About The Obama News Network (NBC)

Howard Kurtz covers what everyone knows, MSNBC is in the tank for Obama:

Terence Smith, a former correspondent for CBS, PBS and the New York Times, says . . . [a]s for Matthews and Olbermann, Smith says, "there's no confusion on 'Hardball' or 'Countdown' as to where they stand. They are and have been enamored of Obama from the beginning."

Here 's a funny line - "The Obama campaign, for its part, has not complained about MSNBC's coverage." Uh huh. They have not complained about Daily Kos and Talking Points Memo's coverage either. That was a hoot.

And finally, from the DUH file:

In the bitter battle for the Democratic nomination, MSNBC is widely viewed as being rough on Clinton.

Hey, it's the Obama News Network -- it is Obama's answer to Fox. And Olbermann is Obama's O'Reilly. But it has helped in ratings, at least the Obama love part. The Clinton Hate? Not so much I think.

Speaking for me only

< Clueless | The DNC Rules Committee 5/31 Meeting Materials >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well, they can't buy back (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:26:25 PM EST
    their credibility.

    Their bet is that (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:33:20 PM EST
    obama owes them unique access. Or they can say they fought the good fight on behalf of the bestest most noble man to ever run for the presidency.

    When he becomes a Loser (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:35:07 PM EST
    then what do they say? It sure won't be their fault, so they are going to have to point out how he failed.

    They will say they fought the good fight (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:40:05 PM EST
    on behalf of the black guy and they will blame Dems for slitting their own throats for picking such a loser.

    And they'll blame it (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by Cream City on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    on "typical white people," most typically that typical white woman who dares to win more typical white voters who must be typically stoopid because they aren't doing what the typical media tell them to do.  

    IATWPF, a corollary of IACF.  It's all typical white people's fault and, of course, it's all Clinton's fault.

    The story is written (no research needed, natch) but for filling in blanks with final numbers.  The story might as well be filed, so let's -- like the DNC rules committee -- just go to lunch.


    I'm not sure it even gets to that point (none / 0) (#43)
    by Daryl24 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:52:59 PM EST
    McCain may have a stronger tingle on Matthews then Obama. He seem to like non democrat war heroes. Even fake ones.  

    They should've opted for the standard Rethug pkg (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:30:01 PM EST
    At least their access includes catering, pillage and filthy lucre.

    Dems' corruption so far has only spread the promise of massive stupid paperwork, the irritating prospect of far too much @ss to kiss and no free bar.


    neither can dkos, TPM, huffingtonpost (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by TalkRight on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:44:57 PM EST
    and may I add.. Bill Richardson and Edwards!

    When are they going to hire JMM? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by MarkL on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:28:41 PM EST
    He could balance out their coverage.

    No one can hire him (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:34:13 PM EST
    He's been kidnapped!

    They should hire the Sputtering Unnamed Emailer (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:17:22 PM EST
    You know, the one who routinely "tips" him several paragraphs of raw, substance-free anti-Clinton spew that JMM simply has to publish.

    Exercising discernment would be as unthinkable as the Dems exercising courage: someone might strain something.


    will that fawning support last (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:32:00 PM EST
    after the convention though?

    Somerby had a good article up about judis letting the media mask slip.  Judis inadvertently admitted that the press decided that Obama's racial identity (and America's history of race relations) trumped Clinton's standing as the first female candidate--or biden's experience ofr Edwards potential to win southern states.

    Now Dems, ye reap what ye sow.  You expunged some good candidates very early.  

    Maybe (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:34:06 PM EST
    on the Obama network but I doubt anywhere else. Once the GOP starts they'll do what they are supposed to do.

    Edwards pretty much said the same (none / 0) (#10)
    by MarkL on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:37:38 PM EST
    thing when he conceded---because he was a white man, he couldn't compete.

    Edwards couldn't compete in the press. (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:42:49 PM EST
    His argument was a fairly conventional geographical one--I can win the general by slicing away a few southern states. Is that going to sell copy or adverts on TV?

     The influence the press has makes a mockery of the party really.


    Even Media Matters (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:33:57 PM EST
    An organization that prides itself in pointing out the sins of MSM and trying to keep them honest, has done nothing to take up this topic. Well, they made Chris Matthews apologize once, and they keep a "watch" on him, but that's it.

    There is currently an email campaign to them in an effort to get them to speak out on this problem, but they seem too focused on poor Obama and the media not being tough enough on McCain.

    he looked so strained when (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Salo on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:36:42 PM EST
    Joan Walsh was pointing out how disengenuous the RFK flap was.

    He was seen grimacing comically on a split screen as she pointed out that Demonizing the Clinton's within the party will ensure eventual defeat in November.


    Joan was awesome (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:38:01 PM EST
    with how logical and firm she was on the topic. She made some great count-arguments.

    Welsh is over a year too late (none / 0) (#54)
    by bridget on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:37:40 PM EST
    with her Hillary defense.

    Nice to hear that she remembered Bill Clinton was the only two-term Prez in her lifetime. Bravo! But then, since she is a very good liberal $$$ pundit, she made sure everyone knew (esp. tweety) how often she had criticized Bill and Hillary Clinton for this and that, this and that ..... grrr. Yes, we know Ms Welsh. I heard it. And thats why bloggers like Somerby never run out of stuff to complain about re wimpy liberals.
    Looks like Dems truly love to lose.

    I don't watch cable news anymore so after listening to that Madison fellow all I can say is that "Democrat" is worth than the Repubs of the 90s ever were.


    Joe Madison looked pathetic, too... (none / 0) (#50)
    by citizen53 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:27:51 PM EST
    and did not even have the courage to say that the fake outrage about Clinton was flat wrong.

    Rachel (none / 0) (#49)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:12:04 PM EST
    Maddow sat too close to gasbag Olbermann and became infected and now is an official Hillay Hating Obamacrat. Or maybe she always was just another media crapozoid.

    The most telling line in that article for me (5.00 / 9) (#14)
    by akaEloise on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:47:44 PM EST
    is the NBC executive Phil Griffin:

    Griffin maintains that MSNBC has been "very fair" to Clinton, despite what he calls her "baggage." "Obama had a lot of early success, and that colored people's thinking," he says. "That was a newer story, a fresher story, and people locked onto it."

    So now it all becomes clear.  It's not that the folks at MSNBC have done some serious examination of the issues and challenges facing the United States and the world in 2008, and concluded that Obama is a better candidate, or would be a better President.  They think he's a better storyline because he's "newer and fresher".  They've already done Clinton. they want a new theme.  This is just a reality show to them, and if the contestant who has a better backstory or who looks better on camera isn't performing quite as well as his rival, well, we can fix that in the editing.  And what's that disclaimer at the end about "certain decisions may have been discussed with the judges in advance"?  Not to worry, just sit back, relax, and enjoy the show!

    With all due respect (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:31:21 PM EST
    it's not their job to decide who's the better candidate or who would be a better president, and I don't think we really want to encourage news organizations to make that kind of judgment outside the editorial pages.

    But it is very much their job to get ratings and to glom onto good storylines that attract viewers.  That's why we get saturation coverage of OJ Simpson and Missing White Women.  Obama versus Clinton was a great storyline, so they disappeared Edwards and the other candidates except to ask them once in a while when they were going to give up.

    The Obama hysteria is a more interesting storyline to them than Hillary, largely for some of the same reasons he makes us nervous-- they know what Hillary would likely do as president, they have no more idea than we do what Obama would do.  That and Oprah and the mass rallies and his ethnic make-up simply make him objectively a better story, unfortunately for us and for Hillary.

    MSNBC's pro-Obama, anti-Hillary bias makes me completely crazy, but although they're the most obvious about it, those biases are pretty much shared by the entirety of U.S. news media.  After all, these folks are the epitome of Obama's core demographic, the "creative class" so-called.

    Now that essentially all news organizations, from local newspapers to broadcast networks, are owned by big corporations rather than the family businesses they used to be, news, which once used to be a public service, is now a business itself and is required to rake in big profit for the parent company.

    So get used to it, the focus on the most entertaining storyline isn't ever going away.

    What's most galling to me is Olbermann's fantasy that he's the Second Coming of Edward R. Murrow.  He isn't even the Second Coming of Wolf Blitzer.  He isn't fit to lick Murrow's shoes.  But he gets the best ratings in the most desirable advertiser demographic MSNBC has ever had with his schtick, which is all they care about.


    I fall asleep with the television on a lot (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Grace on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:03:59 PM EST
    of times.  One night, in that "twilight sleep" (where you are sort of asleep and sort of still awake) -- I could have sworn I heard "Osama Bin Ladin linked to Moveon.org"

    I fell asleep thinking "Wow!  What a great story!"

    Needless to say, there was no story like that because I checked on the internet the next day.  But still, can you imagine what the media would have done with that?!  


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:49:24 PM EST
    Hey, it's the Obama News Network -- it is Obama's answer to Fox.

    I don't remember anyone on Fox saying McCain sent a tingle up their legs.


    Really, NBC is proving the Right to be right. Both daddy and son are biased beyond belief.

    hi jim (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:18:28 PM EST
    you still are a major weenie, but I have missed ya. Hope all is well.

    Heh (none / 0) (#37)
    by jondee on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:12:04 PM EST
    Not since Republicans stopped hanging out in airport
    mens rooms, anyway.

    Imagine that, a media outlet with a "bias". Why cant they just objectivly report events like the jackdaws
    on talk radio and at Fox?


    MSNBC = "Liberal" FOX NEWS (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by sotonightthatimightsee on Wed May 28, 2008 at 12:51:57 PM EST
    Our party is no longer the party of JFK and Bill Clinton; it's become the party of the left-wing nuts bent on pushing forth their twisted ideology! I want no part of it and no part of Obama. This former hardcore democrat has officially become and independent voter who will gladly and wholeheartedly cast his vote for John McCain. The U.S Media in this country has become a laughing stock not only here, but around the world. The world watches and laughs at us for the joke we've become. We've complained for 7 years that we elected someone with no experience, no history of bipartisanship, no history of compromising, no foreign policy experience, yet some are eager to put the future of this wounded nation in the hands of another inept pretender?!?! My God, what is going on here???

    MSNBC has become the "Liberal" Fox News Channel, - promoting and pushing Obama down our throats shamelessly! On the night of November 4th, 2008 when the results start coming in and Chris Matthews and those goons over at MSNBC are forced to call Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Florida and Michigan for John McCain, many heads will roll and many will be literally expelled from the Democratic party...too bad it will be too late; the party's soul will have been lost long before!

    If it was just the liberal Fox... (none / 0) (#51)
    by citizen53 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:32:30 PM EST
    that would be ok.  But it has blatantly chosen sides on the liberal side and that makes its bias even worse.

    I am becoming reduced to watching SportsCenter.


    I'm an independent now (none / 0) (#56)
    by suzieg on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:17:02 AM EST
    changed my party affiliation quite a while back, made a photocopy and mailed to Dean and told him what to do with it and that I was fed up of being taken for granted.

    I don't know if I could vote for McCain but I don't think voting for Nader would be that hard because we need to send a message that a third party is needed!


    Olbermann is (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:07:57 PM EST
    worse than O'Reilly.  He's more like McCarthy.

    You're right (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:10:10 PM EST
    and yes, the aftermath of the Clinton interview was one of the more supreme acts of Olbermannian cowardice I've ever seen.

    Charley or Joe? (none / 0) (#39)
    by jondee on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:22:29 PM EST
    This, of course, isnt about bias, it's about which bias.

    And MSNBC is hedging their bets about who is going to be their special friend once they're in office.

    As the late, great one said: So it goes.


    Maybe because Rupert.... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:29:51 PM EST
    gave Clinton some dough, GE figured they better back the other horse, lest they get shut out the gravy train.

    Sad, but true... (none / 0) (#52)
    by citizen53 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 05:35:23 PM EST
    because he had so much promise and knows better.

    It's a classic case of fame going to someone's head.

    Murrow is rolling in his grave.


    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by janarchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:09:20 PM EST
    Hey, it's the Obama News Network -- it is Obama's answer to Fox. And Olbermann is Obama's O'Reilly. But it has helped in ratings, at least the Obama love part. The Clinton Hate? Not so much I think.

    And that's why it's so disgusting, especially from Olbermann who sat there (and probably still does, since I don't watch him anymore) pontificating on the Fox Propaganda Machine and how wrong it is and now 'neutral' he is, and now it's just been proven that Mr Neutrality is just Bill O'Reilly with a different President to drool over. It's the hypocrisy, stupid.

    What's going to happen if Obama gets into the WH and starts pulling the same crap that Dubya has (and I suspect he will -- he's proving more and more to be a slightly smarter version)? Are KO or Tweety suddenly going to wake up and report actual events or are they going to continue to make excuses round the clock -- just like the supposed evil, corrupt, in the tank fatheads at Fox?

    Tweety always hated the Clintons -- since the 90s, he's gone ballistic when their names were mentioned. Olbermann seemed to be enamoured with them until about 4 months ago.

    Wouldn't it have been nice if a supposed "liberal" news station had actually been neutral and let the best wo/man win rather than trying to play the same games they always have? Playing Kingmaker only gets you so far -- especially when your "King" is just an empty suit.

    I missed the denunciation of BO for going on Fox (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Ellie on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:18:40 PM EST
    Surely that got a finger-wag and sputtering Special Commentary, did it not?

    Torrential Diaryah at Cheetoh HQ?

    No? How odd!


    It was run right after the (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by janarchy on Wed May 28, 2008 at 04:42:00 PM EST
    Special Comment on How Reverend Wright's Racist, Anti-Semitic, Anti-Italian, Anti-American Hysteria Is Even Worse Than Wot Geraldine Ferraro Said And Maybe Obama Should Pick Better Friends.

    Oh, wait, I only dreamed that one, didn't I?

    Because you know Geri Ferraro = David Duke, but Rev. Wright = Truth


    Which one? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Daryl24 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 03:09:28 PM EST
    He berated Hillary during his Special Rant for appearing on Fox, that awful network that had treated her so badly in the past.

    I think he's up to two and a half per show. Loved his rant on DKos. The original title I believe was
    "I Got Clobbered in the Arbitron Eventhough I Had The Same Guest On A Week Before But She Didn't Do Anything For My Ratings Which Keeps My Viewership Just Below Those Darn Funny Dean Martin Infomercials So That's Why I'm Here Ranting Incoherently"

    Curiously it was rejected.  


    Just because "news" is in the name.... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by kdog on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:11:49 PM EST
    of the network doesn't make it a news network.  MSNBC, Fox, CNN...these are entertainment networks.  Have been before we ever heard of Barack Obama.  Olbermann, O'Reilly and the like are not anything even resembling journalists.

    Once you realize these truths, their biases cease to be a big deal.  They're Howard Stern wanna-bes (without the talent or humor, imo).  If you want news, you shouldn't be watching television(except on occasion PBS)...that's the cold hard truth folks.

    The scary thing (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:21:45 PM EST
    is the nastier the Obama News Network gets toward Clinton, the better their ratings.

    They have no incentive to be anything but nasty.


    You nailed it T.... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by kdog on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:39:52 PM EST
    these networks are not in the business of truth, fairness, or impartiality.  They are in the business of ratings and selling commercial time.  

    They will air any crap that sells...didn't that Halloway girl teach us anything?


    Really? (none / 0) (#27)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:38:25 PM EST
    I know the article said their ratings have increased over last year, but are they really going up?  They still come in3rd, way behind Fox and CNN.

    MSNBC (none / 0) (#31)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:48:26 PM EST
    won primetime last Thursday AND Friday.  It was the first time they'd won in 6 years.

    Of course, Friday was Keith's 'special rant' and O'Reilly was gone that day.


    Yes, hating on Hillary is quite good for ratings.


    msnbc (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by tedsim on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:33:55 PM EST
    Today andrea said to howard wolfson why don't you stop people from protesting at the dnc on sat.howard said it's about the first amendment.!!!!

    Why the hell are they so concerned about.... (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:13:14 PM EST
    ...these protesters. The media is very good at ignoring protesters. But it seems that these protesters are offending them at their very core.

    These protestors... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 28, 2008 at 02:48:11 PM EST
    are actual, every day people rather than a crew of Hill staffers filling up a hallway.

    Just a thought...


    Because (none / 0) (#26)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:35:11 PM EST
    maybe his protesters are actual grassroots rather than astroturfers?

    If I said (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:49:22 PM EST
    what Olbermann can do with it, I'd be banned.

    And McCain will own that high road in Nov (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by nycstray on Wed May 28, 2008 at 01:51:26 PM EST
    Somewhere (had to ber DK or Huff Post) (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Wed May 28, 2008 at 08:24:43 PM EST
    I read a call-out that people coming to DC were bringing their children.  Is blood in the streets predicted?  Tear gas?  Police dogs?

    DC rally (none / 0) (#55)
    by Prairedawg on Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:59:10 PM EST
    I am going to a Count the Votes rally but the one I am attending is in Studio City.  There are others going on besides the one in D.C.
    Lets see if the media covers any of the rallys.  We are bringing our kids because the future of our kids and America is at stake.  
    What are the Obamacans going to do us?  Wave signs that say don't count the vote?