Keith Olberman - Tarnished Star of the Left, Has Tarnished NBC

I won't argue the point about Olberman.

But... assuming you watch Fox News, do you even notice the partisan crap their anchors pull? I figure it is only fair to have a network with the opposite bias.

MSNBC's ratings speak volumes on the shift to the left. They have no audience. The right doesn't care anout libbie TV and the left are too busy watching FOXNews.

Maybe the left can start a Radio Station. Let's call it Air America.

Oh, wait. That did not work out too well either.

As a long time amateur media analyst, I can honestly say that it is extremely difficult to pick up any bias in Fox's straight news reporting--if anything they go out of their way to be more fair to the left. The special analytical programming, talk shows, etc. do tilt right of center but are still more fair than what you find on other networks.

And THAT is why Fox is trusted by so many and why it beats all the other cable networks in ratings.

From a UCLA study


Once MSNBC gave up any pretense of fairness in their reporting and obviously promoted leftwing ideology and supported exclusively liberal Democrats, their ratings tanked in a major way. Even those who agree with their ideology and politics couldn't stand the mindless and meaningless pandering.

Not only is this very funny...

It also says a lot more about you than it does about the network.

Well I posted some support for my opinion. Please post yours. What's your favorite cable news source? How does it compare in ratings with Fox? Hmmmm?

fox;
ratings=non-bias?

Fox gets away with it because guys like OReilly and Hannity are presented only as "commentators" not journalists.

Because thats what they are is commentators.
They dont claim to be journalists, and they never have

But are you saying that since they are on Fox that they are journalists, or are you saying that since you dislike them they are journalists?
BTW, can you provide evidence to even one time where either of them have claimed to be journalists?

We watched the Fox coverage of the Democratic convention just for laughs.

The immediate response to the Hillary speech (where she said she supported Obama 100%) a long-spun discussion that she was giving a half-hearted endorsement.

The Bill Clinton speech response was pretty much the same.

It is Republican talking points left and rights. (Maybe Foxfyre's point is that Republican talking points are fair and balanced).

i didn't have a problem with much of what olberman said, but when & where he said it.

should have saved it for after or his next countdown.

Olbermann's Countdown show "reaches more than a million viewers a night, a higher television rating than any other show in the troubled 12-year history of the network." (IHT)

Although MSNBC remained in last place among the broadcast and cable news networks when it came to reporting the conventions, it did "nearly double .. its audience compared with the 2004 conventions". (IHT)

What is the "partisan crap" FOX anchors pull?

I don't argue there isn't a place/market for a left-wing MSNBC, but any attempt to equate FOX news anchors with those of MSNBC is fairly tortured.

A fair comparison with Olberman and Matthews are Hannity and O'Reilly - neither of whom have anchored FOX news programming.

If you really mean to compare Humes, Baird, Shepherd et all with Olberman and Matthews, frankly, you're pressing. However, I'm open to specifics.

Get away with it?

Get away with what?

Hannity and O'Reilly are commentators.

That's the point.

FOX doesn't try to suggest that they are objective news reporters.

MSNBC, on the other hand, did try to "get away with" contending that Olberman and Matthews were.

That, clearly, is the point.

I don't give a damned what any clearly biased commentator has to say. Idiots will reveal themselves as such.

MSNBC, however, crossed the line when they attempted to pass off opinionated commentators as objective news reporters, and in so doing, damaged the larger NBC brand.

They've admitted their mistake.

Again, good for them. They've tapped into a market they can exploit.

One can argue that the left-wing biased MSNBC programming can't match the audience of the right-wing biased FOX because:

1) There are fewer left-wingers watching TV in America

2) Left-wing watchers already have the three broadcast networks to meet their needs.

Odds are pretty good that it is #2 which is why MSNBC has to be "in your face" left-wing so as to attract the liberals who think that ABC, CBS and NBC are conservative.

I think MSNBC is sorely missing Tim Russert. Russert's death seems to have left them with a big void in the political sphere, and people who might have been appropriate to anchor the conventions seem to have been deployed elsewhere on NBC/MSNBC because so many of them seem to be doing double duty to fill in for Russert.

I like Keith Olbermann on Countdown, and I like Chris Matthews on Hardball, but as the anchors of a convention they were not great. It wasn't so much the bias that bothered me, I'm about as liberal as they come, I just found them dull to listen to for very extended periods of time, and they did not seem to work well together. Tom Brokaw and Andrea Mitchell would have been a much better anchor team if I were doing the picking for MSNBC. Long stretches of convention coverage are dull, so it helps to have anchors who are informative and historically knowledgable, and not just spouting opinions.

In general, I have found the political coverage on MSNBC dull lately. It is too much of the same small group of regular commentators saying the same things over and over. They do include Pat Buchanan in this group, so there is some diversity of perspective, but he is as redundant as the others.

More and more, I have been watching CNN rather than MSNBC. When I want to hear a more right wing perspective I tune in to Fox (but only in small doses ). I do want to listen to a range of opinions, and listening to all three cable channels is the way you can get the most diversity. Anyone who complains about bias, or too narrow a range of views, should just do more channel flipping.

But truthfully, if I really want the news, beyond the headlines, and if I really want considered analysis, I read newspapers as well as serious commentary magazines. Television will never replace the written word when it comes to information--it's just too limited and superficial.

Foxfyre, the study you posted is three years old. It might or might not be applicable today.



:

Here is what was the last straw:



MSNBC shoudn't have ever used him as an anchor, not just because he's biased and trying to make a name for himself as a liberal but because he lacks any basic self control in refraining from editorializing when it is inappropriate.

That being said, I think that TV journalism on the whole needs to practice this restraint more often. The lines between reporting and commentary are being getting more and more blurry as commentary becomes entertainment and blowhards become celebrities.

Oberman has lost his mind.