This entry was posted on December 29, 2011 at 8:51 am and is filed under Free For All . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
From Brian Stelter’s report in the NY Time re coverage of the primary elections:
“[On MSNBC] Rachel Maddow will be the main anchor, joined by Mr. Matthews and the channel’s other three prime time hosts, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O’Donnell and the Rev. Al Sharpton.”
It is interesting, once again, that Joe Scarborough is nowhere to be found. If I recall, last election he was at some personal event that he had to attend. Ever since he and Olbermann had that back-and-forth, he’s been absent from their election coverage.
Chris Matthews has called Gingrich “the personification of evil.” Even Barney Frank, whom Matthews was interviewing, said that was too much since such terms should be reserved for the likes of Stalin and Saddam.
If somehow Gingrich gets the nomination (doubtful, but it’s a real crap shoot this year), how can MSNBC have him anchor their election coverage?
I wouldn’t vote for Gingrich if he was running against my dog. And I have a dumb dog. But there still has to be a semblance of fairness in covering the guy.
Fairness at MSNBC? Please link even 2 examples of how anyone even remotely leaning conservative had something positive said about them at MSNBC. And don’t give me stuff that says Ann Romney is a nice woman – doesn’t count! I’m thinking more along policy issues.
“Fairness” and “neutrality” are not the same thing. There’s plenty of fairness towards libs at FNC..just as much towards conservatives at MSNBC. The difference between FNC, CNN, and MSNBC on Election Night is that the first two play it as a straight news event, while MSNBC sticks with a largely liberal view of the proceedings.
It’s a choice I used to care about, but I’m over it. MSNBC has chosen to cover a vote count that has already been analyzed from left and right for months from a “we’re the lefties” seat. The alternative is to duplicate what FNC and CNN do, which – from a programmer’s POV – does seem kinda useless.
I’m crabby today. I’m paying property taxes through the nose, and someone I know just bragged that she’s using my city’s recreational services by lying about her residency.
If you’re primarily a “news” channel then it’s absolutely necessary to cover elections using hard news journalists who can play it as fair as practical. If you’re channel is primarily “political discussion” programming, however, you’re going to want political points of view from one side or the other. NBCU has another venue for its hard news and MSNBC shouldn’t be held to the same standard as CNN & FNC.
I’m not buying it either. I mean, don’t they say they’re a cable news channel? Not a cable opinion channel.
After all, this is coverage of a news event and you should have news people covering it. When analysis is needed then you bring in your opinion people. News first, analysis second.
If they were reporting on an earthquake, they’d use their news people. They wouldn’t have opinion people opining on the political consequences of the event.
Cover the news with news people, not your commentators.
The news comes in as a vote total. One minute, party over. The rest is analysis. CNN will have a cast of thousands talking over each other; FNC will have mostly righties, with a smattering of Alan Colmes and Kirsten Powers, and Juan Williams playing the Fake Liberal; MSNBC will have lefties and Michael Steele.
This is a caucus vote. The votes comes in segments as precincts report them to the state GOP.
Networks also interview candidates and their managers and voters and provide straight news about the event. E.g., why did this happen, why did that happen, why did Candidate “A” win this part of the state, exit polling of voters. Lots of hard news to report on.
And this is the same process that MSNBC did with the off-year elections two years ago and the Presidential election three years ago. All news events covered by their opinion people.
It’s simply not a one minute recitation of the vote.
You’re right Erich. It’s a one-minute vote updates, followed by reporters asking representatives of the candidates, and the candidates themselves, “what it all means”. Opinion people can handle those nauseating duties just fine.
Opinion people can handle those nauseating duties just fine.
They can if they leave their opinion to the side and ask straight questions.
I just don’t believe that Phil Griffin made this change because he wants his commentators to play it straight. He wants them to promote an ideological point of view.
Otherwise, If he wanted straight/hards news coverage then why select his commentators? He selected his opinion folk because he wants a POV coverage of a news event.
They can if they leave their opinion to the side and ask straight questions.
Opinion people ask straight questions all the time. It’s not hard to say “How do you feel about tonight’s results?” After the 5th place candidate delivers some BS about “momentum”, even a “straight” reporter is going to challenge that particular delusion.
…don’t they say they’re a cable news channel? Not a cable opinion channel.
No, not really. They say they are “the place for politics” or something like that. On the website checking “about us” there’s a claim to be a source for breaking news, etc., but check the address bar and you’re reading MSNBC dot com, not MSNBCTV, a separate company.
I think they are political opinion programming with a little bit of real news tossed in, and I think they’d do better overall by being more up front with that.
December 29, 2011 at 10:12 am
As I noted on another thread, CNN is launching their new morning programs on MONDAY.
I think it has ‘teh sux’ written all over it…
December 29, 2011 at 10:17 am
Talking to myself here a bit, but Soledad’s show will be called Starting Point (@startingptcnn)
December 29, 2011 at 10:42 am
From Brian Stelter’s report in the NY Time re coverage of the primary elections:
“[On MSNBC] Rachel Maddow will be the main anchor, joined by Mr. Matthews and the channel’s other three prime time hosts, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O’Donnell and the Rev. Al Sharpton.”
It is interesting, once again, that Joe Scarborough is nowhere to be found. If I recall, last election he was at some personal event that he had to attend. Ever since he and Olbermann had that back-and-forth, he’s been absent from their election coverage.
His decision? Or MSNBC’s?
Rest is here: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/cable-channels-set-to-begin-election-year-coverage/
December 29, 2011 at 10:59 am
MSNBC really showcases their impartial journalists on these election nights.
December 29, 2011 at 11:10 am
No need for a shovel anymore, MSNBC hole practically digs itself.
December 29, 2011 at 11:22 am
Chris Matthews has called Gingrich “the personification of evil.” Even Barney Frank, whom Matthews was interviewing, said that was too much since such terms should be reserved for the likes of Stalin and Saddam.
If somehow Gingrich gets the nomination (doubtful, but it’s a real crap shoot this year), how can MSNBC have him anchor their election coverage?
I wouldn’t vote for Gingrich if he was running against my dog. And I have a dumb dog. But there still has to be a semblance of fairness in covering the guy.
December 29, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Fairness at MSNBC? Please link even 2 examples of how anyone even remotely leaning conservative had something positive said about them at MSNBC. And don’t give me stuff that says Ann Romney is a nice woman – doesn’t count! I’m thinking more along policy issues.
December 29, 2011 at 2:08 pm
“Fairness” and “neutrality” are not the same thing. There’s plenty of fairness towards libs at FNC..just as much towards conservatives at MSNBC. The difference between FNC, CNN, and MSNBC on Election Night is that the first two play it as a straight news event, while MSNBC sticks with a largely liberal view of the proceedings.
It’s a choice I used to care about, but I’m over it. MSNBC has chosen to cover a vote count that has already been analyzed from left and right for months from a “we’re the lefties” seat. The alternative is to duplicate what FNC and CNN do, which – from a programmer’s POV – does seem kinda useless.
December 29, 2011 at 3:25 pm
I’m crabby today. I’m paying property taxes through the nose, and someone I know just bragged that she’s using my city’s recreational services by lying about her residency.
And she also told me she hates Fox News!
I hate scammers.
December 29, 2011 at 4:03 pm
If you’re primarily a “news” channel then it’s absolutely necessary to cover elections using hard news journalists who can play it as fair as practical. If you’re channel is primarily “political discussion” programming, however, you’re going to want political points of view from one side or the other. NBCU has another venue for its hard news and MSNBC shouldn’t be held to the same standard as CNN & FNC.
December 29, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Doesn’t sound fair to me, Al.
December 29, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Doesn’t sound fair to me, Al.
I’m not buying it either. I mean, don’t they say they’re a cable news channel? Not a cable opinion channel.
After all, this is coverage of a news event and you should have news people covering it. When analysis is needed then you bring in your opinion people. News first, analysis second.
If they were reporting on an earthquake, they’d use their news people. They wouldn’t have opinion people opining on the political consequences of the event.
Cover the news with news people, not your commentators.
December 29, 2011 at 5:18 pm
The news comes in as a vote total. One minute, party over. The rest is analysis. CNN will have a cast of thousands talking over each other; FNC will have mostly righties, with a smattering of Alan Colmes and Kirsten Powers, and Juan Williams playing the Fake Liberal; MSNBC will have lefties and Michael Steele.
December 29, 2011 at 5:36 pm
This is a caucus vote. The votes comes in segments as precincts report them to the state GOP.
Networks also interview candidates and their managers and voters and provide straight news about the event. E.g., why did this happen, why did that happen, why did Candidate “A” win this part of the state, exit polling of voters. Lots of hard news to report on.
And this is the same process that MSNBC did with the off-year elections two years ago and the Presidential election three years ago. All news events covered by their opinion people.
It’s simply not a one minute recitation of the vote.
December 29, 2011 at 5:41 pm
You’re right Erich. It’s a one-minute vote updates, followed by reporters asking representatives of the candidates, and the candidates themselves, “what it all means”. Opinion people can handle those nauseating duties just fine.
December 29, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Opinion people can handle those nauseating duties just fine.
They can if they leave their opinion to the side and ask straight questions.
I just don’t believe that Phil Griffin made this change because he wants his commentators to play it straight. He wants them to promote an ideological point of view.
Otherwise, If he wanted straight/hards news coverage then why select his commentators? He selected his opinion folk because he wants a POV coverage of a news event.
December 29, 2011 at 5:52 pm
They can if they leave their opinion to the side and ask straight questions.
Opinion people ask straight questions all the time. It’s not hard to say “How do you feel about tonight’s results?” After the 5th place candidate delivers some BS about “momentum”, even a “straight” reporter is going to challenge that particular delusion.
December 29, 2011 at 6:09 pm
Not “delusion” … “spin”. One is ‘opinion’, the other ‘euphemism’. Take notes, there’s a test later.
December 29, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Ouch, this is good:
“If MSNBC really wants good ratings they should do the coverage live from inside a Des Moines state prison.”
Man, that hurts.
December 29, 2011 at 6:22 pm
The words I dread on Election Night: “Let’s go to the Spin Room..”
December 29, 2011 at 6:23 pm
“We’re in a three-way tie for third place. We’ve got Joementum!”
December 29, 2011 at 6:31 pm
…don’t they say they’re a cable news channel? Not a cable opinion channel.
No, not really. They say they are “the place for politics” or something like that. On the website checking “about us” there’s a claim to be a source for breaking news, etc., but check the address bar and you’re reading MSNBC dot com, not MSNBCTV, a separate company.
I think they are political opinion programming with a little bit of real news tossed in, and I think they’d do better overall by being more up front with that.
December 29, 2011 at 7:32 pm
The words I dread on Election Night: “President 0bama has won re-election…”
December 29, 2011 at 7:35 pm
^ Seems as though President Obama may agree with you, Missy.
December 29, 2011 at 8:29 pm
Sep. 15, 2008: “Ladies and gentlemen..the worldwide economy has collapsed. We’re all screwed.”
Obama: “Hey Michelle, I can still drop out, right?”
December 29, 2011 at 11:41 pm
“Come on, guys, we’re giving it away!”