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.