Opinion Journalism

I hate to rain on the parade, but when MSNBC has as its primary news anchor the most biased and ridiculous person in journalism, it ill behooves Left blogs, who fawn all over Olbermann, to complain when Ron Fournier, does what he always does, editorialize the news. ESPECIALLY when he does it in piece labelled as an opinion piece.

As Bob Somerby ably argues, Barack Obama is the Media's choice for this election, and thanks for that. I am happy about it. Indeed, I COUNTED ON IT when I supported him for the nomination. To play the victim now with the Media and Ron Fournier's OPINION piece proves once and for all, the Left blogs have become that which they purport to hate - mindless cheerleaders. Of course Fournier's behavior is reprehensible. But so is Keith Olbermann's and the entirety of NBC News. But no one demands Olbermann resign. It is silly to ask it of Ron Fournier now. But that is all we are now - hypocrites. Like, Paul Krugman, I see, understand and even applaud, the fact that Barack Obama played the silly games of politics regarding John McCain's houses. Politics is stupid. But I do not believe we need to play the same game with ourselves. At least I know I won't.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Brooding on Biden | Some Comic Relief And A Real Problem >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    MSNBC has become more opinionated (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:43:10 PM EST
    sort of in reaction to FOX it seems.  They cannot be confused with serious journalism.  But it's sort of nice to have an opinion foil for FOX.  Of course, it would be much better to have serious journalism.  Very hard to find these days.  Choose your news.

    Then (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:47:18 PM EST
    Let's stop pretending we care about objective journalism.

    If Fournier was like Olbermann, we would be defending him as AP DC bureau chief?

    I hate the hypocrisy. Call him out if you like. I think he wrote an opinion piece like the rest of the Media does.

    I have no illusions about Fournier, never did.

    But I do not cheer on Keith Olbermann either.


    Who's pretending???? (none / 0) (#10)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:48:52 PM EST
    Um, the Left blogs are (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:50:06 PM EST
    Sadly, I'm starting to believe that journalism ... (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:54:39 PM EST
    ... is just dropping the pretense and becoming what publishing has always been throughout history--promotion of the opinions and points of view of the rich publishers ... or lucrative entertainment for the masses.

    So let's all drop the pretense then (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:00:36 PM EST
    But I really do not believe that.

    I think good journalism is still possible. I still hold out hope.


    But it's good to acknowledge one's point of view (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:11:51 PM EST
    or perspective.  The idea of totally objective journalism was probably a false pretense.

    the point at which acknowledging that (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:02:12 PM EST
    nullifies coherent discourse is where we've arrived.

    yes.  I agree the notion of uber journalistic objectivity is a myth.  I have an agenda.  kos has an agenda. you have one.  jeralyn has one.  btd has one.  alegre has one.  olbermann has one.  and even murrow had an agenda.

    the point is to what extent one allows their agenda to eclipse rational discourse.  the point at which one regards similiar circumstances irrtaionally different in order to achieves one's objective.  that point where one discredit oneself but retains a cheering audience of people who share a like minded set of goals, but similiar disregard for the truth.

    Which is where we're at.

    yes.  olbermann and murrow both had agenda, but they are not the same person and you can probably figure out why one is respected and the other is not.

    and because you can figure that there's no need to rationalize all this as a wierd sort of version of btd's pols are pols mantra:  Journalists are journalists.

    and having said that I want to point out to btd that I'm not using his mantra to subvert it, i'm agreeing with him that we should continue to hope for and demand better from the media.  what we have now is a media that thinks blogging hysterics (as we see on other blogs) is pinnacle, and it's a joke.  it's hurting america.


    IMHO we arrived at that point around 1980 (none / 0) (#98)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:16:09 PM EST
    ... and if I were older I might think it happened in 1968 ... or 1960.  

    As I've said below, Olbermann is just an ESPN sportscaster who borrows many of his opinions from lesser blogs.  I don't rationalize it.  But I will admit to disliking FOX even more.  That's part of my bias.

    I would certainly like to hope for more from the media, but do you realistically see it happening?


    frankly msnbc disgusts me just (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by hellothere on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:23:28 PM EST
    as much as fox. msnbc was part no the leader in trashing hillary. that i won't forgive not for hillary's sake as she will survive. i will not forgive because as a woman it is beyond acceptance on any level. make no mistake the democrats and media who were part of trashing women have awakened a sleeping giant and we won't forget.

    if people get sick of it (none / 0) (#153)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:06:16 PM EST
    and stop watching, yeah.

    when someone shows up, provides an alternative, and then people flock to it, then yeah.

    that's the question.  


    What exists is possible (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Faust on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:18:15 PM EST
    There IS great journalism out there. It is, however, the exception to the rule. Why? Because it is not supported by the culture. The stupidity of the media is a reflection of our collective stupidity. We do not demand as a people that our national discourse be intelligent. We do not demand of ourselves rigor or discipline in our own thinking.

    We are not (at least as a collective) remotely Socratic in our approach to the truth, political or otherwise.

    How is such a situation supposed to resolve itself? If we expect the situation to resolve itself from the top down, i.e. by somehow "developing" an intelligent, informed, accurate, disciplined, honest press core then aren't we just admitting that the citizenry as a whole are fundamentally sheep that require a disciplined press corps to think for them?

    On the other hand if the citizenry were to demand decent journalism from their press wouldn't that be enough? But clearly there is no motivation to do so in the mass culture, as the American people collectively are far more interested in reality TV than in trying to engage in some kind of disciplined political discussion. As the whole thrust of your thread shows, there is no interest in actual honest discussion even among those who claim to be well informed and "reality based."

    I'm not offering anything particularly constructive here. I am simply noting that it is increasingly clear to me that our collective problem is very deep, and that mass culture provides some very difficult, perhaps irresolvable problems for those of us who have as our primary interest a conversation that has as its primary goal a reasonable facsimile of the truth.


    one of my comments was deleted.... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by p lukasiak on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:01:47 PM EST
    ...yesterday, when I pointed out that (according to Lambert) there were 24 mentions on the Great Orange Cheeto homepage, and 23 mentions at WKJM's homepage, of the McCain houses 'controversy... and that I checked FDL and found that including 7 of the eight posts on the homepage (and at least eight of the previous 9) were on the same non-issue.

    A year ago, I thought that the progressive critique of the media was a lot more substantive than what one saw from the right -- thank goodness for a few sites like Talk Left which have managed to not go off the deep end.

    My big question is whether the left blogosphere was always like this, and I didn't notice because I was part of the mob mentality, or if things actually changed thanx to Obamamania -- and I suspect its the former.


    it seems the Left was all about - (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Josey on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:16:12 PM EST
    holding the corporate media accountable - until Obama became the media's favored cash cow.
    Obama supporters certainly didn't object to ridiculous opinion articles that found "racist" motives everytime the Clintons sneezed.

    Faux outrage (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Matt in Chicago on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:05:59 PM EST
    like this has become de rigeuer in today's political environment.  Crying about Fox's rightwing bias while blindly applauding the bias that you agree with.

    It seems to me that journalists and people often can't differentiate between conveying news (which I define as unbiased facts) and creating "stories" and presenting opinions.  Thus, when someone offers an explicit opinion, it is decried as news because the difference has been lost.

    Personally, I believe the problem started when "journalists" decided that they were the equals of the celebrities, politicians, and generals that they are supposed to cover.  They now believe that THEY have a legitimate part in the story.  It is laughable considering how biased and ignorant they are of the very subjects that they believe themselves to be experts on...  sigh.


    what about Calvin Woodward?? (none / 0) (#126)
    by Josey on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:39:54 PM EST
    Will Kossacks demand the AP fire him too??

    Biden brings agile mind, loose lips to ticket --



    The polls show...? (none / 0) (#133)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:45:12 PM EST
    The polls show a Democratic candidate in a Democratic year under performing.

    Obama is responsible for his own campaign, the media isn't.


    Schmoozing the media (none / 0) (#146)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:59:56 PM EST
    is key.

    And the foolish and pointless teasing of the media for the VP roll out was not a good move.  Trolling for cell phone numbers I can understand.  Leading the media on I can't.


    Quick Question (none / 0) (#156)
    by ding7777 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:15:34 PM EST
    How many in the MSM have said the Obama camp is dysfunctional when it failed to deliver the promised VP text message on time and before the media reported the VP pick?

    Not reporting Obama's failures is called "getting better press coverage"


    Please., not another What Obama really meant (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by ding7777 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:51:28 AM EST
    August 12, 2008 :  "Sign up today to be the first to know. You will receive an email the moment Barack makes his decision, or you can receive a text message on your mobile phone."

    August 21, 2008: Sen. Barack Obama said "I have made the selection, and that's all you're going to get"

    August 23, 2008:  Text message sent 2 days after Obama publicly made his selection NOT the moment he made his decision as was promised during the sign-up request

    Why hasn't the media told us the simple broken promise was the failure of his dysfunctional campaign??


    i don't want or need a left wing (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by hellothere on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:19:35 PM EST
    verison of fox. that is insulting. what we need is effective journalism. both sides don't represent our interest just their masters.

    Standing up ...applauding (5.00 / 13) (#3)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:44:06 PM EST
    screaming BRAVO!!!

    One of the most disillusioning, disturbing outcome of this primary/ge season for me has been watching the so called "left wing" become everything I have hated and detested and disrespected on the right.
    On the blogs, on the MSM, in the print media, it has been sad to see.  

    We, the collective left wing, have morphed into what we claim hurts democracy.  How do we stop it?

    Give you a 100 rating (5.00 / 8) (#21)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:57:59 PM EST
    for this.  It's been spectacularly disillusioning for me, and I'm no naive young chicken with absurd ideals ripe for busting.

    Like so many, I found the blogs in their infancy when I was in despair over the horrible MSM performance in the 2000 Florida debacle and found what seemed to be a genuine search for truth.


    What do we do about it?  I. Don't. Know.  And I'm honestly about out of energy.

    There is something still a bit inchoate dubbed PB 2.0 (for "progressive blogosphere version 2), mostly being chewed over at a blog called correntewire, which BTD has participated in.  The idea is to form some kind of Web ring or coalition of left blogs like TL and a handful of others that, whether they're pro Obama or not, haven't drunk anybody's Kool-Aid and still value reality over "truthiness."  BTD and Jeralyn on this blog are really the prime example of that, IMHO.

    It's not much, and it may never even come to pass, but it's something.


    Wow that's encouraging (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:18:05 PM EST
    maybe it will happen.

    I am not young idealist either.  At 60+ I have had my ideals shattered over and over and over.   I saw back in the sixties when we women, trying to get women's issues inserted into the civil rights and anti war dissension, were virtually ignored, i.e. "get the coffee and let us guys do the thinking".

    But as an educator for a long time I would teach children how one of the greatest safeguards of democracy was the free and independent press.  And then one day it turns out, it was not so free, not so independent as I thought and then, much to my surprise in the last three decades it has become less free and less independent.

    And it's frustrating.  As I sit here watching whom I thought was a break thru for women in the media, Rachel Maddow, I get saddened.  Not because Rachel was blatantly anti Clinton but because she is anti any one candidate and is not about disclosing what is wrong with government. I hope it is because at this time it is the only way to get the job and she has the conscience to be better than another Obama cheerleader on NBC.  Whether it had been Hillary or whether it becomes Obama, all pols, all government needs a strong and independent watchdog.  And that was traditionally the press.

    I thought early on the blogs would fill the void left by the millionaire pundit class.  Lo and behold, not so much.  This blog is one of the few that is not fertile ground for blog bullying and partisanship wars.


    My opinion is.... (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Aqua Blue on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:56:32 PM EST
    that there is no free press any longer.   Not since the mom and pop businesses were taken over by the mass conglomerates.  

    The super rich tell "reporters" what the slant must be.   I believe that the "new" is scripted  for big business. Big buiness did not want Hillary and they do want Obama.

    The super rich equals "the wizard" behind the curtain.   It is my opinion that the propaganda machine is "reality show" for the masses.  Entertain the people and they will never notice.

      Reminds me of putting the frog in a pot of water and slowly increasing the heat.   He doesn't jump out.  


    Wasn't it Stokely (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:53:54 PM EST
    who said so famously back then, "The role of women in the revolution is on their backs"?

    I'm just a few months shy of 60 myself, so we're close.  Maybe explains why your comments have resonated so strongly with me since you started posting.

    Those of us who lived through the '60s, particularly the horror year of 1968, as adults or near-adults had our idealism crushed early.  Still, there's always been a certain sort of floor of semi-trust that I never imagined would also be crushed.

    Media has changed dramatically because of ownership, which has changed across the board from individuals or families to big mega-corporations.  I don't think it really affects the media's slant on things, but it has turned news from a calling and a public service into just another profit center.  I'm lucky in that I live in an area served by the very last, I understand, independent family-owned TV station in the country, so at least I get serious local coverage, not wall-to-wall crime and sex.

    Rachel Maddow is a huge disappointment.  She's so bright and so perceptive, but my sense is she's totally come under the spell of lust for fame and  her own TV show and a big salary, and she's willing to suppress her own insights in aid of achieving those things for herself.  After a while, she won't even have the insights at all anymore because they're too inconvenient to the job of maintaining her celebrity status.

    There's literally no refuge on TV anymore, but at least we still have a tiny corner of the blogosphere here at TL and one or two other places where truth and honesty is valued.

    Maybe that's what Obama has done for us.  (Trying hard to find the silver lining here.)  Without Obama to polarize us, we might never have had the realization of what was going on crystalized so well, just stayed with that vague uneasiness without quite knowing why.

    Anyway, do check out correntewire.  It has a much larger number of front-pagers and fewer commenters, but it's a really nice blog overall and the only one other than TL that I check daily anymore.  Probably the saddest thing for me personally in all this is the dramatic reduction in the number of blogs I used to browse around with such pleasure and enjoyment.  Many of them I simply will not give so much as another click to anymore.

    Oh, dear.  What a downer of a post.

    Hey, the weather here is finally fantastic!  Being outside, at least, makes you glad to be alive!  Instead of listening to Obama/Biden crap, I spent a couple of very satisfying hours pulling weeds and admiring my stacks of firewood...


    Thanks (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:18:08 PM EST
    Yes, it's kind of interesting how a few of us resonate with each other, and then find out we are of the same era.
    I will check out correntewire.  Like you I have less and less places to peruse.

    I don't remember who said it but I do remember something to that effect.  And I remember feeling powerless and easily bullied.  I did not have any idea of how to handle that stuff and I was 21.  But, I remember the looks.  When I tried to insert my voice, it was a look from the guys, guys who I admired, that was so condescending.  I did not have the insight then, or the cajones and confidence to stand up for myself.  I do now but my age and gender often makes me invisible anyway.  Sigh. I was hoping to pass the torch to young women but I am increasingly disappointed in the young women I meet. I know there are many who are strong, independent thinkers but I just haven't met that many in this election cycle.  Just one....and she is as disheartened as I at her peers.

    I hope to be revitalized and enthused when I go to Denver on Tues to march to honor Hillary and Suffrage.  I hope there as many young faces as old.


    the question.... (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by p lukasiak on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:04:52 PM EST
    is whether the blogosphere has actually changed, or if the same dynamic was going on but we were still part of the mob mentality.

    As someone who likes to describe himself as the Patient Zero of Bush Derangement Syndrome, I'm not really in a position to say...


    I like that.... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:25:48 PM EST
    the Patient Zero of Bush Derangement Syndrome

    But to me all citizens should be anywhere from mild skeptics of the members of the current government to the derangement syndrome type.
    I don't care who is in office.

    I was too young to understand the implications of "Camelot" at the time.   But as I aged, I wondered.....why are citizens longing for some heroic kingdom....kingdoms imply kings, queens and other such types of folks who inherit their power from lineage who got their power from a deity.  
    There is no Camelot and as long as we do oohs and aahs about the children of leaders, judge them on their "biographies" and want to elevate them to having more powers that any of us, we are in trouble.

    In many ways it is a relief for me in the NOT Hillary scenario, as I won't find myself lapsing in my criticism.  


    I don't know.... (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:47:02 PM EST
    ...it still bothers me that the media is choosing our president. How would I feel if they had favored Hillary and pounded on Obama? I would have probably become an Obama supporter because something about bullying and taking unfair advantage seems the very opposite of democracy to me. Or maybe I just always favor the underdog. It might be different if there were more than a a handful of people in the media that I respected.

    As for people that are calling for Fournier's head. Please, if Olbermann is their hero, they are blatant hypocrites. Nuff said.

    I like to think (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:48:59 PM EST
    No, I KNOW I would have called them on it.

    I was as critical as anyone of ABC's April debate which was a hatchet job on Obama.


    the difference... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by p lukasiak on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:10:16 PM EST
    is that you were aware that in "relative" (to Clinton's treatment) terms, there was nothing "unfair" about that debate.  

    I remember going over to Taylor Marsh's place, seeing everyone talking about what a great job George and Charlie did, and commenting about how completely ridiculous it was to actually praise what was utterly contemptible.

    Schadenfreude was okay -- but thinking that what Obama was subjected to was good journalism? -- how blinded by their own agendas can people be?


    Yes you were..... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:51:12 PM EST
    ...and ironically, seeing Obama pounded on by ABC made me want to defend him, something that rarely happens.

    Yeah, but BTD (none / 0) (#148)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:02:06 PM EST
    you really are a pain in the * sometimes, but you do, as adertised, always call it like you see it without prejudice one way or another.  Someerby's the only other one I'm aware of who comes close to that, and he's not all that close.

    So kudos to you.

    Sometimes I really want to smack you one in the chops, but I'm very, VERY grateful you and Jeralyn exist and do what you do.

    IOW, I'm a fan.


    Actually, I was...... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:52:36 PM EST
    I was all set to vote for Obama up until the day before my primary in Maryland when I had a soul searching moment and decided that I wanted to vote for Hillary.

    How, again...? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Realleft on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:20:25 PM EST
    is the media choosing our president?

    You see what you think.  I think the media is for McCain, and was for Clinton before that.  Perhaps you see it differently.


    A lot of us see it differently (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:27:29 PM EST
    and since we live in a democracy still, and hopefully for the rest of my lifetime, we are allowed to do so.

    We can debate this over and over but if you think the media was for Clinton, then you and I don't need to bother to debate at all.


    You must have resided under a giant rock. (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by rooge04 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:44:11 PM EST
    Because if you can honestly say with a STRAIGHT face that you thought the media was EVER for Clinton you're completely insane.

    I realize... (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by Realleft on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:10:42 PM EST
    I'm in an apparent den of Senator Clinton's supporters, but if you can't recognize that you see partly what you already believe, then I think you're confusing perception with reality.  I don' expect you to agree with me, but I can assure you that I do not reside under a giant rock and I am not completely insane.

    apparent den??!! (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:17:31 PM EST
    I would say 95% of the posters here would say they are proudly pro Clinton and anti-Obama.

    I was pro Clinton and still am ... (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:23:54 PM EST
    but I am not now anti Obama.  I absolutely recognize his profound weaknesses.  But my previous support for Clinton will not cause me to indirectly or directly support McCain.

    Are there only 5% of us here???


    No offense, but (4.50 / 2) (#119)
    by aquarian on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:32:13 PM EST
    you and realleft are clogging the blog tonight -- both of you at more than 20 comments today.  One of this things that I appreciate at TL is that the most interesting commenters are those who wait until they have something really interesting to say.  And I am in no way opposed to vigorous debate.  I just don't want to hear the same voices all evening.

    I am now signing off.


    Sorry ... (none / 0) (#129)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:42:08 PM EST
    ... but I think the question as to whether 95% of posters here are in fact anti-Obama is really interesting.  Sorry you are not interested.  Some people are just interested in different things.

    This is perhaps your silliest post..... (none / 0) (#135)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:47:00 PM EST
    ...of the night.

    Excuse me Molly Bloom (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:52:07 PM EST
    But if you are rising in defense of Real Left, then I have to question YOUR judgment.

    I believe I am mocking RL for understating (none / 0) (#191)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:25:25 PM EST
    the obvious. That's hardly a defense of anyone. I don't believe I was all that subtle about it either.

    Not sure why your powers of perception failed you here.  


    Actually, Media Matters (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:20:54 PM EST
    (I think) or maybe the Center for Responsible Journalism studied the media stories in the campaign and showed that they were quite lopsidedly favorable to Obama, not Clinton.

    They track all sorts of different news stories, not just the campaigns.

    All I know is I can count on one hand the number of positive Clinton stories I saw, and I was looking, believe me.

    So you might want to try another tack, one that you can back up.


    Not pro-Clinton (none / 0) (#155)
    by Matt in Chicago on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:13:32 PM EST
    (Sorry guys, but she always bugged me... and the thought of Bill running through the White House looking for "chicks" and twinkies (aside from the comedic value) was just too much to bear.)

    Now having said that, even I think Hillary got a raw deal.  She was dismissed, criticized based on her sex, her wardrobe, hair... basically every silly point they could come up with.  I might not like her, but she was attacked because the MSM decided THEY didn't like her.


    frankly i don't care for your (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by hellothere on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:30:30 PM EST
    characterization of bill with chicks and twinkies. please put a lid on it.

    thanks matt! feelings are (none / 0) (#171)
    by hellothere on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:45:29 PM EST
    running high right now.

    No problem... It is one thing to TRY to (none / 0) (#173)
    by Matt in Chicago on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:48:59 PM EST
    take a shot at someone... but I hate ticking people off when I don't intend to do it <grin>

    Have a good one.


    I understand (none / 0) (#130)
    by lilburro on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:42:57 PM EST
    the media reinforced the Clinton is inevitable meme early in the race, but check out the debates, including that of October 2007, and the tons of sexist characterizations of Clinton.  The entire Obama campaign line "she'll say or do anything to win" is still embraced by most of the news media.

    Remember NH?  You're telling me the news media loved Hillary?


    They were content with callling Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:49:31 PM EST
    ...inevitable when they thought the Democrats were going to lose and when they were shilling for their old darling Guiliani. When they finally realized that the likelihood was that a Democrat would win this year, suddenly Hillary was not inevitable, but only thought she was, according to them.

    Oh it's been a wild ride. (none / 0) (#142)
    by lilburro on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:56:23 PM EST
    Sometimes I forget about Guiliani.  

    He has made himself so irrelevant.  What the heck is he doing these days?


    Bravo (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by kempis on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:47:26 PM EST
    Of course Fournier's behavior is reprehensible. But so is Keith Olbermann's and the entirety of NBC News. But no one demands Olbermann resign. It is silly to ask it of Ron Fournier now. But that is all we are now - hypocrites.

    Just bravo.

    One issue (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Steve M on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:01:52 PM EST
    Very few people expect opinion journalism from the AP.  I'm not sure the same is true of cable news.

    If Fournier is going to keep pumping out anti-Democratic hackery under the AP byline, that is going to hurt their brand.  And that is a completely separate point from whether anyone else's brand sucks.

    It's labelled as an opinion piece (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:04:07 PM EST
    Is NBC labelled an opinion news network?

    Are they now openly a Democratic organ like Fox basically is?


    You are mistaken (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by Steve M on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:18:06 PM EST
    It is labelled as "analysis."

    I think when most people see the word "analysis," they are expecting more than just a single person's hackery.

    When I see "analysis" on the nightly news, it surely goes beyond the mere reporting of objective fact, but they still at least try to play it straight.


    Excuse me (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:24:50 PM EST
    An analysis piece is an opinion piece. This is a journalistic convention.

    You are wrong on this.


    Excuse me (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ed on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:07:31 PM EST
    but common usage disagrees with you.  Lots of news organizations list opinion and analysis separately.  See here for some examples

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:13:00 PM EST
    But your "examples" are not a rebuttal to my poiitn about journalistic convention.

    Your examples are people who do not know what they are doing.

    Fournier complied with the AP style sheet and the NYTimes style sheet and the conventions of journalism.

    That you found others that do not is hardly a response.


    Hell (none / 0) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:15:30 PM EST
    Your examples are not even examples.

    I knew I should have clicked your link first.


    Seems like many in prominent roles (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:05:30 PM EST
    in the media are just the equivalent of the pols they report/opine on, doesn't it?  I mean, pols do what they do to get elected and score points.  The media do what they do for ratings and because they think it's about them.

    It all stinks, but it isn't going to change until we stop reading, listening, watching, stop buying the products advertised - and that's just not going to happen.

    I happen to agree with Fournier - the Biden nomination was, ultimately, a move made out of weakness - but I didn't need Fournier to tell me that because I have a relatively functional brain and a mind that is pretty capable of thought and reason; in my opinion, if more people tried thinking for themselves instead of allowing the twits in the media to tell them what they're supposed to think, the balance of power might be tilted more toward us.

    I am just so over the "outrage" that ensues whenever Obama comes in for even the mildest criticism; if he's so fragile that he cannot stand on his own and fight his own battles, he doesn't deserve to win.  He - and the left blogs that get out the torches and pitchforks whenever a bad word is uttered about Obama - ought to look at how Hillary Clinton managed to persevere in the face of relentless and unchallenged bias.

    "Grow up" is the phrase that comes to mind.

    Opinions, properly lablled as such (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:07:43 PM EST
    have a place in journalism.

    The problem is straight journalists are now pundits.

    Fournier's behavior has been reprehensible.

    So has NBC's. Anybody complaining about NBC?


    "opinons" vs "analysis" (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by p lukasiak on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:17:51 PM EST
    I think that the problem is that opinion gets labelled "analysis" -- and that it isn't really "opinion" (which implies that there is some rational basis) as much as biased-based bloviating.

    The thing that cracks me up is that (none / 0) (#168)
    by Matt in Chicago on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:39:52 PM EST
    there are those that believe that calling someone a different name "analysis" in this case means that it is no longer an "opinion".  This just hits me as another victim of the 24hr news cycle... you have got to fill up the airtime.

    Of course opinion has a place in (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:30:18 PM EST
    journalism, but the line that divides opinion from analysis from reporting is so blurred that it's almost impossible to know which side of the line something falls on.

    And reporting...where's the quality there?  When Andrea Mitchell "reports" what the Obama campaign said without any investigation, follow-up, questions, anything that would suggest that she was more than just a media arm of a political campaign - how is that reporting?  

    But how to push back?  It's all so tangled up with corporate interests and conflicts and money - there is no purity in journalism - or so little that it really is a dying art.


    We were all critical of MSM (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Notyoursweetie 0 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:06:02 PM EST
    when they were doing heavy lifting to help W steal his elections (and before that to smear Bill Clinton). Now they pick a Dem candidate - and some Dems love it, while others (and the Republicans) hate it.
         For me MSM was the signal as to whom I should support. Knowing their agenda for the past 16 years and what kind of people they promote - I naturally went the other way and voted Hillary (I was undecided before the "facialexpressionsgate"
    I asked Obama supporters a few times how do they explain the fact that W's cheerleaders support BO. Most frequent answer: "maybe they've seen the light"?

    I'm an Obama supporter... (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Realleft on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:23:37 PM EST
    and I just don't see that the media is supporting him.  It seems to me that at every turn they invent another negative line of attack - He's not ready.  He doesn't have support of hard-working white people.  He might be a Muslim.  He might be a black supremacist.  He can't "seal the deal."  Etc.Etc.

    The media corporations wants a close race.  Just like they want a close superbowl.


    Hmm (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:33:36 PM EST
    This is the line I am hearing from Obama supporters and frankly, it is an insult to your own intelligence.

    A little content please... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Realleft on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:41:30 PM EST
    I'm okay if you disagree with me, but it's kind of pointless to just slam me without even saying why.  What makes this an insult to my own intelligence?

    Because you are lying. (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by rooge04 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:46:22 PM EST
    You insult your intelligence if you are saying that the media in any way attacked Obama--especially with the points you bring up...about being Muslim and extremist. The only people I ever heard accusing anyone of that were Obama supporters.  Everywhere I turned Hillary and the media were not calling him that...yet Obama supporters screamed bloddy murder and pretended everyone was.

    This is reality: (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by chel2551 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:28:05 PM EST
    The only people I ever heard accusing anyone of that were Obama supporters.  Everywhere I turned Hillary and the media were not calling him that...yet Obama supporters screamed bloddy murder and pretended everyone was.

    Accuse others of what you're doing yourself... right out of the republican playbook -

    all the time saying you're as pure as the driven snow.

    Not going to work for some of us, no matter which party does it.


    hey sher, instead of running around (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by hellothere on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:38:26 PM EST
    giving all those 1's and 2's why don't you actually get into the debate and politely make your views known. it somewhat sits wrong with me for someone not to comment on a regular basis and often give 1's because you don't agree. i give 2's some and a 1 every now and then mostly for name calling. i often offer a comment as to the reason. at the very least you need to do that in my humble view.

    I am not confusing Senator Clinton... (none / 0) (#101)
    by Realleft on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:17:43 PM EST
    with the media "Everywhere I turned Hillary and the media were not calling him that"?  And I'm not really interested in marshaling a bunch of quotes or clips, but I know what I've seen.  Even though he does a comedy show, even Jon Stewart has pilloried the media on this point several times, with long strings of clips of media bias and hype.

    I'm not lying, and I don't think I have ever screamed bloody murder, and certainly not at people who I imagine share a lot of the same hopes for the country as me (given that Senators Obama and Clinton have fairly similar planks). I'm interested in the big picture, and would have wholeheartedly supported Senator Clinton had she earned the nomination instead of Obama.  I want this country to change from what I think has been a horrible course for the past seven plus years.

    If you really don't think the media have questioned whether Senator Obama is a Muslim and extremist, and are truly interested in finding out if that is so, I'll put the effort toward tracking down some examples.  But I'm not here to just argue if that's all someone wants to do.  


    10 comments per day (none / 0) (#105)
    by waldenpond on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:20:04 PM EST
    New commenters (those less than 30 days) are limited to 10 comments per day.  You are at 26 your first day.

    It's nice that you pretend this: (none / 0) (#116)
    by chel2551 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:31:00 PM EST
    If you really don't think the media have questioned whether Senator Obama is a Muslim and extremist

    is a reason dems won't vote for the man.  Makes it nice and easy, doesn't it?



    Go track them down (none / 0) (#127)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:41:12 PM EST
    Actually (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:46:41 PM EST
    I'll write my own comments thank you.

    See if you can improve your own.


    I am not sure you (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:39:06 PM EST
    really watched or understand what we are talking about....

    FOX trashed Obama, as well as Clinton, every chance they got.   That's a no brainer.  
    MSNBC and NBC was in the Obama camp.  Watch three seconds of Matthews, Olberman or Maddow and it is clear.

    CNN's Cafferty has not had an opinion segment in the last year that either did not seethe with disgust at Bush or even more disgust at the Clintons.

    The others on those networks who were not doing opinion shows, ie the anchors,  were six of one, half dozen of the other...when Clinton was up she was trashed, when Obama was up he was trashed.  But it was all done with subtle games?  Blitzer with his lead-ins like "Did Hillary Clinton trash MLK Jr?  Did Obama's minister really trash America?   It was done to all of them......

    How will it come down in the GE?  FOX is for McCAIN....no brainer.
    MSNBC will be interesting but clearly so far they have Olberman and Maddow who are STILL in the bag for Obama.  Who knows where Matthews will end up now?  He trashed Hillary relentlessly and fawned over Obama's speeches, comparing him to JFK but at the same time loves McCain.

    So please tell me where Obama got the short end of the stick?  On Wright?  Obama threw him under the bus and except for FOX it was done. On Rezko?  Compared to what the same press did to the Clintons on Whitewater.  
    And be honest...the echo chamber for Clinton's so called racism was loud and clear.  Yet barely a second was spent on JJ's jrs sexist remarks, or the networks anchors' constant sexism.

    Sorry your argument does not hold water for me.


    The eye of the beholder... (1.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Realleft on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:43:52 PM EST
    is where a lot of the action is, I think.  I like Obama, so of course I notice all the ways that he is kept down.  If you liked Senator Clinton for the nominee, you probably saw things that way.  Sure, I've seen some people on TV who seemed biased against Senator Clinton.  Mostly after she started throwing the kitchen sink at Senator Obama, though, which happened after she had already mathematically lost the primary (except for the part about moving the goalposts).

    You must be new to this. Because now you are just (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by rooge04 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:47:43 PM EST
    lying and you KNOW so. You are repeating Keith Olbermann talking points over and over again and pretending they are fact.  You KNOW you are lying and yet you continue to do so.  That is not the basis for a realistic conversation.

    Sigh. (none / 0) (#104)
    by Realleft on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:19:21 PM EST
    No, I'm not lying and am not repeating talking points since I don't even pay attention to Olbermann for about the past year since he lost his comedic value.  I ma willing to talk realistically about anything, but it might be just that I have a different opinion than you.

    If you have not watched him for the (5.00 / 5) (#125)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:39:49 PM EST
    past year, how can you even discuss him?

    This is straight out of the pro-Obama/anti-Hillary (5.00 / 5) (#91)
    by ding7777 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:08:11 PM EST
    media coverage

    Mostly after she started throwing the kitchen sink at Senator Obama, though, which happened after she had already mathematically lost the primary (except for the part about moving the goalposts).

    Smart catch... (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Larry Bailey on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 07:12:14 AM EST
    ...When I read the person's comment, I thought the same thing and then read on down, and you nailed him on it.

    With all due respect, I think you might (none / 0) (#75)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:49:51 PM EST
    want to see an ophthamologist for your eye condition...

    There might be... (none / 0) (#111)
    by Realleft on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:26:46 PM EST
    a speck in my eye, in fact that's just what I was saying.  Do you see perfectly, though?

    What main stream media have (none / 0) (#96)
    by zfran on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:14:10 PM EST
    you been watching? MSNBC is so Obama, all the time, that many have just stopped watching. I prefer Fox news (not Hannity/Colmes stuff), but news to at least hear all sides (or at least most). CNN's pundits, some newly hired, some wanting to keep their jobs are pushing Obama all the time. I did, however, hear John King today say something I agreed with about Hillary voters and how they feel. I appreciated that they let him say that. Gloria Borger/Hillary Rosen/Carl Bernstein/David Gergen etc. are totally in the tank for Obama. Wolfy tries to show he's in the middle, but his "speak" is for Obama! Their job as news people are to report news, not give us their opinions. Opinion writers should be given their due whether you agree with them or not. The newer generations are being taught (led) differently with the Obama's of the world teaching them their gospel and to accept no other.

    I was following you... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Realleft on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:25:29 PM EST
    until that last sentence.  You lost me there and I have no idea what you are talking about.

    I'm not a TV expert.  I don't think Fox news provides all sides though.


    Our younger generation today are (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by zfran on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:46:28 PM EST
    being so led, instead of being leaders themselves, that many are just "following" what Obama says and Obama tells them to, in essence, boo and diss anyone who disagrees with his message. It's okay to follow if you are knowledgeable and well-informed and not just do what you're told. It's called respecting others opinions and being open to new and different choices of others.

    I agree with your comments, (none / 0) (#159)
    by zfran on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:21:43 PM EST
    however, today, there are a great deal of younger people who never look at a news program, read a newspaper, or even look at the news on the net. Therefore, what info they are gleaning is being told to them and, for the most part, it probably is being believed. That is just the way it is today. We, imo, have become very into ourselves and many do not even know their neighbors anymore. I mean, if we used to talk in check-outs at grocery stores, now people are talking on their phones in the check-outs, not to you.

    We need to be playing a NEW game (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:07:26 PM EST
    One that the Republicans have no idea how to play -- the game of radical humility and generosity.  Start by saying, well, if you're only rich if you make five million a year then, wow, there must be a lot of poor people in this country who need our help and most of them must be middle class.  Focus on what AMERICA needs to become more like what America once stood for.  Start telling stories about lost jobs, about how sometimes more efficient only means fewer people making a living.  That there are more important things than making as much profit as you can -- like creating as many self-sufficient citizens as you can.  And if you're going to talk about religion more, fine, but do it in the context of the great mystery of existence, the mystery we ALL face, no matter if we're part of an organized religion or no religion at all.  Rich people, Camels, eyes of needles, kingdom of heaven.  All that PROGRESSIVE stuff the great figures in religion tended to focus on.  Identify with those things that MOST Americans identify with.  And do not be afraid to fail.  There is no success without failure, and if you are afraid to fail you will do nothing that could ultimately be successful.

    But what do I know?

    Time to go back to my novel.  THE LIFE AND TIMES OF MICHAEL K by Nobel winner J.M. Coetzee.  A book of staggering beauty, like most of his stuff.  The guy writes epics in 200 pages.  Astounding stuff really.

    Peace out.

    thanks for your well written post. (none / 0) (#174)
    by hellothere on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:50:11 PM EST
    al gore as i recall also wrote about the media and from what i have read it is an excellent book on that subject.

    I don't think it's simply hypocrisy (5.00 / 11) (#41)
    by dianem on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:21:09 PM EST
    I think that Axelrod has tapped the left wing authoritarians the same way that Rove tapped authoritarians in the right wing. The total inability to question authority, the rationalizations, the rejection/exclusion of anybody who does not subscribe completely to the belief system. They have no trouble believing both that Bill Clinton isn't a racist and that he said racist things. They have no wish to question anything that Olbermann or Markos say - they are authority figures, and they cannot be wrong, even if what they are saying is ridiculous. The left has an army or extremists now to match the right's. I didn't expect this - progressives are supposed to be fiercely individualistic, but the pressure of the anger toward Bush, the fear of right wing fascim, the comraderie of web. I think we're watching the rise of an authoritarian movement. Hypocrisy is the least of our problems.

    personally i think it is very (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by hellothere on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:51:32 PM EST

    I wish I could give that a 10 n/t (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by dianem on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:07:51 PM EST
    You've hit the nail on the head (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:38:57 PM EST
    Younger people tend to be more credulous in any case, the current college and post-college age kids have grown up in a time when whoever yells the loudest is 'right', and the pro-Obama hordes were led by Republican party refugees such as Kos and Arianna.  Plus, education has quite changed since a lot of us went to school; the emphasis isn't on history, logic and critical thinking, but on creating self-esteem.

    Which is a big mix of factors that makes authoritarian social structures very attractive.  Having never been taught to think for themselves, or value the kind of critical analysis abilities that were always assumed would be there before people became full, voting citizens, maybe we shouldn't have expected much different.

    In a world where social networking is privileged over education and learning, it's not so surprising that a 'movement' that is highly exclusionary and without the constraints of normal discourse arose.

    What to do about, I sure as hell don't know.  I'm not optimistic about any of the constituent factors changing anytime soon.  I just know I can't support the group that exploited it to give us an inexperienced candidate, which stood silently as the sexist bullying went unchecked, and felt perfectly validated in breaking the rules to achieve the result they wanted.

    Maybe independent thinking is a dying art.


    I don't believe Bill Clinton... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Realleft on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:30:27 PM EST
    is a racist.  He did say some things that I found highly questionable racially. Is it allowed that I question what he said?  

    And I don't think it's leftist authoritarianism, it's desperation.  And I don't mean "Dems can't win" desperation, I mean desperation that comes from seeing what is possibly the end of America.

    I know a lot of you feel upset about Senator Clinton not winning the primaries, and don't see that maybe there were legitimate reasons that she was not selected as the VP candidate, but there is a much bigger picture here.

    I do have qualms if Olbermann is going to be the NBC election anchor, though.   Op/Ed people should remain distinct from reporters and anchors.  There is a place for both, but they are not the same thing and it's been to the great detriment of our nation that the roles have been confused.


    NOW you have qualms? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:36:19 PM EST
    Pssst, Olbermann has been the MSNBC election anchor for a while now.

    You seem to be dogging me... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Realleft on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:48:39 PM EST
    which is fine if you want to.  Yeah, I saw the primary coverage including Olbermann.  Didn't really like him anchoring then either.  But I don't have a problem with him sharing his opinion on his opinion show, which was part of what I was responding to before.

    He liked to see himself as a voice (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by kredwyn on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:48:52 PM EST
    of the reality-based world...

    Now? He's just a mouthpiece...and not even a very good one. His screeds during the primaries were appalling for a "news" show.

    As for your comments...meh. They sound very familiar in their litany of talking points even if you do say they are completely your own.


    Excuse me (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:53:52 PM EST
    This is my post.

    Are you telling me how to comment in my own post?

    Do it again and you will be banned from commenting in my posts.

    You understand that? This is a one warning policy.

    Do it again and you are gone from my posts.


    <smiling> (none / 0) (#163)
    by Matt in Chicago on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:29:36 PM EST
    Interesting how quiet things got after THAT BTD :)

    BTW, your statement/warning is why I do love blogs...I get the feeling that it brings the First Amendment back where is belongs with individuals... and away from the charlatans who keep clammering about "The People" but who are so out of touch with them that they don't even realize they are stepping all over them!


    The bigger picture is that Obama's head (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by rooge04 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:50:37 PM EST
    is too large to have selected the only candidate that would have GOTTEN him votes.  But no matter. You shall repeat your talking points and pretend that we're all just bitter.  I'm glad she's not the VP, never thought she would be and I"m glad she's not involved in that mess at all.

    Oh and um, you should have problems with Olbermann when you first realized his opinion led his reporting, not when you feel you have gotten the use you needed out of him.


    "the end of America"? (5.00 / 5) (#89)
    by dianem on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:07:36 PM EST
    That's pretty extreme thinking, if you think about it. I used to feel that way, back when I posted regularly on Daily Kos. I felt the sense of catastrophe that you feel right now. Then I realized that I was being pushed toward that feeling by the people on that site. They were giving me a biased view, a slant that made me feel that things were hopeless. I broke out - I started reading other sites and getting more perspetive, and I realized that things aren't as bad as a lot of people think they are. We've had tough times before. The Constitution got us through, and it will now. Presidents have tried to stretch the boundaries, even break them... and we swung back.  

    McCain is not Bush, no matter how often you hear that he is. Obama is not a savior. America is not threatened at this time. Your "bigger picture" is a mass hallucination.


    And as for the "end of America" (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by tree on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:50:57 PM EST
    as an excuse, there's absolutely no sense to the idea that desperation about the "end of America" leads one to mindless bashing of Hillary Clinton.

     If you were worried about John McCain and the Republicans all along, why bash Clinton, the one candidate with the strongest chance of beating him?

     This is a piteous excuse for a hateful mob mentality. Of course, the end of America loomed if we didn't mock Clinton for "crying", or call her racist for mentioning Johnson's central job in getting civil rights legislation passed, or endlessly taunt her for her Bosnia gaffe, or shrilly call for her to drop out while she was winning state after state by wide margins, or claim she would "say and do anything" because, like every other candidate throughout history, she pointed out her opponents weaknesses and her own strengths.

    I can understand, though really shouldn't excuse, the excesses against Bush, who was and is truly a danger to democracy and America. But there is no rational excuse for the despicable Hillary hatred that has existed in some quarters. It isn't any better when supposed left-leaning idiots exhibit it instead of right-leaning idiots.


    Just to be clear here... (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by tree on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:57:51 PM EST
    I'm sort of riffing off your post, dianem, but of course, my comments are not directed at you but at "realleft".

    It's a justification for the extremism (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by dianem on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:25:56 PM EST
    Actually, if you buy the entire program, then "the end of America" does justify trashing Clinton or any other excess. The right wing convinced their supporter's to blindly obey them by persuading them that the future of the nation depended on it. Communism, taxes, terrorism.. the bogeyman changed, but the concept remained the same: If you love America, then you have to do what we tell you to do to save it. Once you've convinced people that they have to take extreme measures, it's easy to convince them to do whatever you want. The bogeyman for the left wing is the right wing, neocons, fundamentalist Christians. We have to vote with them to stop fascism and the end of Democracy in America.

    The logic is as follows: We need to win this election to save America. We need Obama to win this election. Anybody who doesn't support Obama is threatening everything we hold dear. I know that sounds crazy, but you'll find that exact logic all over the net. Clinton was wrong to challenge Obama after February after he took a lead. People who won't vote for Obama must be irrational or Republicans (or both), because how could anybody not vote for the man who is our only hope?


    Godd for you (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by yourkidding on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:28:44 PM EST
    The comments on KO are long overdue. Like one of the other bloggers on this site, I used to watch KO with relish as he did in George the lesser. But, when he turned on Hilary, I dropped him as nothing more than another sports "news" man who found a better gig.
    KO is NOT a newsman & no amount of sad imitations of E Murrow will make him one.

    KO turned on HRC? (1.75 / 4) (#54)
    by Realleft on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:31:50 PM EST
    Or potentially he offered his opinions on his opinion show, and maybe some of what Senator Clinton did or allowed to be done was worthy of being called out.  It's a dirty game, politics, and she got dirty too.

    Amazing comment (5.00 / 7) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:34:47 PM EST
    Truly amazing.

    It's okay because (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:51:08 PM EST
    it was Hillary.

    A familiar narrative to some of us.


    Thank you n/t (none / 0) (#74)
    by Realleft on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:49:01 PM EST
    you are new to the blogosphere... (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by kredwyn on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:52:30 PM EST
    if you aren't aware of the massive sarcasm spillage in BTD's comment.

    So you are saying that Hillary deserved.... (5.00 / 5) (#120)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:33:00 PM EST
    ...his first SPECIAL COMMENT EVER FOR DEMOCRAT? Hillary, not Nancy Pelosi for taking impeachment off the table? Not Steny Hoyer for caving on FISA?

    Not that I think his special comments are anything but the height of pomposity, but still.


    I guess I missed that what exactly did HRC do (none / 0) (#58)
    by bjorn on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:34:22 PM EST
    that even comes close to Keith The Great A$$H***?

    why don't you just cease with (none / 0) (#183)
    by hellothere on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:04:01 PM EST
    the dirty commnents. or else offer some type of proof other than just name calling.

    Maddow - mixed feelings (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by yourkidding on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:33:14 PM EST
    Very happy to see a woman get a real job at the old boys network.
    But, her performance during the Dem primaries made me dislike her anti Hilary bias as much as the chauvanistic smears from Matthews & the sniveling smart-ass remarks from KO & his equally biased side kicks.

    If MoveOn gets behind something, sniff harder. (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:41:14 PM EST

    Is anyone wondering (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by themomcat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:51:14 PM EST
    Why MSNBC would "Back" Obama? Could it be corporate interests? After all who owns NBC? General Electric. Who builds nuclear reactors? General Electric. And who has backed nuclear energy? Obama. Now you can argue that McCain also backs nuclear energy as well. But how hard has NBC been on McCain? Not very, McCain gives Matthews tingles or whatever. I think NBC and GE are hedging their bets and playing both ends against the middle.

    McCain is pro nuclear engergy in a big way (none / 0) (#80)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:56:30 PM EST
    Obama, not really.  At least not nearly as much, especially from the point of view of there being a safety problem that first needs to be resolved.

    Exalon (none / 0) (#95)
    by themomcat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:13:09 PM EST
    donated $70,000 to Obama from 2004 to 2006.  That wouldn't have anything to do with the bill he helped pass in the IL Senate that favored Exalon? Granted the IL Senate was dominated by Republicans at the time but how much in donations had Obama received in donation up until then? How much more have they given since then?
    This is from Harpers two years ago:

    I am aware of this ... (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:19:16 PM EST
    ... but McCain is still much more pro nuclear than Obama.

    My point was (none / 0) (#109)
    by themomcat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:25:52 PM EST
    that NBC backed Obama because of his record. Ge is hedging its bets. McCain may be more pro-nuclear than Obama but either is a win for GE. It certainly would not have been in GE's corporate interests to have HRC as the Dem nominee or even President.

    I have seen no evidence (3.00 / 1) (#118)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:31:53 PM EST
    of this type of single issue corporate manipulation.

    if you don't see the correlation (none / 0) (#178)
    by hellothere on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:53:22 PM EST
    between the corporations controlling the media for their benefit after bush, then i have to say frankly i am flabbergasted.

    That I do see, as I stated above (none / 0) (#188)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:21:25 PM EST
    But I have not seen any evidence of MSNBC orchestrating the pro-Obama slant of some of its 'journalists' on account of his support of nuclear power.

    It is just one example (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by themomcat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:21:29 PM EST
    of why a Corporation like GE would push a candidate like Obama.

    it is telling that you are trying to (none / 0) (#197)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:56:32 AM EST
    deflect with claiming there is no proof for just one favor. hmmmmmm

    Telling of what??? (none / 0) (#199)
    by robrecht on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:44:37 AM EST
    I just don't think Jeffrey Immelt calls up Chris Matthews or Joe Scarborough or Keith Olbermann or Pat Buchanen and says, "Hey, start pushing Obama 'cause he's our hedge on nuclear power."  These 'journalists' are more than capable of coming up with their own little idioctic debates and petty talking points, and I've never really seen nuclear power as a particular theme or popular issue there.  I just don't see corporate influence operating in that way.  But if it's all a secret conspiracy without any evidence, well, that's pretty hard to discuss.

    are you that naive or pretending? (1.00 / 1) (#209)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:50:03 PM EST
    if you don't think the corporate interests that own the don't push their choice who will give back what they need, then i am afraid you are in denial or naive sorry to say. don't try and make it general just about energy. it involves the whole enchilada. geez

    agendas and interests (none / 0) (#200)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 06:23:41 AM EST
    while I think the whole "MSNBC is the way it is because of nuclear power" meme is absurdly over-determined, I also think that you are missing the point here.

    Employees tend to mimic the "agenda" and "interests" of their superiors.  If its known that the boss supports charity X, he doesn't have to ask his employees to donate to that charity for charitable contributions from that companies employees increase.  And if the boss is interested in lacrosse, suddenly employees will start taking an interest in lacrosse.

    Nobody has to tell anyone at MSNBC that their career prospects are better if they skew their coverage toward GE's economic interests -- it happens because its human nature.


    If that is the point (none / 0) (#201)
    by robrecht on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 06:50:30 AM EST
    I do not disagree.  My only point was that if nuclear energy were really the single issue determining the agenda at MSNBC, McCain would be the GE corporate candidate of choice, not Obama.  But McCain was not the one giving Matthews tingles down his leg, Obama was.  Now that themomcat has clarified her view that nuclear energy is just one example of why a Corporation like GE would push a candidate like Obama, I have no disagreement with that.  I just disagreed with what I thought was her earlier position, namely Obama's position on nuclear energy explained the bias of MSNBC. I think there are a lot of things, some substantive, some silly.

    Bingo! (none / 0) (#144)
    by tek on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:57:17 PM EST
    Anyone who can't figure out that Obama is the corporate "ONE" this election really is not paying attention.

    themomcat, yes I have wondered, in fact, (none / 0) (#149)
    by mogal on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:03:13 PM EST
    I believe for some it is a "Heads I win-tails you lose" election.

    Exalon (none / 0) (#160)
    by themomcat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:21:58 PM EST
    donations have reached $270,000 since 2003. And Axelrod was a consultant to Exalon. It is not too hard to connect dots. GE is the master puppeteer and Olbermann, et al are the puppets. JMO.

    Smacks of desperation on McCain's part (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:07:42 PM EST

    All Politicians need to be watched (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:29:31 PM EST
    One of the main reasons the country is in the mess it is, is because the MSM gave GWB a blank check. After 9/11 it was paramount to treason to even question fearless leader. Now we're going in the same direction but it's the left carrying the water. Neither extreme is acceptable.

    You are banned from my threads (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:44:40 PM EST
    DA in LA.

    There seems to be a lot of that (none / 0) (#179)
    by kredwyn on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:53:36 PM EST
    going on today.

    What's up with that?


    that's what i was wondering too. (none / 0) (#184)
    by hellothere on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:05:08 PM EST
    Curious assessment... (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by prez2008 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 10:02:49 PM EST
    I realize this is just a tad outside of the scope of this blog post...


    I have often referenced your blog posts for someone that I respect, and although I don't always agree with you, I have found that your analysis and thoughts went where many most wouldn't go.  Which means, as an Obama supporter, you are able to "tell it as it is" and opine beyond that which would box you in as someone who tows the company line or is plagued with blind faith.  It is obvious to me that you attempt to inject integrity integriy into all of your posts... more so than others on this blog and certainly more than others on the vast blogosphere... for the most part.

    The thing is, many of us run to the sources that preach to the choir.  We don't like dissenting opinions nor do we like it when our candidate of choice "Appears" to be slighted.

    I've recently been apart of friendly debates with some of my closest friends.  They vary in politics, in some cases, by a large sum.  Nader, Obama, Clinton(s), McCain, Bush, Ron Paul etc.  I literally have the UN of political dispositions in my group of debaters. (18 of us)

    All but two Obama supporters agreed with an assessment that we recently argued....

    With all the faults of all the campaigns,we came to agree on something that would have changed the whole dynamics of the primaries.  Obama and Clinton came within a razor thin margin of each other despite all her miscalculations. If the position had been reversed, there would be suggestions that Obama 'miscalculated'.

    Millions upon millions of people rely on CNN and MSNBC for their headlines and political news.  Political junkies are glued to those outlets along with their cyber sources.  Most of them that watch CNN/MSNBC tend to vote Democratic.

    Two "Media Bias" reports were released in the last week of Feb leading into the March 5th primaries.  After viewing all the coverage, there seemed to be a focus on non-polical items WRT Hillary (cackle and nutcracker come to mind).  Regardless of what she said or did, the least important parts of her campaign were discussed rather than sufficient coverage of her Foreign Policy speech at George Washington University (with 30 flag officers), for example.  Many of those talking heads were still discussing Obama's soaring rhetoric and were all enamored by his 'movement'.

    Usually candidates start to get vetted coming out of Iowa, but this really didn't happen to Obama as he was inspiring, afterall... and unique.  (can't blame the lack of focus on real journalism when something so unique and inspiring comes along).

    Up until that last week in Feb. people didn't realize the extent of his relations with the likes of Rezko, Wright et al.  No one knew of his voting records.  None of the journalist question his role on his committees, votes for Bush/Cheney energy bill or that BAIP act debacle among many others that are slowly bubbling into mainstream media.

    It took two reports before CNN/MSNBC started to report the convtoversial Rev Wright and his church.  Of course, they did, but it didn't last long, but that's not the point.  Without those reports, the blatant lack of reporting from those two networks that millions upon millions of voters get their information from, would not have happened.

    Who knows... if MSNBC really evaluated her Foreign Policy speech and covered it as well as they covered Obama's rallies... maybe voters would have loved it. I don't know.

    The point is that we came to the conclusion that since it took outside media bias reports for CNN and MSNBC to cover the negatives of Obama, if those two reports came out only several weeks earlier before Super Tuesday, we feel like it's very clear...  The dynamics would have been extremely different and Hillary may have been the nominee.

    I can remember when Wolf Blitzer asked in front of a panel "Is the media biased?" lol

    We started on our discovery in May and may our conclusions a few weeks ago.  Since then, those items that were never brought up about Obama are now bubbling to the surface.  The problem for Obama is that all of his 'negatives' will come all at once in the most crucial part of the GE.  That could shock some folks that just didn't realize he wasn't perfect.

    Anyways, I could write on and on about every little detail.  But I don't want to be flamed.  I figured I'd give food for thought just in case someone wanted to chime in with their assessment of the primary from that reference point. Of course, we could be wrong about this.


    Olberman Isn't a Journalist (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by kaleidescope on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:28:31 PM EST
    He's a television personality. Olberman doesn't report stories.  He's akin to Kos or Atrios or to you, BTD.  Chuck Todd is a journalist.

    Chuck Todd (5.00 / 3) (#196)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:43:07 AM EST
    really isn't a journalist anymore either.  He has drunk the koolaid or has been threatened by Olbermann to fall in line.

    You're right. (none / 0) (#194)
    by onlyme on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:49:41 PM EST
    Olbermann is not a journalist. But he's allowed to play one at MSNBC.

    I watched the MSNBC coverage (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by onlyme on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:45:36 PM EST
    of the Obama/Biden rally and my jaw dropped to see Olbermann's and Matthews' orgasmic coverage. They weren't even pretending to be impartial. As an Obama supporter, I have to say their cheerleading made me wince. Ordinary Americans already distrust the media and I expect a backlash if the voters perceive a bias in the coverage.

    Say what you will about Fox News, they're not stupid enough to allow Hannity or O'Reilly to co-anchor news panels or primary debates. They're subtle in their bias. MSNBC is not.

    I just got around to reading.... (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 05:08:47 AM EST
    I just got around to reading Fournier's piece.

    I don't see what the fuss is all about.  The central thesis of the piece is rock solid (that the choice of Biden highlights Obama's weaknesses), and he gives Obama's spinners their opportunity (and, as usual, they rewrite history).  I'd disagree that "the pick says something profound" about Obama, because what it says about Obama is actually mundane.  

    The real problem seems to be that Fournier is saying glaringly obvious things that Obama supporters do not want to hear -- that the selection of Biden is inconsistent with everything that Obama supposedly stood for.  

    BTD, somewhat germane to your post... (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Larry Bailey on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 07:34:43 AM EST
    ...I have a question, which relates to the tenor of partisan activity on GOP-supportive sites vs. our supportive sites.  I don't visit the GOP sites so I don't know if they are, or were as full of rancor as ours were during the primaries. Were they, or were they known to be (since you may not visit them either)?

    This question comes from an observation of mine that the Democratic/left blogs seem to be tearing us apart. I'm 58 and a 40-year Dem voter/worker/supporter.  I do not recall, even in the worst of our internecine battles (1980 -- I don't count 1968 as that was a revolution) there being as much vitriol among people who should be compatriots as this year.  For example, I drifted here after 5 years almost exclusively at DKos. I don't write offensive things and really try to gauge how honest and thoughtful I get with my comments on every issue and, yet, I have been labelled "racist", "deadender", and so many other hurtful things over the past 9 months at DK that I can't even go there now except to see friendly old names in Cheers & Jeers and occasionally in a non-political diary.

    I truly can't believe Democrats can say the things they're saying to each other.  Maybe I'm pollyanna-ish, but I thought we were better than that.

    All of which leads me to a hunch that, as much as online is seen as rich turf for partisan politics, it my be that political blogs are undermining a lot of the promise of online. I read things in poliblogs and then see them creep into the media (e.g., the meme that the Clintons were racist during the primaries) and wonder how negatively poliblogs are shaping the overall discourse.

    I'm just dismayed by what I'm reading across the Dem poliblogs -- which is why I enjoy reading Talk Left (where discourse is truly moderated).

    So, I guess I had two questions: (1) are GOP blogs as rancorous? And (2) are the Dem poliblogs ripping us all apart?

    Too much of your opinion? (3.66 / 3) (#131)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:43:20 PM EST
    Ok, I had enough of you.

    You are banned from my threads RealLeft.

    Do not come back to my posts ever again.

    Your comments will be deleted.

    I enjoy your posts. (none / 0) (#1)
    by TomP on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:41:10 PM EST
    Have things changed since 2004 on blogs or were they always like this.

    I did not know the post was labeled opinion. It appears Moveon is getting involved in this.

    I think the issue is that a partisan runs the AP Wash. DC post.  This guy considered a job in teh McCain campaign.

    Olberman is not a newsperson. He is the counterpart to O'Reilly or other conservative advocates on Fox.

    I think they were different before (5.00 / 8) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:45:00 PM EST
    As for Olbermann not being a journalist, then what in blazes is MSNBC doing having him as the lead anchor of its NEWS coverage of the election?

    That excuse does not wash at all. Olbermann is MUCH WORSE than Ron Fournier. It is not even close.


    Exactly.... (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:48:39 PM EST
    ...even Fox doesn't have O'Reilly anchor their election coverage.

    I agree with you entirely (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:50:21 PM EST
    about Olbermann, BTD.  He makes Matthews look balanced.  At least one has the sense that Matthews's absurd opinions and reactions are genuine, whereas Olbermann's strike me as entirely calculated and cynical.  He discovered a huge fan base and a ratings gold mine in young Obama supporters and has pitched to it ever since.

    As you say, at least Fournier's piece was labeled "opinion," not that anybody but you bothers to notice the distinction.

    I think the left blogs were maybe slightly less ridiculous in '04, but mostly it's just that their ridiculousness wasn't so obvious when we were all fighting the same enemy.


    Yup. (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Landulph on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:43:16 PM EST
    Olbermann's strike me as entirely calculated and cynical.  He discovered a huge fan base and a ratings gold mine in young Obama supporters and has pitched to it ever since.

    Bingo-rama! Couldn't say it any better myself.


    Could we send Olbermann back to (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:34:02 PM EST
    the sports desk and bring in a Lara Logan, or a Charlie Savage (yes, I know he's a writer not a TV guy, but he is a journalist)?

    I don't know Ron Fournier... (none / 0) (#12)
    by coigue on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:49:49 PM EST
    but Olbermann makes MSNBC look like the left's Fox news. As a liberal, I enjoy him sometimes (now that he doesn't have Hillary to kick around anymore). And if he evens the playing field wrt the general election, I guess I can live with him.

    But I definitely understand that he is biased. Some of his guests are unwilling to be led by him, and I like them.


    Fournier doesn't diary at DKos - (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Josey on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:04:12 PM EST
    but Olbermann does and uses Kossacks to build his "base."
    Do O'Reilly and Hannity diary at Red State?

    That's not the point (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:11:57 PM EST
    O'Reilly and Hannity are clowns.

    But so is Keith Olbermann, and he ANCHORS their election coverage. How is that defensible?


    It's not - (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Josey on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:27:51 PM EST
    I'm just saying - prior to Obamamania, Kossacks were very critical of MSM pundits. But they certainly changed their tune after Olbermann began promoting Obama. And when Olbermann began diarying - Kossacks thought they'd hit the big time! and forgot all about critiquing media pundits.

    Olbermann is just an ESPN sportscaster with (none / 0) (#53)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:30:59 PM EST
    political opinions, mostly borrowed from lesser blogs.

    ... oh, and delusions of being Edward R Murrow (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by robrecht on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:34:38 PM EST
    yeah, well look at the bottom of that (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by hellothere on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:57:37 PM EST
    olbermann fan base package and it is marked 11/08. it will be interesting to see what happens to some of the left's versison of fox after the election.

    I applaud the "houses" move (none / 0) (#5)
    by coigue on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:45:13 PM EST
    and would like to add:

    "It's about fricken time"

    Ptui (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:28:12 PM EST
    It's sophomoric and transparent.  This kind of stuff does not work, as Dems. have proved over and over and over again.

    The public is not so dumb.  They know almost all national pols (with the glaring exception of the Clintons when they first ran) are very wealthy people, and it doesn't bother them in the slightest.  It's a complete waste of TV time and bandwidth, IMHO, if Obama is lucky.  If he's not, it will simply turn people off.


    And, in all fairness, (none / 0) (#68)
    by Landulph on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:45:20 PM EST
    Joe Biden as well, whatever else one may think of him.

    The "houses" could so easily backfire (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by ding7777 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:01:49 PM EST
    Senator Obama is living in a property tax freeze mansion while Senator McCain pays taxes on multiple houses

    Instant polling is pointless (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 06:52:18 PM EST
    But we are going off topic. Please stick to the topic of this post.

    I agree BTD (none / 0) (#32)
    by justinboston2008 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:09:16 PM EST
    It does smack of hypocracy that the house is burning down when someone who does not share the left's view writes a piece like this, but we cheer on Keith Olbermann who is a pundit masquerading as a legitimate news person. I used to watch KO all the time and would TIVO the show daily because what he was doing was so new and fresh. He literally is the Bill O'Reilly of the left. I stopped watching him when his show became so biased during the primaries. I had no problem listening to him rail against the republicans, but as soon as he started doing it to Hillary, I had to turn him off.

    I get really irritated that he does the lead reporting on election coverage. I think it will be interesting to see how the introduction of Rachael Maddow changes the reporting at MSNBC.

    OIberman is actually a (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Landulph on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:48:13 PM EST
    sportscaster masquerading as a pundit masquerading as a legitimate news person. He's a double phony.

    Rachel Maddow is not going to change (none / 0) (#42)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:23:18 PM EST
    the "reporting" at MSNBC; she's perpetuating the trend there.

    I think these people ought to take a page out of BTD's book and have to wear bibs that say "SPEAKING FOR ME ONLY" so people know that what is said is strictly opinion.


    They really need (none / 0) (#100)
    by themomcat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:17:41 PM EST
    to do something about Tweety's tingling leg problem. ;-)

    The big shots control (none / 0) (#48)
    by Saul on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 07:27:59 PM EST
    what they want MSNBC to say to include the owners.  I do not think it has to do with journalism anymore.  If the big dogs are for Obama they give the orders on how they want all their lead guys (Olberman, Chris Matthews etc) to express what they want.

    Any owner of a new agency in his right mind who  believed in  true journalism would not have allowed the bashing they did on Hilary.  That bashing was ordered by the big guns. Why because they are were for Obama.  

    Yes, once everthing got deregulated... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Aqua Blue on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:06:03 PM EST
    back in the Reagan era, things have gne downhill.  

    Money is the goal, the determiner of success and a good life now. Money is the new morality.

    And, money is running the world and democracy will soon be gone  (my opnion and fear).

    I used to think that the good guys could rise up and save freedom...not that sure any more.

    As we lose good free pubic education and free press, we lose our nation.


    Right there with you.... (none / 0) (#206)
    by Aqua Blue on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:47:42 AM EST
    I like money, too.    Enough, plus a little extra...comfortable living standard, travel the world, good dining, etc.  

    What I find issue with is the super rich, the absurd spending and waste, when these peope could do more for the masses.

    The intense greed bothers me.


    sad to say it reminds of the last (none / 0) (#210)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:54:22 PM EST
    days of the roman empire.

    Oh my. Somehow (none / 0) (#86)
    by rooge04 on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:05:34 PM EST
    this will be Hillary's fault, too.  How is it that she manages to be the bad guy for every side?  

    Off topic comment (none / 0) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:09:00 PM EST
    It will be deleted.

    Do not respond to it.

    You are banned from my posts (none / 0) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:31:12 PM EST
    Eddie in CA.

    Do not comment any further.

    The comment you responded to (none / 0) (#124)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:37:59 PM EST
    was deleted for the reasons you state in your comment.

    RE (none / 0) (#140)
    by tek on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:55:45 PM EST
    stupid silly games politicians play.  Either the people in this country are going to stand up to politicians and insist on having a democracy or the U. S. is going to devolve into a third world country.  Barak Obama is not going to restore democracy. he's going to give money--or whatever--to whoever he thinks might vote for him just like Dubya.  Americans should demand leadership.  

    Please indicate where it is labelled opinion (none / 0) (#143)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 08:56:35 PM EST
    And let me know when Olbermann becomes the head of a national wire service that has this as its stated mission:

    The Associated Press is the backbone of the world's information system serving thousands of daily newspaper, radio, television and online customers with coverage in all media and news in all formats. It is the largest and oldest news organization in the world, serving as a source of news, photos, graphics, audio and video.

    AP's mission is to be the essential global news network, providing distinctive news services of the highest quality, reliability and objectivity with reports that are accurate, balanced and informed.

    "Analysis" (none / 0) (#151)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:04:55 PM EST
    Sheesh. Some of you are really ignorant of journalistic practice.

    If it were meant be be presented (none / 0) (#154)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:09:50 PM EST
    as opinion it would CLEARLY be labelled as opinion. As far as all us mere readers are concerned if it isn't labelled that way it's not opinion but analysis, as it says, and representative of AP's stated standards of objectivity. Sheesh yourself. You are egregiously wrong to be promoting and defending Fournier's use of his position of journalistic trust for Republican ends.

    The headline read (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by tree on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:51:29 PM EST
    Analysis: Obama's pick highlights his weaknesses

    In my business, when I am asked for my analysis it means that they want my opinion on something, based on my knowledge of the subject. They aren't just asking for a recitation of facts but my interpretation of those facts and their significance. That then means they want my opinion. I don't think that political analysis can be done without opinion in it. Do you seriously think that can? I think its important for analysis to have some basis in fact, but it can't preclude having an opinion on those facts.  


    See my previous comment (none / 0) (#170)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 09:45:01 PM EST
    Clark Hoyt (none / 0) (#195)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Aug 23, 2008 at 11:58:44 PM EST
    disagrees with you on that - he makes a distinction between analysis and opinion and says they need to be clearly distinguished, by labelling opinion as such and marking it off by layout and typography, etc to make sure there's no chance of unsophisticated readers mistaking it for material with the aim of objective news analysis.

    Look, I'd be the last person in the world to argue that anyone can even BE objective, but this AP thing is blatant use of AP's reputation and reach to spread a partisan smear under the guise of objective expert analysis.


    Agreed, BTD - (none / 0) (#205)
    by snstara on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:17:06 AM EST
    seems that people have whipped themselves into full takedown mode in Cheetopia --over an opinion piece.  

    And apparently, one recommended diary is up there shouting that letter writing and phone calls just aren't enough.  No, we need to
    look the man up!  Investigate him!  Threaten his job! Find out where he lives!  Show up at his house with flaming torches and pitchforks and drive him out of the village! (OK, I made that last part up. But just barely.)  That's what the republicans would be doing! After all, they took down Dan Rather - so we can take one of theirs out, too!!!

    Is this America anymore?  Who is this cabal of pod people, striving to become everything they've claimed to despise?

    Oh man. I'ver seen that takedown before, a couple (none / 0) (#207)
    by DFLer on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:17:21 AM EST
    times...on Huffington Post...it was many months ago when I used to read that blog....so my memory fails me as to the specifics. But it was like you say...calls for the pitchforks, boycotts, etc...
    (Oh yeah...now I remember one of them...re the ABC panel after the debate O'Bloggers did not like.)

    Pretty whack.
    Why not boycott something that does real harm, like ATT Spy Corp. or credit cards or....

    nothing new there