened when the stock market prices improved. When the stocks slumped we had special reports about the plunging markets and the horrible effects it would have on retirement plans.
When they improved the reports focused on the fact that in the long term the market was ‘bound to’ slump (CNN) or on ABC we were told that the ’slight gains’ did not erase the losses.
What ABC didn’t tell you is they were comparing one day worth of gains to one month worth of losses (unless you read the fine print at the bottom of the screen).
Now I can accept that some of this is simply the result of the media liking to report bad news because they think it is better for ratings. But when you combine all of the reports on all of the networks it becomes a question mark.
Although I am still not sold on a vast media conspiracy (either left or right), when you look specifically to the Obama/McCain race I think it is pretty hard at this point to deny that Saturday Night Live got it right. The media is ‘in the tank’ for Obama. I would like to see them prove me wrong but I doubt that they will.
When I was a kid back in the Seventies, a favorite sarcastic phrase used to peers who were getting a bit too full of themselves and getting all entitled and snippy about playing fair was: ‘What do you think you are — some kind of P.C.?’ ‘P.C.’ stood for ‘Privileged Character.’
Dick Cheney is now officially our nation’s most privileged character.
It seems that Cheney Branch has thought up another innovative new privilege to protect itself from Congressional Oversight. As Isikoff and Hosenball remark at Newsweek, (and as my colleague has likewise noted),
The decision by the White House to refuse to honor the subpoena from Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee for Cheney’s interview was hardly unexpected, given the administration’s history of fiercely protecting presidential prerogatives. (Newsweek)
But as the article remarks with wonderful restraint,
What was surprising to some legal scholars was the basis for shielding the FBI interview report. It was covered, Mukasey said, by what he called "the law-enforcement component of executive privilege." (Newsweek)
Let me see if I can interpret this. Reading between the lines, I would interpret it to mean that any legal scholars who know anything about executive privilege and who still believe in ‘rule of law’ are gobsmacked that Mukasey would have the gall to make this absolutely specious argument. (Newsweek)
But of course, any legal scholar who hasn’t spent the last seven+ years locked in an ivory tower with no internet access doubtless isn’t all that surprised that he did. Mukasey quickly learned the Bush administration’s foolproof strategy: if you’re the executive and refuse to account for yourself, who is really going to make you if you come up with some kind of color-of-law excuse to refuse? Even if the judiciary calls you out, you can always make up another one.
Or as Benen more succinctly puts it, ‘The Bush gang plays by its own rules — the ones they make up as they go along.’
Fox News, the impressively-successful answer to years of charges from conservatives that the “liberal media” didn’t give Republicans in general and conservatives in particular a fair shake, has ridden high during the Bush years. But now there are signs that, as goes George Bush, so does Fox News‘ hold on seemingly-easy news ratings dominance.
When prime-time cable news ratings for the second quarter of 2008 are officially released next week, they will show that Fox News reclaimed the top spot among viewers in their mid-20s through mid-50s, those of greatest interest to news advertisers, according to estimates from Nielsen Media Research.
During the first three months of the year, by contrast, CNN drew so many viewers on big Democratic primary nights and for several presidential debates that it vaulted over Fox News for the first time in six years.
But the back-and-forth these last few months masks a more ominous trend for Fox News, particularly as its gears up to cover the general election campaign. The most dominant cable news channel for nearly a decade and a political force in its own right, Fox has seen its once formidable advantage over CNN erode in this presidential election year, as both CNN and MSNBC have added viewers at far more dramatic rates.
Growth and demographics are the name of the game in the TV biz. One of the most (in)famous examples was in the early 1970s when CBS axed a batch of high-rated programs including those of then-top comedians and popular rural comedies because demographics showed their audiences were older and their ratings on borrowed time.
The Times notes that the other cable news networks — CNN (which is now portraying itself as the news network that reports both sides) and MSNBC (which is now getting the reputation of being the anti-Fox, offering mostly progressively-inclined political talk and mostly NBC news) — are showing growth that Fox is not.
In the first five-and-a-half months of 2004, the last presidential election year, Fox’s prime-time audience among viewers aged 25 to 54 was more than double that of CNN’s — 530,000 to 248,000, according to estimates from Nielsen Media Research. This year, through mid-June, CNN erased the gap and drew nearly as many viewers in that demographic category as Fox — about 420,000 for CNN to 440,000 for Fox.
Meanwhile, CNN has added 170,000 viewers a night, on average, when compared with the last presidential year, while Fox has shed about 90,000, according to Nielsen. (MSNBC, which added 181,000 viewers in that audience, much of it courtesy of gains by “Countdown With Keith Olbermann,” still lagged in third place, with 303,000.)
And here’s the bottom line:
While Fox News remains the most-watched cable news channel over all — it has been attracting an average of nearly 2 million viewers each weeknight this year, compared to 1.3 million for CNN and 805,000 for MSNBC — its momentum has effectively stalled, at least when measured over years past. The overall prime-time audiences watching CNN and MSNBC, by contrast, have each grown by more than 50 percent this year, when measured against the same period last year, while Fox’s has increased by 10 percent, according to Nielsen. (The New York Times and NBC News, the parent of MSNBC, share some resources in covering political news.)
There are several ways of looking at this.
If the mood of the electorate and audiences truly sour on Republican presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain, and with gas prices soaring (and predicted to reach $7 a gallon within the next two years), CNN could keep adding viewers turned off by Fox’s inclination and MSNBC could keep making modest gains.
But, even so, all is not lost for Fox. Think of how Fox viewership could soar in the wake of an Obama victory if Obama doesn’t deliver on promises (and proves to be another Jimmy Carter) or DOES deliver on promises (and proves to be an effective center or center-left Democratic politician) and upsets conservative Republicans.
All three networks have turned into compelling networks to watch in terms of how they package news, pace political discussion, and promote their programs. So the race is on — but with an increasingly large number of Americans souring on Bush and the party that as administered the federal government for some 8 years, it may be that Fox News will have more trouble building its audience as viewers are less interested in watching overt and covert cheerleaders for Republicans.
Breaking news on MSNBC that former VP Albert Gore will endorse Barack Obama at a rally tonight. I’m not sure this is as big a coup now as it would have been a few months ago. Gore is one of the leaders of the hard left in the Democratic party and Obama is pretty solid with that faction.
I suspect Gore has timed his endorsement to make sure Obama stays ‘in line’ on the war issue rather than temper his views for the general election.
Had Clinton won the nomination a Gore endorsement would have helped solidify those upset over her views on the Iraq war but I am not sure it will really help Obama.
It has almost become a sure bet to find some partisan claim in William Kristol’s much awaited, once-a-week column in the New York Times.
Today, however, Mr. Kristol pleasantly surprised me.
In his “Big Tim” column in this morning’s New York Times, Kristol writes a heartfelt, personal and touching tribute to his friend–America’s friend–Tim Russert.
In his column, Kristol tells us, in a non-partisan way, how Tim Russert evolved from a (Democratic) “pol” into one of the most respected journalists in our generation, and relates some little-known anecdotes that reflect on the funny, entertaining side of Tim Russert’s unique personality.
For example, Kristol tells us about a relatively recent occasion when Tim Russert did his apparently famous imitation of his mentor Senator Pat Moynihan
I last heard Russert do his Moynihan imitation about a year ago. We were having lunch, and for some reason got to discussing Pat’s almost-Russert-career-ending phone call. Tim launched into a boisterous imitation of his beloved mentor. I cracked up, heads turned, and a few people at neighboring tables even joined in the laughter.
Kristol concludes his column, and the tribute to his friend as follows: “On Friday, Tim’s heart gave way. He died too young. But he lived more than a full life — a life overflowing with achievements, and friendships, and love, and joy.”
Nothing partisan here. Just some nice, sincere words from a friend of “Big Tim.”
As a journalist who has watched Meet the Press almost every Sunday for as long as I can remember, I am shocked and saddened over the loss of Tim Russert. He was a journalist in the great tradition of Edward R. Murrow: fearless, polite and well-prepared, and concerned for the direction of our craft.
WORLDMEETS.US will be posting the global reaction to his loss over the next few days.
Right. There are none so blind as those who will not see. According to The New York Times, a substantial number of media critics, commentators, pundits, and outlets — not to mention many well known so-called ‘progresssive’ bloggers — still aren’t prepared to acknowledge the offensively biased coverage of Senator Clinton throughout the primary. People, even my 80 year old "I am not now, nor have I ever been a feminist" Republican mom noticed it.
The blatant sexism of the media campaign against Hillary Clinton didn’t bother the people who were doing it or the people who benefited from it, but it bothered the hell out of a lot of women, including me. It was quite clear to me early on that a large number of media figures had decided that Obama should be the presumptive nominee — and never mind waiting to find out what Democratic voters wanted.
Now it seems that the scales have fallen from Howard Dean’s eyes.
If controversy brings viewers, Fox News’ latest will get it some new viewers. But Fox News’ latest headline-making and blog-rage-sparking controversy is now bringing it under fire as an institution that displayed racist inclinations in a headline referring to Democratic Senator Barack Obama’s wife as “Obama’s Baby Mama.”
This comes days after a Fox News anchor set off a mini-firestorm by suggesting that some thought the Obamas’ little fist punch was seen by some as a terrorist signal. But the latest flap is bad news for Fox because the controversial words were literally plastered on the screen for all to see. And although some of the network’s defenders now point to how Michelle Obama referred to herself, she never quite used these words.
And so a firestorm is born. But note the context of what’s going on in journalism and politics.
In the ongoing media polarization Fox News has carved out a niche as the darling for conservatives and Republicans with fact-based journalism coupled with shows that are increasingly like televised conservative talk radio, complete with set assumptions about liberals and Democrats that it’s assumed its audience share. Yet, the setting on many of the network’s newscasts remain neutral: an anchor, graphics and headlines. This headline could have been written by Rush Limbaugh.
Fox News thus begat MSNBC, which has now largely become to liberals and Democrats what Fox News is to conservatives and Republicans.
Journalism is now become to a 21st century form of advocacy journalism more influenced by the style of talk radio and weblogs where many viewers tune in not just to find out what’s going on but to watch news personalities react to events politically as they themselves would. The original ‘advocacy journalism” often focused on issues. The new form focuses on advancing a party’s cause and hurting the other party’s cause.
Fair enough. But in this case, whoever wrote the Fox headline veered into raising a racial stereotype phrase.
To use Fox News values in the following phrase: the way the headline was written bit the network on its white you-know-what.
It has created lot of buzz that will get Fox News in the news and probably attract more and more anti-Obama viewers as time goes on, but it also solidifies Fox News’ increasing status as a network with news values more reflecting the values of Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly than of Chris Wallace.
[UPDATE 4:15 p.m. PST: A Fox News executive has called the characterization of Michelle Obama by his network “poor judgment.” Details HERE.]
This Salon item is one of the blog posts that unleashed this latest flap:
An alert reader wrote in just a little while ago to let us know about something he’d spotted on Fox News Wednesday afternoon. During a segment discussing conservative attacks against Michelle Obama, the wife of presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama, the network described the former as “Obama’s baby mama.”
Which unleashed a firestorm likely to further consolidate Fox News’ status as a network that will be avoided by most liberals and Democrats as the political polarization of news continues:
MSNBC Hardball Host Chris Matthews dealt with President George Bush’s charge that Senator Barack Obama would appease terrorists on his show and obliterated Los Angeles conservative radio talk show host Kevin James who was on the show to give the Barack-is-an-appeaser side of it.
James’ problem: he had no idea what actual appeasement is. Note how he tries to get around the issue by talking loud and changing the subject. The problem: even though he takes a lot of heat from some partisans (particularly Democratic progressives), Chris Matthews was an excellent reporter and op-ed column writer (he had an excellent record for political prognostication) before he got on the air.
It’s a classic case of radio talk show host polemics and volume versus a reporter who’s trying to get a substantive answer from an interview subject and insisting that his follow up question be answered. You can see Matthews’ combination of amazement, absolute dismay and seeming contempt for James’ (a) attempts not to answer the question and (b) ignorance about the question he asked him even thought he is “dittoing” President Bush. (Listen closely as Matthews makes his own historical error in a side comment about the Cole…but he’s not the one charging a candidate with something based on inaccuracies).
This is a classic and is Matthews as professional reporter at his best (be sure to cover the eyes and ears of small children):
How dirty does the upcoming 2008 campaign promise to be? The focus has been on what the GOP might try to do to Democratic Senator Barack Obama if he gets the Democratic presidential nomination. But MSNBC’s David Shuster contends that the Republicans also have a treasure chest of goodies ready to use against Senator Hillary Clinton if she heads the ticket:
Two Republican officials at the Republican National Committee who are involved in “opposition research efforts” in preparation for the general election say the RNC’s oppo research dossier on Sen. Clinton runs more than 1,200 pages in length.
FYI: In some newsrooms two sources (not named in the story but revealed to editors) are enough to confirm a story. Some editors insist on three if it’s a huge development. MORE:
According to these officials, the book includes “previously undisclosed information about Hillary Clinton’s connections to the Whitewater scandal, travel office firings, and Democratic fundraising efforts.” Given that the book has not been shared with us, we’ve been unable to confirm this assertion. Furthermore, the Republican officials would not describe the nature of the “new information.”
However, I was not directed away from a front-page story in today’s Washington Times about memos/documents from the estate of Sam Dash, Ken Starr’s ethics adviser during the early stages of the Whitewater investigation. The Dash Whitewater memos and documents have been turned over to the Library of Congress (where they were presumably available to the Washington Times reporter/researcher). The documents reportedly show that prosecutors concluded that Hillary Clinton concealed information and misled a federal grand jury about her work for the Savings and Loan at the heart of the Whitewater investigation. The allegation that she concealed and misled is not new, and was sourced by reporters who covered the investigation in the 1990s (including me) to “attorneys close to Starr” or “sources in the office of the independent counsel.
The documents from Dash’s estate, however, mark the first available “documentary evidence” that Ken Starr’s office drafted a criminal indictment of Senator Clinton, also known as a “pros memo” and debated verbally and through written memos whether Clinton should actually face charges.
According to Shuster, they decided not to go after Clinton because they had doubts about the strength of their evidence and their ability to convict a first lady.
But such memos, documents, and etc. about the internal debate in the office of the independent counsel could be a gold mine for negative ads, etc.
So this means Obama is pristine and won’t face negative campaigning that will fill hours of air time for Sean and Rush et al? Hardly.
By the way, to put the RNC’s opposition research effort into context, I’m told the dossier on Senator Obama is 1,000 pages in length and that Republican researchers spent a few weeks in Chicago recently collecting information on Obama’s ties to the Weather Underground” and separately to Tony Rezko (who is currently on trial for federal corruption charges).
The difference here is: Clinton’s campaign has been saying she is totally vetted and that there is nothing new that can come out or be used against her. If there are some alleged 1,200 pages to play with, it’s unlikely that she’d face a free issue-oriented path to the White House.
Prediction: The formidable slime/distraction machine will run…no matter who is the Democratic nominee.
“The old adage that “the first casualty of war is truth” is one to which the Pentagon has stuck to with unheard of will, strength, and consistency. Thanks to the Benedictine work a journalist from The New York Times - and there is no better word to describe it- we now know that the U.S. executive has applied itself to building a propaganda machine so powerful, that it highlights the disdain that Bush and company feed on with respect Read the rest of this entry »
April 18th, 2008 By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Fuses are exceedingly short among cable talking heads as well. Did MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough walk off the set — or did he merely choose not to participate any more in an on-the-air discussion with progressive talk’s rising radio and cable star Rachel Maddow? Details and the video are HERE.
Even if Scarborough did walk off, it’s unlikely to hurt his standing with his network. Scarborough is a unique and authentic talent. He’s a former pol and former professional Republican talking head who broke out of the pack due to his independent viewpoints and the fact he comes across so well on television. Maddow is also a major talent: not all radio types do well on television and she comes across as an assertive and thoughtful progressive who represents her side exceedingly well.
But look at this event as a sample of what’s going on this election year. Tempers are frayed on all sides and discussion often deteriorates into shouting and anger. Scarborough’s point was he won’t do screamfest talk shows a la Crossfire and Maddow’s point was that he was interrupting her while she was giving her take on events. You decide..
Expect this motif to get much worse after the Democrats choose a candidate. Right now (as can be seen in the blogosphere) there is a three way split between people who support Republican Senator John McCain, and Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. McCain is an increasingly strong candidate — someone who appeals to independents, Democrats and is now successfully shoring up the GOP’s longtime winning coalition.
If trends continue, by August GOPers will realize they have an authentic chance to win a once-seemingly-unwinnable Presidential election and Democrats will realize once a candidate is picked that they could well blow winning a once-seemingly-easy Presidential election. If you think tempers are frayed now…and given how America’s political culture increasingly sparks anger and confrontation…fasten your seat belts.
