The Obama Broadcasting Company (NBC)

By Big Tent Democrat

I did not get to watch much of the coverage last night but Digby did:

Watching the returns last night I was once again struck by the rank lack of professionalism and complete abdication of journalistic ethics on MSNBC. I noted in my early post last night that if you wanted to see what the early exit polls were saying all you had to do was watch that channel. It was clear that the numbers were very bad for Clinton and excellent for Obama. They could barely contain themselves with broad hints and winks and nods that Clinton was toast. The sheer joy on their faces was a sight to behold.

Gene Robinson showed up before the returns were in claiming that the night was a repudiation of Bill Clinton. Prior to the polls closing Mike Barnicle said that Massachusetts was a clear sign that Clinton had lost her edge. Olbermann, Matthews, O'Donnell, all of them, looked feverish and excited at the beginning of the coverage only to end up dull and uninspired. Although their preferred candidate in the end did very well last night, it wasn't the total rout they had been expecting and so they were unhappily left spinning excuses and robotically reciting vote counts by the end of the night.

. . . [I]n their desire to stand by their pal [Tweety], they have become obsessively anti-Clinton and pro-Obama, nearly to the point of parody.

Sounds about what I expected. Did you read any Establishment blogs note this? Of course not. Because they are feverishly pro-Obama too.

< Obama Campaign Predicts Deadlocked Race | The Delegate Count >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It is becoming (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Coldblue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:25:26 PM EST
    increasingly difficult to find any balance on MSNBC or the Establishment blogs. That is why many of us are getting our news and commentary elsewhere now.

    Yes. I can't even stand to turn on the TV anymore. (none / 0) (#21)
    by derridog on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:28:42 PM EST
    It truly is now a "vast wasteland."

    It would seem that Olbermann is ceasing (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by rhbrandon on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:01:06 PM EST
    to be so much the renegade at MSNBC as the newest kool kid on the network. Sort of the lifecycle of the insightful "journalismist".

    Too bad; it was nice while he was relevant. We'll always remember the young Keith, before he turned into the newest Tweety.


    I was sitting in traffic (none / 0) (#28)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:00:55 PM EST
    listening to the radio today (Sirius) and NPR had a break so I flipped around and heard someone saying (not verbatim) "It's egregious how NBC, ABC, and CBS get away with this.  Where is the FEC?  They constantly go after Hillary Clinton while they praise Barack Obama and no one calls them on it.  If Fox news was doing half of this, the left would be going insane.  Those three stations should lose their licenses or be fined."

    And I said, "Heck yeah!" and looked at the screen that shows what station it is and who is talking and it was...Bill O'Riley.



    My head is really spinning (none / 0) (#39)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:24:43 PM EST
    I agree with Pat Buchanon, I yell at Rachel Maddow, I turn on Fox and here bits of semi reason. That is it, my brain will explode.

    I figured it out, folks. At long last, (none / 0) (#38)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:01:39 PM EST
    I figured it out.

    There hasn't been a missing blond white girl in months.  So they made Clinton their missing blond white girl!  Missing from fair and balanced coverage, anyway.

    Or maybe it's because they really like blond white bad girls, like Paris and Britney.  But Paris has apparently been behaving and not making news, and Britney is locked up for her own good.  Voila!  They make Clinton the blond white bad girl.

    It's all about memes, and she doesn't fit.  So she must be punished for that by being pushed into the memes they've got.  


    Mozart/Salieri bit (none / 0) (#1)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 06:59:55 PM EST
    In trying to show us that he is literate or knows of the arts, he makes a reference to the Mozart/Saliery relationship in the movie Amadeus. Matthews clearly did not even do research on Mozart or Salieri as he would then know that their relationship as shown in Amadeus is a falsely created on. There is little evidence to show that they met, and their is no real reason to believe there was any personal contention between the two. The whole scenario was made to explore the idea of god in the play Amadeus by Pete Schaffer. Dope, takes a movie and makes it history.

    Oh wait. Are you telling me Salieri (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:07:41 PM EST
    didn't cause Mozart's early death?

    nope (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by cpinva on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:18:18 PM EST
    it's what's known as "dramatic license". lol

    the rude pundit is calling yesterday a breakthrough day for obama, because he did so well. my take is somewhat different. given the big mo he got from iowa; all the lovin' from the media; the big name endorsements; anything less than a rout is a loss for obama.

    clearly, that's not the case. oh, did i mention the polls, some that had obama by as much as 13 points in ca?

    frankly, i don't believe for a minute that he's going to win next 9 states. i think it will be closer to an even split, given the demographics of the states in question.

    yes, i'm a hillary supporter. i like my politicians, much like my cardiac surgeon, leavened with some experience.


    Fabrication (none / 0) (#13)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:10:30 PM EST
    Hollywood...(in Digby's post) I hate it when people think movies have real history.

    IJust kidding. (I have two degrees in music.) (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:23:25 PM EST
    LOL....sorry (none / 0) (#19)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:25:09 PM EST
    Oops...I did it again

    and if Obama (none / 0) (#2)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:01:06 PM EST
    cannot win in this extremely favorable media phase then there is something wrong...I think I know what it is...he is running on GOP talking points which isn't too popular with the traditional dems...Here are some random thoughts for you too, the funniest being "Should DKOS consider sending the Obama campaign an invoice?"

    upps here is the link (none / 0) (#3)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:02:03 PM EST
    If he can win in this environment (none / 0) (#12)
    by magster on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:08:22 PM EST
    He's more likely to win in November in the same environment.

    Obama raised almost as much as Hillary loaned herself since 10 pm last night, by the way.

    Resistance is futile......drink the Kool Aid.


    Yes, but McCain will be the darling then (none / 0) (#34)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:12:43 PM EST
    Don't kid yourself.

    Teresa (none / 0) (#40)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:42:21 PM EST
    I keep hearing that, and then I risk censure by posting this a third (and last, I promise!) time, though hopefully folks will think it is relevant to this thread.

    From MyDD:

    "Also Larry Johnson at No Quarter blog is reporting that he knows of several articles that are damaging to Obama that the press is sitting on right now. I have no idea what they are about but maybe someone here does."

    Dang, I was just hoping this would happen.  Too bad I gave up prayer for Lent.


    do you not realize (none / 0) (#41)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:14:33 AM EST
    how sad and pathetic it is to hoping for some dirt to surface against another candidate in your party?

    Remember, he may well be the nominee of your party.

    It makes one think you dont beleive you can win on the merits.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:57:30 AM EST
    Not a good way to sell your candidate.

    squeaky (none / 0) (#47)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:49:37 AM EST
    Fair is fair.  We have known about a lot of this Obama stuff on the net for a while and the msm has not really picked it up (I assume they are waiting for the ge)

    I am not trying to "sell" my candidate.  She does a fine job of getting votes herself--I am trying to get her opposition properly vetted because, while Obama can send out mailers attacking her healthcare policy and saying Bill Clinton ruined the democratic party, she has to be silent for fear of being painted as divisive.

    I stand by my original comment from days, weeks, ago: this guy needs to be vetted.

    If he can't handle scrutiny now, how is he going to handle it when the real money gets spent to investigate him?  This kid gloves treatment he has been getting is insulting.


    Abrams (none / 0) (#4)
    by Saul on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:02:37 PM EST
    keeps bringing the point up of how bias the media is against Hilary and are fawning Obama on the Abrams Report, yet he still does not have the guts to say that the bulk of this bias is coming from his two compadres that come on two hours before him.  Where is the outrage.  Kieth needs to make a Worst Person In The World segment showing the hypocrisy between him, Chris and the Abrams Report.

    I hate these people. BTW, Looseheadprop has (none / 0) (#5)
    by Angel on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:02:44 PM EST
    a post up at Firedog about BO's relationship with Tony Rezko, plus a few other tidbits.  It's pretty snarky.  OT, but I have finally decided I will not vote for him if he's on the ticket.  He's a smoker.  I cannot vote for a smoker.  

    I read Hichelle Obama agreed to his (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:04:46 PM EST
    running for President, but only if he quit smoking.  He's still running, so I think he is an ex-smoker.

    Dream on. Smokers promise to quit all (none / 0) (#23)
    by derridog on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:33:18 PM EST
    the time.  I was married to one who died of lung cancer and then lived with another for twenty years who had to smoke outside.  He finally quit when he got prostate cancer that had spread to the lungs.  

    I don't blame people who smoke. It's horribly addictive, but Obama isn't going to quit just because he promised Michelle he would.


    and you know this for sure? (none / 0) (#25)
    by byteb on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:41:42 PM EST
    Can't vote for a smoker..... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:17:49 AM EST
    no wonder we end up with crappy presidents with qualifiers like that.

    I don't care if you smock crack if your policies are sound.


    at my friend's house, she was constantly (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:03:41 PM EST
    switching channels.  So peaceful when PBS came on; no shouting.  

    I couldn't bring myself to (none / 0) (#7)
    by IndependantThinker on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:04:03 PM EST
    watch them. I suffered through Chris Matthews and his cronies for the IOWA caucus and leading up to NH.  I was so down, and I think a great of my current anger and disgust arises from their coverage at that time.  

    There is no way to stop their broadcast except I am going to write to each of the sponsors during Hardball and let them know, in no uncertain terms, that I will not be buying their products because of that show.  Voting with my pocketbook.

    I watched it. (none / 0) (#8)
    by CathyinLa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:04:09 PM EST
    Masochist, I am.  Olbermann made such a huge deal about the Kennedys like it trumped everything.  He was actually trying to talk Matthews out of suggesting the Clintons beat the Kennedys with the lame caveat that he'd done better than he would have without the Kennedys.

    Joe, Olbermann, Gene Robinson were ready to fry Bill again, "repudiation!" Massachusetts had not cleared her throat yet; not when Clinton still beats the Kennedys in Massachusetts.

    And Barnicle never made another appearance after calmly and confidently declaring that Obama was going to take Massachusetts.

    And they kept it up, hoping against hope that California! would prove them right.  Right after Hillary's speech Olbermann had to comment that maybe her excitement wouldn't play out when the numbers came in because "California is too close to call".  Right after the polls closed, within minutes, he draws real meaning from this?

    Olbermann has also decided that the argument that Obama isn't ready on day one is akin to a below the belt argument.  I say it's an old argument that doesn't automatically win, and shouldn't but the idea that it's a low only the Clintons would stoop too is insanity.

    They aren't counting on the angry older (none / 0) (#9)
    by Teresa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:04:16 PM EST
    women out there. We know not to ever call my mother from 7-9 because she has to watch Hardball and Keith O. Today, she told me she's switched to CNN. She doesn't like Lou Dobbs though so if anyone knows a good 7:00 eastern time show, she's interested.

    I'm sure she's not a demographic they mind losing but they could have used this exciting race to capture long-term viewers and instead they are getting a new probably younger audience that won't stick around when the election is over.

    Angry with MSNBC Too (none / 0) (#45)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:11:48 AM EST
    I'm another angry older woman and I've simply given up on the television. Tell her to get on line and go to Talkleft, mydd and No Quarter. At least she won't get nothing but Obamamania. If she insists on turning on the tube, I watch reruns of CSI Miami rather than Tweety, Olbermann and the rest of the MSNBC Drones. Oh and I agree with her about Dobbs, can't stand the man! And just for curiosity's sake, does Jack Cafferty like anybody or anything?

    Olberman as Murrow (none / 0) (#14)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:14:53 PM EST
    Olbmeran tried to become the new Murrow, but alas, he is just another modern day entertainment personality. He has taken on a personality and I must say a mean one. I don't think women are his audience anyway so he panders to the white boys who are the Obama audience.

    Juan Williams on Fox (none / 0) (#16)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:18:29 PM EST
    Just said the press hates Hillary and loves Obama.

    well when there is push, push, push about (none / 0) (#30)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:06:15 PM EST
    obama, then there will be a response. people get tired of having something pushed at them all the time.

    i was unhappy with hillary over the past several years on some issues. i even sent her some emails about it. i also was an edwards supporter. but going to kos and huff post everyday turned me from someone who admired many things about her but didn't actively support her to someone who does.

    i am a registered independent and former repub(long ago). now one would think i would be pro obama. naw! no way!


    Velcome...... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:45:52 PM EST
    Many refugees here.

    I flipped back (none / 0) (#17)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:19:42 PM EST
    and forth between them and CNN. I could only watch them for a limited time... because I start yelling at th TV.

    I went to bed thinking that Clinton would lose CA. The media had convince me.

    I woke up to a Clinton win in CA.

    The real danger in all this is that what happens if Sen Clinton drops out of the race. Women will be soooo p#@ssed that the Dem Party will have a problem winning the election. She is fighting against horrible odds.... media spin is just killing her campaing. She is having to spend more to beat the media and the Obama Camp.

    The more Sen Obama flaunts the "Her people will vote for me" the more the danger to the Dem Party.

    For the good of the Dem Party, Sen Clinton must stay in this race until the convention.

    Look. Maybe I'm wrong, but it makes no sense to me (none / 0) (#27)
    by derridog on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:59:28 PM EST
    that the Superdelegates  and the behind the scenes party bosses aren't going to notice that she wins large states that will go Democratic in the fall and Barack wins little states that will go to the Rethugs.  Surely, they aren't going to want to piss off the Floridians and the Michigan voters in the fall by denying their delegates the right to be counted.  If the Party is on a suicide  mission, maybe that will happen.  A lot  of men hate the idea of having a woman in power so much that who knows what they'll do. But it would be really stupid to run Obama if they end up with no one having enough delegates and it comes down to a hung convention. If this were the Republican race with "winner takes all," she'd be putting Obama in the dust.

    Besides, Hillary does really well with Hispanics, supposedly the wave of the future, and with older women who tend to vote reliably even if we are demonized by young white guys.  She's obviously doing something right because, even with the combined efforts of the conservative AND "liberal" media focused against her, she's still winning delegates.  I wonder if Obama can manage to match her achievements once he gets the nomination (if he does) and the MSM turns on him.

    Hillary's biggest problem may be money. So we should send her some. There are millions of Hillary supporters.  People need to send her some cash, even if it's only a little bit. The Obamaniacs are doing it. She needs some love.


    My worry about the superdelegates (none / 0) (#32)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:08:02 PM EST
    is they would rather look sexist than racist, which is how it might be spun.  And not because they represent large black communities, but because sexism is completely acceptable.

    Count me as one of those women who will be completely pissed if they force her out because they are scared of looking racist.  Especially given that this scenario assumes it's NOT racist to cut out Asian and Latino voters.

    How come that is?


    How come? (none / 0) (#46)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:18:35 AM EST
    I think it's because it is considered perfectly fine to be a sexist and evil, evil, evil to be racist. Course some of us, the female side of the equation may not find that fact fine and dandy.

    You know that when Shirley Chisholm was asked if it was harder to be black or to be a woman she didn't even have to think about it. She just said,"a woman."

    Personally I find any kind of bigotry unacceptable. Being in two of the categories where there is considerable discrimination, i.e. older woman, I tend to get a bit testy when  younger voters now suggest that the "old" folks just take a seat and "pass the torch". Try that with this old lady and you're apt to get the torch upside your head.


    me too! i came to talk left and saw she (none / 0) (#31)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:07:03 PM EST
    had won california. it made my evening!

    The Glance (none / 0) (#22)
    by xjt on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:32:53 PM EST
    between Tweety and the "progressive" blog hero Keith Olbermann was priceless when Keith mistakenly announced early in the evening that Tennessee was
    "too close to call."

    You could see they were giddy at her impending demise. Then, of course, she won. I just try to imagine Obama on the receiving end of this type of treatment.

    "tis a pity (none / 0) (#24)
    by cpinva on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 07:38:29 PM EST
    she's a whore!"

    geez, you'd think after killing everyone in arkansas and ny, sen. clinton would have enough pull to wipe out this network. sadly, no.

    Taylor Marsh (none / 0) (#33)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:09:36 PM EST
     is very pro-Hillary, but she also got mad at Bill.

    And yet, some folks here vilify her.

    I dunno--seems like the boys (and Huff) can get away with being one-sided and no one really cares.

    I was very upset about Stewart.

    PRIAPIC HILLARY HATRED (none / 0) (#35)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:18:55 PM EST
    Olbermann gets an erection over hating Hillary. Didn't know it was THAT good ;-).

    LOL!  You cracked me up.

    um really (none / 0) (#36)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:40:28 PM EST
    i just heard Craig Crawford call Obama's support white guilt, every day pat Buchanon says terrible things about him, on NBC. Media follows hype, they are better at creating it then Hillary, on the other hand Hillary is better at lowering expectations.  

    when you deny the obvious (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:07:51 AM EST
    you are ignored here.

    The media is (none / 0) (#42)
    by talkingpoint on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:25:32 AM EST
    vying to decide our nominee. This is sad. Hillary does not deserve this abuse. I have become very anti-media now. They are trying to shove Obama down our throats.

    the media ARE (none / 0) (#43)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:32:50 AM EST
    MSNBC (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:00:45 AM EST
    is the only one of the cable news channels i can stomach, and their glee for Obama (who i am still supporting but may change to Hillary if Obama doesn't give me something of substance in the debates soon) and contempt for Hillary make me turn them off as well.

    I still think MSNBC needs a strong woman anchor or at least an hour show nightly from Jeralyn...

    Or at least bring Jeralyn in (none / 0) (#49)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:06:42 AM EST
    as an election commentator to balance out Huffington, Marshall, Maddow, Olbermann, and the rest of the Obamaheads.

    I Agree (none / 0) (#52)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:18:29 AM EST
    I used to think that Rachel Maddow would make a good anchor but then she turned into a Hillary bashing, Obama loving MSNBC Drone too. Does anyone remember the name of the CNN Reporter that got demoted because she was telling the truth about the war in Iraq? Was it Ashley Bamford or something like that? I guess the truth sets you free from lucrative employment on cable television if nothing else. I think she would make a great anchor. Or Christiane Amanpour.

    i forgot about amanpour (none / 0) (#56)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:42:39 PM EST
    i love her

    Fair and Balanced (none / 0) (#53)
    by LadyDiofCT on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:51:56 AM EST
    I was so disgusted by the Obama loving MSNBC and CNN I turned to Fox news for fair and balanced! HA!

    Honestly, in comparison (none / 0) (#54)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:16:31 AM EST
    Faux IS more balanced than the other two...as long as you don't touch Hannity with a ten foot pole.

    Center for Media and Public Affairs (none / 0) (#55)
    by KevinMc on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:28:06 AM EST
    CMPA (The Center for Media and Public Affairs) verifies what everyone is saying.  The first two posts on their page say it all.  Check them out.

    CMPA The Center for Media and Public Affais

    Here is an excerpt from a study released last week:
    "TV election news has been hardest on Hillary Clinton this fall, while Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee have been the biggest media favorites, according to a new study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) at George Mason University. The study also found that Fox NewsChannel�s evening news show provided more balanced coverage than its counterparts on the broadcast networks".


    other Hillary blogs (none / 0) (#57)
    by SKY on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:31:36 AM EST
    Foxhole Atheist,

    I often visit Larry Johnson's blog at NO Quarter.  He and another writer, Susan, give excellent posts that are pro-Hillary. Please check it out.  I also visit Hillaryis44.com and politicaldiscontent.blogspot.com