Wolfson Rips Tweety And Olbermann

Greg Sargent reports:

On Fox News just now, Howard Wolfson unleashed a broad attack on MSNBC and its top on-air personalities, slamming the network's coverage of Bill and Hillary, hitting back at Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann for using his work for Fox to question his Democratic credentials, and blasting MSNBC as having been "taken over" by "antics." . . . "I'm not gonna take any lectures on how to be a good Democrat from two people who spent the last two years relentlessly attacking Bill and Hillary Clinton everyday," Wolfson said on the air moments ago, when asked by the Fox anchor to respond to some criticism of Wolfson on MSNBC yesterday.

Wolfson's decision to unload on MSNBC was triggered by some particularly barbed comments about Wolfson from Olbermann and Matthews yesterday. Matthews slammed Wolfson as Fox's "little toy soldier," while Olbermann joked that Wolfson is Fox's "Tokyo Rose."

Here's what's weird to me - NBC pretends to have a news organization. Did Tweety and Olbermann just stop pretending yesterday? As a Democrat, I have always opposed Dems appearing on Fox. So I wish Wolfson would not appear on Fox. But Olbermann and Matthews are pretending to be journalists, not Democratic bloggers, aren't they? What are they doing commenting on how good a Democrat Howard Wolfson is?

Speaking for me only

< Incurable CDS | An Open letter to Hillary Clinton Supporters >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    BTD is on fire today and... (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Larry Bailey on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:47:25 PM EST
    ...his exposure of some of our so-called journalists is much appreciated.

    Calling Olberman a journalist (3.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Cards In 4 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:14:02 PM EST
    is like calling Hitler a humanitarian.  It's an insult to anyone that can pronounce humanitarian.  Olby's goal this week is for someone to get a picture of him humping Obama's leg so he can hang it above his bed.

    Mathews just wants to get that feeling back in his leg.


    plus (none / 0) (#120)
    by skippybkroo on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:03:27 PM EST
    it's got to be the quickest invocation of godwin's law i've seen in a while.

    Start satisfying yourself (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:07:19 PM EST
    with telling the truth - Keith Olbermann pretends to be a news anchor, indeed the principal news anchor for MSNBC.

    Why do you think he called his "Special Comments" special comments? To differentiate, at least in theory, from his journalist role.

    Edward R. Murrow is invoked why exactly?


    Olberman doesn't pretend (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Cards In 4 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:23:53 PM EST
    to be a journalist.  The copy of "Journalism For Dummies" describes him perfectly.

    If he is running a news program, (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:35:00 PM EST
    he is missing the content of news...he's tabloid if he's anything.

    He's a sportscaster turned pundit.

    Serious news doesn't call itself "Countdown" and then name the 3 worst people in the world on a daily basis.

    Edward R Murrow would roll over in his grave if he knew Keith O aspired to his level of serious and honorable journalism.


    You do have to judge thenm on the work that (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Salo on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:49:07 PM EST
    they actually do, rather than what you think they are doing. If Wolfson can defuse a few charges made against Obama on Fox that appointment's got to be a good thing overall. A few less wingnuts voting for Mccain can't hurt us.

    Also Fox did better journalism this year covering the Dem contest than MSNBC.  

    Fox is odious (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:52:22 PM EST
    But so is NBC.

    Peas in a pod at this point.

    It is a biarre line.


    So, who do you like (none / 0) (#54)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:16:55 PM EST
    Parent NBC is not bad....CNN seems pretty balanced.....They have Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck....

    ABC doesn't seem to like Obama all that much....


    I like no one (none / 0) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:25:46 PM EST
    I find Fox a GOP Shill.

    I find MSNBC to be an Obama Shill.


    I guess I think (none / 0) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:28:45 PM EST
    FOX is at least honest and unapologetic about it.

    Well (none / 0) (#88)
    by CST on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:32:09 PM EST
    I would consider MSNBC pretty unapologetic too.

    And not in a good way.


    No they're not (none / 0) (#123)
    by DemForever on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:08:51 PM EST
    Fox continues to insist that they are the most balanced news on TV.  What a crock.  

    I am not sure (none / 0) (#124)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:10:59 PM EST
    in what sense Fox is honest about it.  Unapologetic, I can agree with, but that would apply to MSNBC as well.

    I mean, we all know Fox's bias, but we all know MSNBC's bias too.

    And Fox certainly doesn't go around advertising, "Hey, we're in the tank for the GOP!"  In fact their slogan claims they are fair and balanced.  So where is the honesty?


    I saw Bill O'Reilly do a 4 part (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by hairspray on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:14:00 PM EST
    interview with Hillary earlier this year and it was the best I have seen.  He was respectful and asked good questions. There were no "gotcha questions that I saw, but I only saw three of the interviews. Such a change from the networks programs that were totally stupid.  On the other hand I do not care for the overall programming and so rarely watch it.

    I would actually like to see ... (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Salo on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:51:17 PM EST
    ...Matthews and Hannity face off in a some debate format.    It would be bleeding hilarious. Two bald men fighting over a toupe.

    Hannity has a toupe? (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:13:08 PM EST
    It's a rug?

    Pretty sure it's not. (none / 0) (#62)
    by Southsider on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:20:00 PM EST
    He's a moron though.  An affable moron, which I guess explains how he got so far as a right wing hack.  But a moron.  Would be great to see the two deathmatch.  Flip a coin - I've got no idea how it would turn out.

    Wanna hear something embarrassing?  I didn't realize Matthews was wearing a rug.  

    Huh.  Maybe I'm just not so good at figuring these things out.


    Olbermann, Matthews (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by bjorn on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:53:58 PM EST
    and Schuster are all in the process of a major meltdown.  Surprisingly, huffpost has been following their on air conflicts very closely.  It is really beyond embarrassing at this point.  They hate the Clintons, but they hate each other more!

    Out of control (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:58:54 PM EST
    seems a fair description.

    Unprofessional (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:15:21 PM EST
    Of course, I think that "unprofessional" is a serious attack on any who thinks they are a Serious Member of the Media.  (I can hardly bear to call any of them "journalists".)

    Maybe Jerry Springer needs to invite them onto his show?  (When Media Madness Strikes!)


    It takes Keith Olbermann.... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Southsider on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:21:44 PM EST
    ....to make me side with Chris Matthews.  I'm hoping he'll suckerpunch him on camera sometime today or tomorrow.  Couldn't think of a nicer guy to take an on-air fist to the face.

    OLBERMANN -ILLNESS (none / 0) (#89)
    by Desired User Name on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:32:37 PM EST
    I am not kidding when I say this, but I have watched KO for awhile and he never exhibited such demented behavior until about ...4-5 months ago and it's gotten steadily worse. Again I am not joking, but it seems to me that he might be ill...a brain tumor? His rapid change and quick dismissal of everything his hero MURROW stood for does not seem sane in any way. Barely anything he's done since becoming a Tool For Obama has seemed even close to the beliefs he once held or to the person he once was...

    He was not always this vile, irrational spewing volcano of hypocrisy and hate.

    I truly think his trouble is medical and I'd not at all be surprised if indeed he is soon hospitalized. Again I am NOT JOKING.


    Sure he has (none / 0) (#97)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:36:38 PM EST
    always been this vile. You just agreed with him because he was targeting Bush.

    Always Vile (none / 0) (#117)
    by Desired User Name on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:53:17 PM EST
    Hmmmm, maybe you are correct and maybe I am correct and maybe nobody is correct. Either way


    But seriously maybe you are right and my empathy chip has gone haywire and needs a fix.
    I just don't recall him being this irrational and maniacal about Bush...hell maybe he was. Was he really? Or was he semi-vile, Vile Lite because he's a puss and too worried of repercussion, but when it came to HILLS he could let it rip without fear since so few stick up for her?

    When I witnessed CHRISSY MATHEWS reaching out and gripping Hillary's face I knew instantly what a disgusting misogynistic pr*ck he was and nothing he could ever say or do would change my opinion on "that front".

    Same with John Kerry...when I saw him GRAB Obama's head and treat him like some little boy in front of thousands of people (and millions of viewers) I knew damn well exactly what he "thought" of Obama and it wasn't good, it was condescending.

    ACTIONS speak.

    Um, I'm losing my thread...


    Oh please (none / 0) (#141)
    by mbu on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 12:48:22 PM EST
    Olbermann has been calling Bush a Fascist for at least two years now.  He called him a Terrorist more recently, in February of this year.  So no, I don't think that counts semi-vile, or vile-lite.

    And please, don't pretend people like Olbermann are worried about retaliation from Bush.  If the Bush administration had even a tenth of the spite and vindictiveness of that petty little man, they would have banned MSNBC from their press briefings a long time ago, and the rest of the country would have thanked them for it.


    New Contract (none / 0) (#108)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:44:18 PM EST
    I noticed a marked change in Olbermann when he was given a multi year multi million dollar contract. Nothing like a little job security to get the ego out of whack. I also think the others on the network resented it, Matthews in particular. He thought he was the king.

    Okay Maybe Olbermann (none / 0) (#118)
    by Desired User Name on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:55:09 PM EST
    was always this circus of tom foolery.
    I'll keep this in mind until I hear news of a hospital visit.

    What in the heck is going on at MSNBC? (none / 0) (#96)
    by CCinNC on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:36:35 PM EST
    Was Tim Russert a calming influence?  I can't imagine what election night will be like.  All of the talking (screaming) heads are crazed.  I'm watching the convention on C-Span.  

    Ahhhh.... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:41:49 PM EST
    probably not, but his job hasn't officially been filled as yet. I'm sure it was earlier this year an article was written about the internal competition of these guys, and the fear they have that one will replace another with the golden children, David Gregory and now Rachel Maddow, looking for better gigs.

    Brokaw's recent comment that CM & KO are not the only voices of MSNBC (and not a compliment) couldn't have done anything to cool the jets of competition around there.

    If they lose enough viewership, NBC will be forced to re-evaluate the model of doing business at MSNBC. I'd love that, but there are too many people who just don't seem to be able to turn away.


    That makes sense (none / 0) (#113)
    by CCinNC on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:48:08 PM EST
    I've never seen anything like it.  My college son is loving the aggression on display.  It turns my stomach.

    For some absurd reason (none / 0) (#116)
    by CST on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:52:28 PM EST
    My Mom can't get enough of K.O.

    And her 23 year old daughter and husband despise the man.

    All shapes and sizes.


    I think (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:55:29 PM EST
    that this Page Six gossip, while somewhat unreliable, probably gives an accurate flavor of the overall situation.

    Scarborough declined to talk to Page Six, but sources say he and NBC anchor Tom Brokaw disagree with MSNBC's decision to position itself as the channel for George W. Bush-haters.

    At a forum on Sunday, when Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell called MSNBC "the official network of the Obama campaign," Brokaw said, "I think Keith has gone too far. I think Chris has gone too far."

    Insiders say Olbermann is pushing to have Brokaw banned from the network and is also refusing to have centrist Time magazine columnist Mike Murphy on his show.

    "The idea of anyone trying to ban Tom Brokaw is ludicrous," said one MSNBC-er.

    The idea that anyone (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:56:58 PM EST
    is trying to ban Brokaw from MSNBC is ridiculous. However, it would not surprise me if Brokaw wanted to ban himself. He must be--I know he is--embarrassed to appear with these clowns.

    Olbermann is nothing (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:58:30 PM EST
    if not ridiculous.

    Brokaw... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:16:23 PM EST
    ... has to really feel outnumbered without Russert (who wasn't perfect, but did at least attempt to be objective) around. KO and CM are in a different profession than the one Brokaw practices.

    Russert & Objectivity ? (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Desired User Name on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:40:53 PM EST
    Oh come on, get real! Russert was a puffed-up wind bag playing nonstop GOTCHA games. He soft balled the hell out of George Bush and others in the current administration but drove pins and needles into HILLS and anyone connected to her. His bias and BS were right there on the screen at all times.

    He got OFF kicking those who were down and blowing more air up the butts of those who were already rising.

    The only reason I ever watched Russert was to get an idea of what ANTIDOTE I'd be needing to protect me from his latest venom. He was a snake...

    May he rest in peace, yes, but he was NOT subjective. Or maybe we need to define terms?


    RUSSERT---he was NOT objective (none / 0) (#105)
    by Desired User Name on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:42:34 PM EST
    is what I meant, for he was CERTAINLY subjective!
    But whenever I am talking about people LIKE HIM, I type so fast and furious...haha...

    Russert was not objective, imo, (none / 0) (#85)
    by zfran on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:29:58 PM EST
    with this election!

    Olbermann is losing his mind (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:58:09 PM EST
    Banning Tom Brokaw?

    Not having Mike Murphy, properly identified as a Republican close to McCain, on?

    He has jumped the shark.


    No doubt the MSNBC management were (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by bridget on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:14:57 PM EST
    d'accord with Russert, Keith, Chris, et al.
    Otherwise they would have been reined in immediately after they started to fall over the edge with their  biased campaign coverage and debate performances. This is exactly the kind of "show" they wanted IMO.

    Like always, too late, Mr. Brokaw! Too late.


    To his credit, he said during the campaign (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:35:58 PM EST
    and on air and to their faces that they were going too far with the crap about Clinton.  That was in some primary night coverage, late in the primaries.

    I don't recall seeing Brokaw again after that until Russert's death.  I don't know if that was NBC's decision or Brokaw's, because he didn't want to be associated with the low-level excuse for coverage that is perpetrated by NBC.


    I thought Brokaw retired (none / 0) (#107)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:44:06 PM EST
    several years ago and was only doing special reports as he wanted for NBC. He was asked to sit in for Russert on MTP until they determined who would be the permanent replacement. At least, that's what I thought.

    L. Dobbs also slammed CNN as in the tank for Obama (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:15:30 PM EST
    Olbermann is trying to take over MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by stefystef on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:36:41 PM EST
    Page Six may not be too off base with this.
    I just read on olbermanwatch.com that Olbermann is trying to get rid of Scarborough by starting a campaign on his blog.

    <quote>Edward R Olbermann already has several scalps on his belt: Tucker Carlson and Dan Abrams lead the list. Now he's ready to remake MSNBC mornings into the OlbyPlanet model of ideological purity by taking aim at Joe Scarborough.</quote>

    Now, I used to have respect for Olbermann, but after he became a fanatical disciple of Obama and decided to throw away real journalism, I can't even look at him anymore.  My mother, an African American woman, won't even turn the TV to MSNBC because she's so disgusted with Olbermann and Matthews.

    And she's not alone in her feelings.


    Mike Murphy -- centrist??? (none / 0) (#134)
    by wasabi on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:11:12 PM EST

    The man is a Republican political consultant.  Until recently, he worked as a chief strategist for both Romney and McCain.  He's written widely for The Weekly Standard.

    How is that centrist?


    I have been watching fox (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:04:31 PM EST
    pretty much exclusively if I watch cable news.
    I cant stand CNN and I will not watch MSNBC.  not for one second.
    and you know what, I am getting used to it.  they are no more biased than CNN.  they are no more ridiculous than MSNBC.  
    on top of that, they gave Hillary the fairest shake of anyone in the primary season.
    now, I know this was just to bug Obama.  but they did it.

    I dunno (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by CST on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:25:27 PM EST
    I made it through all of 30 seconds of O'Reilly spewing his crap before I was sufficiently disgusted enough to change the channel.   Granted, I feel the same way about Olbermann.  Two peas in a pod if you ask me.  But we shouldn't excuse Fox news for being a propoganda machine either.  My personal method is to watch a little of everything.  Everything for me though includes the regular reporters at Fox, CNN and MSNBC, but I draw the line at the O'Reilly and Olberman types.

    Personally, I prefer the internet.  A lot of it is crap, but there is enough out there that you can usually find the truth beneath the surface.


    OReilly is vile (none / 0) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:30:58 PM EST
    but I honestly find him more watchable than Olberman if I have to have news at the 7 pm hour.  the other fox shows I find less horrible.  even Hannity.
    except for Gretta.
    there is only so much missing white girl news I can take.

    SO (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:06:36 PM EST
    they bottom line is that we have no news organizations anymore? That's what it seems to me. The sad thing is that Fox is a better station than MSNBC even if they do hawk McCain. They have become somewhat more subtle in their pushing McCain than MSNBC has become in their pushing of Obama.

    this is exactly right. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:08:13 PM EST
    in fact they have said some pretty nasty things about McCain recently.

    An argument can be made (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Iphie on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:07:37 PM EST
    that some kind of a reversal has occurred -- during the primary Fox could be turned to for some of the only truly fair and balanced coverage. And MSNBC turned into a propaganda organ that was willing to use all of the despicable tactics and talking points that Fox pioneered and that other media outlets rightfully mocked. Let's not forget that before David Schuster earned his paycheck at MSNBC by trying to ruin the Clintons, he spent years at Fox doing the exact same thing.

    The landscape has changed -- MSNBC stopped pretending a long time ago (not to mention CNN) and Fox is no longer the worst offender of the bunch.

    Pithy: (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:14:43 PM EST
    But Olbermann and Matthews are pretending to be journalists, not Democratic bloggers, aren't they?

    But, question:  why not just watch C-Span?  I don't understand why anyone cares what the on-air folks on CNN and MSNBC think about speeches they obviously haven't heard in full.

    Yes, and C-Span (none / 0) (#101)
    by CCinNC on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:40:09 PM EST
    seems to be showing everything, not just the speeches the networks want us to see.  

    NBC News needs unity... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by AlSmith on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:19:34 PM EST

    No one will be surprised when Amy Weinhouse dies, right?

    Well, I think Olby goes first and when the press does its look back they'll see all the signs are there. They'll say why didnt anyone say something at the time.

    He probably has a closet full of '50 suits and a crate of Pall Malls and puts on John Wayne Gacy makeup and hosts "See It Now" for an apartment full of marionettes.

    He can extend this quote to the (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:19:53 PM EST
    so-called progressive blogosphere if asked about that too.  They did their share of ripping him up.

    "I'm not gonna take any lectures on how to be a good Democrat from two people who spent the last two years relentlessly attacking Bill and Hillary Clinton everyday,"

    This primary season (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by cawaltz on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:33:10 PM EST
    proved to me once and for all that the problem isn't JUST FOX. Journalistic integrity appears to be dead and what is left is some parody of it that mirrors reality TV. The Democratic party might as well go on on FOX, it's no worse than MSNBC or CNN. Reporting the truth seems to be secondary nowadays to reporting your opinion and getting in a few jabs at folks that disagree with it.

    At this rate... (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:43:19 PM EST
    ...of decline, the pinnacle of journalistic integrity in American broadcast media might soon be Katy Couric.

    But on a serious note, I've become very depressed over just how far journalism has fallen in this country.  Newspapers are imploding all over the country, until many are little more than bake sale announcements and wire stories, and nearly every outlet on TV has blown right by "self parody" without even slowing down.


    There are no angels in this exchange (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:51:35 PM EST

    Or journalists (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:52:39 PM EST
    These are talk shows, nothing more. (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:55:30 PM EST
    I tend to react to this stuff the way I would react if it were reported that Regis and Kelly were fighting.

    Excuse me (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:59:22 PM EST
    Then NBC has to keep its reporters off of MSNBC.

    I don't agree (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:03:00 PM EST
    It's not necessarily a problem if the NBC reporters appear on MSNBC. It is a problem, however, that they go on MSNBC and pretend to be "covering" or "reporting" the news.

    Of course, if I were an NBC reporter, I would be embarrassed to have to go on MSNBC. (I can assure you that none of them are: exposure is the name of the game on TV).


    Again excuse me (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:05:21 PM EST
    That is just wrong. NBC allowing its reporters to go on MSNBC is exactly why the behavior it engages in is problematic.

    Brokw, you say, should not go on. Why? Because if he does, he is stating that journalism is going on.

    That is the same principle for its reporters.



    It seems to me that the real problem (none / 0) (#48)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:15:35 PM EST
    is that MSNBC carry's the NBC News brand, not so much that any particular NBC News reports appears on the channel.

    I do agree that MSNBC is sullying the NBC News brand. But then again, didn't Dateline NBC do that years ago? How about the Today show?


    You are making a circular argument (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:25:02 PM EST
    WHY is MSNBC sullying the NBC News brand? I do not want to go Socratic on you, but ask you to think about that.

    Ok, let me take a shot at this (none / 0) (#102)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:40:21 PM EST
    MSNBC sullies the NBC news brand because it carries the brand, and pretends to be a journalism operation, even though it is not one.

    I suppose it would be better just to say that the NBC News brand is shot, because there is no light between MSNBC and NBC News.


    Olbermann and Matthews (none / 0) (#114)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:48:22 PM EST
    are they the reporters you refer to?

    I think of them more as I do Geraldo Rivera. Talk show hosts. They discuss news, but they don't report it.

    They were never news anchors prior to their MSNBC programs. Hardball and Countdown don't have the word News attached.


    But of course that's what they do.... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:12:41 PM EST
    ..Schuster, Gregory, and Mitchell come on MSNBC in their role as journalist. They don't come on and tap dance or juggle. They opine. And they gossip. Maybe its unfair that they don't get to "opine or gossip" while Pat Buchanan, Howard Wolfson, and others do...but they are clearly not journalists and their biases are known.

    It's one thing to have biased commentators, but if we openly says its okay to have biased reporting then their is no journalism...so yeah I guess its okay for them to do whatever they want. But I hope we haven't gotten to that point yet.


    Truth in advertising is the test (none / 0) (#100)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:39:23 PM EST
    and MSNBC advertises that Olbermann, et al., provide news.

    So MSNBC lies.  As much as its "journalists" do.


    OT (none / 0) (#135)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:22:31 PM EST
    Hillary's roll call is beginning

    True (none / 0) (#7)
    by Redshoes on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:52:57 PM EST
    but like the angels I'd rather have Howard on my side.  Keep going Howard.

    No one watches MSNBC ... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:57:31 PM EST

    They're largely playing this Obama cheerleader game so they can convince advertisers that they're a boutique network with a high income demographic.

    Zzzzz ...

    Wake me when they start doing journalism.

    Wolfson a creep! (none / 0) (#13)
    by irishdem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:57:54 PM EST
    Taking a job with Fox is a travesty! Fox the network that fronted all of Bush's lies! I agree with BTD's opposition to dems appearing on fox.

    All of the MSM fronted Bush's lies ... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:03:38 PM EST
    but I also don't think Dems should appear on Fox.

    However, Fox are obviously shills.  So they're really not a problem.

    It's the people who feigned objectivity, and endorsed Bush's lies that are the real problem, i.e. the rest of the media.


    In a cable network world (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by zfran on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:05:51 PM EST
    surrounded by Obama media machines, Fox can be refreshing and informative. With the exception of Hannity/Colmbs and O'Reilly, I think they have had a variety of interesting guests from all sides. Chris Wallace today interviewed a senior Obama campaign advisor about Obama's speech etal. and invited her back during the Repub. convention.
    Anita Dunn (I think).Even during the primaries, their coverage was quite extensive, unbiased and somewhat interesting. I understand their viewship is up.

    Have you read about the Jon Stewart (none / 0) (#58)
    by hairspray on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:18:40 PM EST
    workshop that is going on in Denver?  He is challenging the print media (his audience) to stop letting the cable networks drive the news. That is like telling an addict to just say no.

    Must we eat our young? (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Redshoes on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:09:33 PM EST
    Agree with BTD that in our less than ideal world every Dem should boycott Fox and, I would add, MSNBC  -- CNN is just silly.    But if the only forum open to Wolfson is Fox and he remains a voice of reason, hey I can work with that.  What I've seen of Wolfson doesn't give me the creeps.

    Me too (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:16:45 PM EST
    I wish FOX weren't around, but if that is the outlet open to Wolfson I'm glad his voice is getting hear.  Especially since it travels from there to the blogosphere and all around.

    Uh-oh - I feel a Special Comment coming on.  I love my near total MSNBC boycott.


    and (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:21:01 PM EST
    as someone said, they do have by far the biggest audience.
    and my boycott is complete.

    Shrug (none / 0) (#65)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:20:52 PM EST
    I think it is more about Wolfson earning a living, which I can't begrudge him.  We can apply a different standard to unpaid appearances.

    I thought about that (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:22:16 PM EST
    but unless Wolfson has retired from political strategy, I am not buying.

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:00:03 PM EST
    But so are Olbermann and Tweety.

    Missed that part of your comment.


    obermann and tweety don't work for Fox (none / 0) (#26)
    by irishdem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:04:43 PM EST
    I appreciate your honesty (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:10:20 PM EST
    You approve of blatant shilling from "journalists" when it is for your side.

    I do not.


    there not journalists. They are political pundits! (none / 0) (#56)
    by irishdem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:17:11 PM EST
    Look (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:23:41 PM EST
    You can make that claims for Tweety, butnot Olbermann.

    As someone wrote, "watch him."


    Even as partisans (none / 0) (#63)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:20:23 PM EST
    KO and Tweety are losing their effectiveness....Too over the top.....Rachel Maddow may eclipse them....

    like she (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:23:05 PM EST
    is not over the top

    Rachel is awful (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:23:08 PM EST
    I'm relieved to know (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by miriam on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:36:25 PM EST
    I'm not the only one who thinks Rachel Maddow is terrible.  What makes it even worse is that she once was a fairly decent commentator on a few subjects.  But since her Obama conversion she has lost all objectivity.  In Maddow's world, Hillary Clinton can't do anything but deliberately harm Obama.  I'm not liking what I see/hear from too many people once they team with Obama.  And that's scary.

    Um, excuse me but..... (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:15:26 PM EST
    ...no one shilled for Bush more than Tweety. Don't you remember "sunny nobility?" So he switches sides and then its okay?

    tweety also was one of the first to get off the (none / 0) (#59)
    by irishdem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:19:02 PM EST
    bandwagon, when it wasn't popular. Cannot say that for several others and still have not seen anyone on Fox!

    I'm supposed to give him credit for that? (none / 0) (#78)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:26:49 PM EST
    10 comments irishdem (none / 0) (#95)
    by waldenpond on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:36:11 PM EST
    Second notice.... reminder: new commenters (those less than 30 days) are limited to 10 comments per day.  You are over 17.  Thanks.

    Tweety hated Gore (none / 0) (#70)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:22:33 PM EST
    Bush II schmoozed him on his own show by saying that his favorite historical figure was Churchill, Tweety's stated favorite....Tweety was smitted right there...

    Tweety is very anti-war, so I give him credit there....but he would do better to let his guests talk more.....


    That whooshing sound (none / 0) (#83)
    by Nadai on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:29:32 PM EST
    was the point passing way over your head.

    I think its funny, that the hopey changey (none / 0) (#119)
    by kimsaw on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:58:52 PM EST
    tingling, Matthews and Olberman choose to vilify Wolfson for going on Fox and yet they are in the can for the post partisan unity builder Obama, who has yet to unify anything except those under the bus. The irony of it all.

    My mother always told me-  if you can't say something nice don't say it at all. The airways would be silent. Finding the truth in news is a game of Where's Waldo. You have to look at the whole picture which means Americans must use   multiple resources to get at the truth. Bits and pieces of information from unnamed sources combined with someone's limited knowledge of circumstance or assumptions is called the news.   We have to decipher the accuracy of the information provided on TV or the internet, we my friends, are our own journalists.  Going to Fox News is no different these days than going to MSNBC,or CNN. There is no fair and balanced anywhere.  



    Well, (none / 0) (#18)
    by bocajeff on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:59:55 PM EST
    Olbermann and Matthews aren't news journalists on their respective shows. They are offering opinion. They have been exposed as having an incredible bias this election cycle, but opinion is opinion.

    As for your supposed policy of not wanting Dems on Fox, what's the big deal?

    That simply is false (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:01:04 PM EST
    Why this lie keeps getting repeated is beyond me.

    MSNBC is run by the NBC NEWS division.

    MSNBC's principal news anchor is Keith Olbermann.

    Your characterization is simply ridiculous.


    One question (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Monda on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:09:20 PM EST
    BTD, I read above that you are against the Dems appearing on Fox.  
    The hard fact is that Fox is the most watched cable network (not calling it news network.)  To ignore their audience doesn't seem a smart move to me.  Better going on Fox then MSNBC (it's like preaching to the choir, although, in this particular case their choir is a cacophony :) ).

    Just wondering.  As for Olberman, he said last night after the speech, something to the effect that Hillary finally redeemed herself ... I'd rather watch fox (mute button when Dick Morris comes on) then MSNBC.


    Because it is a lying shilling (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:12:38 PM EST
    mouthpiece for the GOP.

    yes but (none / 0) (#50)
    by Monda on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:15:58 PM EST
    the other networks have not done the Dems one bit of good with their pundits talking out of their a**.  

    ...except delivering Obama (none / 0) (#109)
    by Josey on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:45:34 PM EST
    That's all MSNBC & Co care about.
    They know a cash cow when they see one and that's why those networks manufactured false racist hysteria over the Clintons remarks.
    And when Olbermann went crazy and claimed Hillary wanted Obama assassinated (based on her RFK remark) - it was obvious they'd go to any length to promote THE ONE.

    Olbermann's primary role is an opinion show host (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by irishdem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:12:50 PM EST
    Watch his show. Everyday he has a segment on "Bushed", "oddball", etc.
    He is offering opinion, not representing himself as an anchor. In fact when he occasionally has Brian Williams on he jokes that he makes Williams uncomfortable. Olbermann get's more air time because he has become the most popular.

    Sorry, that's wrong (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:16:58 PM EST
    He does pretend to be a news anchor, and to "report" the news.

    Watch his show? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:21:23 PM EST
    Um, ok. Because I am accustomed to talking out of m** about things I have never seen.

    What a joke your comments are in this thread.


    So then he shouldn't host convention coverage. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:16:54 PM EST
    They are news (none / 0) (#24)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:04:04 PM EST

    and happy to do it (none / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:05:39 PM EST
    but they are more.  Matthews and Oblerman both.  

    Matthews has long been over the top, (none / 0) (#57)
    by OldCity on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:17:26 PM EST
    as has Olbermann.

    I think Matthews, especially as the primary wore on, seemed to resent the fact that he actually had to cover the thing.

    What's worse, he was pretty overtly sexist.  I do believe you can prefer one candidate over another without resorting to personal attacks.  You can disagree with policy points, etc.  The problem with the primary is that the two candidates were close enough on most major policy points that the pundits took the lazy way out, and started to engage in character assassination and to fan the flames of acrimony.

    As a supporter of HRC early on, I was really startled by how willing commentators were to get grossly personal after Iowa.  I don't think that the media ever got over "Clinton fatigue".  

    No one is ever going to put HRC high on a list of dynamic speakers.  Nor, frankly, does she radiate warmth.  But she does exude competence.  So, if the conversation was to be about suitability, how her husband's infidelity factored in was a mystery to me.

    Obviously, there are some real HRC zealots.  to hold them up as emblematic of Clinton supports is pretty wrongheaded, though.  I will say that Wolfson doesn't seem too concerned about winning the GE.  He falls into the habit of refighting the primary, which isn't productive.  Also, I think his decision to join Fox was appalling.  Hannity?  Fox and Friends?  Hume?  C'mon.  the only person on that network even remotely willing to be positive about HRC was Wallace, and only grudgingly.  

    Despite popular expectation,  HRC turned in a great speech last night.  I'm pretty tired of all the parsing...she didn't talk about HIS achievement, etc...I think she struck the right balance, and elegantly.

    Wolfson would be better served not getting onto a shouting match with MSNBC.  His current employer is probably dying to co-opt his justifiable anger into a divisive theme about the Democratic party.    

    Excuse me, Wolfson was defending himself (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by angie on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:27:18 PM EST
    Matthews & KO started this brouhaha with their despicable comments ("little toy soldier" & "Tokyo Rose"). You do realize this is calling Wolfson a traitor, right? You do realize that a person could (and should) get offended by these slurs & should defend themselves.
    As for the holier than thou attitude about Wolfson appearing on FOX -- I don't get it -- Obama appeared on FOX too --aren't the Dems supposed to be "reaching out" this year?  

    Don't get me wrong... (none / 0) (#99)
    by OldCity on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:38:49 PM EST
    I know they ripped him and I know he had to defend himself.  But, he's just not going to win if he allows himself to be dragged into some sort of long running brouhaha.

    There's no way Fox isn't absolutely salivating at an opporunity to show Democratic "dysfunction".  Matthews is clearly not a neutral observer, nor is Olbermann.  But, Wolfson has his own history of inflammatory comments...(not necessarily toward those guys, btw) it happens during a campaign.

    My point is that it's tough to have an ongoing argument if one person refuses to be baited.  He should recognize that his employer would love nothing more than a donneybrook.  None of us should be deluded into thinking that somehow Fo is going to become a neutral in this.

    I'm uncomfortable with the ongoing mix of punditry and news.  i think the talking heads should commit to being one or the other.  


    I strongly disagree, BTD (none / 0) (#81)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:28:32 PM EST
    You keep posting things like this with the tag line, "Speaking for me only."


    You're deadly accurate in these posts and you definitely speak for me, too, as well, I suspect, as a lot of others here.

    If you'll excuse me now, I have to go lie down and recover from my self-imposed snark attack.

    does anyone know? (none / 0) (#84)
    by Josey on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:29:53 PM EST
    is that Invesco stage under construction trying to be a Greek temple or the Lincoln Memorial.

    I'm thinking Greek Temple (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by smott on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:35:38 PM EST
    ...or as RD puts it so well -

    Oh, this is perfect. After spending all week straining to convince voters that he is a humble, all-American God-fearing Christian regular Joe, Barack Obama will deliver his acceptance speech tomorrow night from a structure that ABC News says "resembles an ancient Greek temple." Because nothing hits the trifecta of Hollywood, presumption, and alternate religion like a wine-soaked polytheist boy-f*cking Vegas pleasure dome in the middle of a massive arena


    LOL - OK, thanks (none / 0) (#112)
    by Josey on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:47:50 PM EST
    who is RD? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:50:01 PM EST
    that was great.
    personally I like the little platform that rises up like the organ in the old St Louis Fox theater with Stan Cann at the keyboards on Halloween night.

    RD is RiverDaughter (none / 0) (#125)
    by smott on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:11:04 PM EST
    of The Confluence


    If you don't like PUMAs, may not be your place though....


    yeah (none / 0) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:29:27 PM EST
    I actually got it after I posted that.
    I dont have a problem with PUMAs at all.
    and I love RD.  and Madam and Katiebird.
    I was just a little slow.

    awesome (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by AlSmith on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:46:25 PM EST

    HotAir has new video of the Temple of O.

    The good news it looks like they could lop off the most preposterous piece which are the taller flanking columns. Then they are left with the center columns with the fake windows which may not scream pagan temple.

    Part of me, ok most, really want to see them stage this monstrously. And then read Kos call it "the best staging evah"


    Tweety deserves his nickname (none / 0) (#90)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:32:46 PM EST
    I hope he runs for the senate in PA -it would be entertaining and he would be humiliated.

    There is no fact checking at masnbc --they need "statboy"

    Bizarre. Just bizarre. (none / 0) (#111)
    by zyx on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:46:44 PM EST
    Many folks behaving badly.

    cable news is an oxymoron (none / 0) (#121)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:03:52 PM EST
    None of the cable news networks have any journalist integrity. They have commentators who act like their journalists and don't make a clear distinction between the two activities. And they've all demonstrated political biases. And even if only some members of those networks are the glaring examples of hackery, it is enough to paint the entire network. And what's even worse they (and their not the only journalism outlets to do this) are sloppy and lazy. They'll report as news things they're told from the pentagon or the white house. There's little or no investigation.

    With out any watchdogs, what will happen when the government wants to do something really nasty and pushes propaganda. The networks will just go along. Oh wait, that already happened with Iraq.

    I remember when Jon Stewart went on Crossfire and blasted them for their horrible antics and for harming the country with the crap they were doing. He or someone like him needs to do the same with tweedy and KO.

    jeeez grammar (none / 0) (#122)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:04:47 PM EST
    don't even bother commenting on my grammar. I definitely type too fast for my brain.

    why shouldn't Democrats appear on Fox (none / 0) (#126)
    by nycvoter on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:11:10 PM EST
    do you not believe in debate!  Why should democrats appear on MSNBC, they are ridiculous as their primary coverage and continuous bashing of the Clintons indicate.

    Fox may be abhorrent in many ways but not appearing only leaves a echo chamber of their own opinions.  Hillary was brillant on O'Reily and I heard many Republicans, who may not have voted for her, tell me that she had earned their respect but that they even started to like her a bit after that interview.  

    Olberboy thinks he owns the airwaves (none / 0) (#127)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:15:09 PM EST
    I sincerely believe/hope his complete meltdown is coming soon.

    NBC and MSNBC (none / 0) (#128)
    by BDB on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:26:18 PM EST
    Helped stack the news in favor of the Iraq invasion.  They haven't been real journalists for a very long time.  It's just now they've changed their tune because Obama is better ratings.  If Obama tanks, they'll be back on McCain's next war with or without Olbermann.

    Other than McClatchy, I'm not sure we have any real news outlets.  We have individual reporters (Dana Priest, Tom Ricks), but no real news organizations.  

    So in other words (none / 0) (#131)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:51:49 PM EST
    Olbermann feels he has a right to dictate Wolfson's place of employment?

    Some liberal he is.

    I think Olbermann has earned a nickname (none / 0) (#132)
    by Exeter on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:06:04 PM EST
    May I suggest "Sylvester" as in "Tweety and Sylvester"?!?

    I think Olbermann has earned a nickname (none / 0) (#133)
    by Exeter on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:06:12 PM EST
    May I suggest "Sylvester" as in "Tweety and Sylvester"?!?

    Fox is the most fair (none / 0) (#136)
    by Slado on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:41:58 PM EST
    but it's obviously biased.   However they do a better job then NBC right now separating the Hannity's and O'Reileys from the newscasters who just broadcast the news.  That Olberman and Matthews anchor their election coverage is obscene.  Nobody else does that.  Fox has the news guys and the crazy right wing guys and they ususally don't meet except for Brit Hume who does a pretty fair job of doing both.  

    Also Fox has real liberals on their payroll.  Every panel has at least one real liberal giving that point of view.   Most of them are from NPR for goodness sakes and they throw in some reall crazies as well.

    They have positioned themselves overall to be the more right wing network but frankly when the three major networks and CNN MSNBC leaned left there was no demand for another lefty network.

    MSNBC has just decided to go in some perverse pro Obama direction that I can't figure out.   I remember BTD talking up Olberman before this election.   Man have times changed.

    Anyone who is a fan of ESPN knows this was coming.  He did the same sort of self destructie ego implosion there and he's doing it again.

    also Beckel (none / 0) (#138)
    by Fen on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 10:22:06 PM EST
    Bob Beckel [sp?] is a fequent guest from the Left side, and he's certainly no slouch.

    Also remember (none / 0) (#140)
    by Slado on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 07:40:50 AM EST
    more people ( including liberals) watch fox then the other networks so why wouldn't you want to expose yourself to the biggest audience?

    Last night I listened to Fox (on sirius) on the way home and they where gushing over Hillary's appearnce during the roll call and what a unifying moment it was and Chris Wallace said it was the most emmotional moment he'd ever been involved with at a convention blah, blah, blah.  I had to make sure I had the right channel and it was indeed Brit Hume waxing prolifically about what an important historic moment this was blah, blah, blah.

    Some bias.


    Sweat in training, so you don't bleed in battle (none / 0) (#137)
    by Fen on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 10:20:30 PM EST
    As a Democrat, I have always opposed Dems appearing on Fox.


    Shirking FOX only makes Dems look weak and petty.  

    MSNBC is far worse than Fox (none / 0) (#139)
    by SomewhatChunky on Thu Aug 28, 2008 at 02:37:42 AM EST
    Some of the best interviews I have seen have been democrats (Robert Reich, Charlie Rangel, Hilary) on the O'Reilly Factor.  Those who can hold their own with solid arguments often come across quite well.  It better to go where you might convert someone than always preach to the choir.  Reich and Rangel have been on many times so they must see some value in doing so.

    MSNBC is an embarrassment.  An Olberman rant reminds of a guy at the end of the bar who has had 4 or 5 too many.  There's a difference between bias and professionalism.