MSNBC

MSNBC has decided to reduce Olbermann's and Matthews' roles in their election event coverage.

I don't particularly enjoy Olbermann. He's an obnoxious arrogant blowhard. While it's sometimes nice to have him on the air as an answer to Fox News and the idiocy coming from the right, this post isn't necessarily a defense of Olbermann. As for Matthews, the right hasn't been paying enough attention if they think he is a lefty.

But I have to say I disagree with MSNBC's decision, although I'm not terribly upset by it. MSNBC is cable news, where opinion is more acceptable, but they are tied to an NBC News organization that must maintain a high level of credibility. I get that. So, while I think they could argue that MSNBC is separate and distinct, I can understand NBC News' nervousness about Olbermann's prominence. That said, this is one more example of the supposedly liberal media's complete fear of the right.

Glenn Greenwald explains that MSNBC has caved to the right in making a decision contrary to its ratings (in a much longer post):

This decision by MSNBC is as alarming as it is illustrative. They just implicitly chided and overtly demoted their most popular and valuable news personality because the White House, the McCain campaign and the Right demanded that they do so. It's fine for Brit Hume to host a "news program" and for hard-core right-wing ideologues to dominate cable news. The fact that Dick Cheney (understandably) viewed Tim Russert's Meet the Press as the ideal forum to allow the White House to "control the message" bothered nobody outside of a few online critics, and didn't remotely impede the perception of Russert as the Beacon of Tough and Objective Journalism. But MSNBC's ratings-based decision to feature Keith Olbermann is a grave threat to modern journalism and must be stopped. So decrees the White House and the McCain campaign, and so the GE-owned MSNBC complies.

If they're looking for respect and deference, we can add the freedom of the press to the rights that Republicans aren't so fond of.

False Equivalency

I have noted before that the media often attempts to look balanced by presenting both sides as equally meritorious when they objectively are not. The Washington Monthly picked up on this in a fact-checking article in The Washington Post:

In the Post's fact-checking piece, these two claims, Biden's and Palin's, are offered as relative equivalents. The reader is left with the impression that all the candidates for national office are fudging and spinning on the campaign trail.

But this is a false equivalency. Biden's claim is completely accurate -- McCain really has voted with Bush 95% of the time. Palin's claim is complete false -- she really didn't reject earmarks.

Why lump them both together as "questionable claims"?

Media Cowardice

The headline - Analysis: Obama, McCain both have lobbyist ties - and tone of this CNN article imply that McCain and Obama are equally influenced by lobbyists. But I'd say this is a real difference:

During this campaign, lobbyists and trade groups donated $181,000 to McCain, while Obama received $6,000, according to the New York Times.

The article goes on to explain that those numbers "only include registered lobbyists and trade groups -- not big companies that could have lobbyist ties." Well yes, but there's an important difference between a collection of individuals who happen to work for a large company and a person who is explicitly paid to represent companies, industries, or other groups on their behalf with regard to legislation and other government policy.

The right has worked the refs so well that the media is completely afraid to call 'em like they see 'em. Instead, they lead the public to believe the Nader line that both parties are exactly the same when there is an objective difference.

Study: Media Tougher on Obama

James Rainey at the Los Angeles Times:

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.

Lest you think the researchers have a liberal bias, the article noted that Lichter is a former Fox News contributor whose past findings have been touted by conservatives:

It might be tempting to discount the latest findings by Lichter's researchers. But this guy is anything but a liberal toady.

In 2006, conservative cable showmen Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly had Lichter, a onetime Fox News contributor, on their programs. They heralded his findings in the congressional midterm election: that the networks were giving far more positive coverage to the Democrats.

CBS Covers-Up McCain Error

Your liberal media at work:

Is it possible to have a liberal media bias...

...if the ubiquitous AP is rooting on the Republicans?

The Media's Love of McCain

Max Bergmann at the Huffington Post says the events of this week should have mortally wounded McCain's campaign:

This is the week that should have effectively ended John McCain's efforts to become the next president of the United States. But you wouldn't know it if you watched any of the mainstream media outlets or followed political reporting in the major newspapers.

During this past week: McCain called the most important entitlement program in the U.S. a disgrace, his top economic adviser called the American people whiners, McCain released an economic plan that no one thought was serious, he flip flopped on Iraq, joked about the deaths of Iranian citizens, and denied making comments that he clearly made -- TWICE. All this and it is not even Friday! Yet watching and reading the mainstream press you would think McCain was having a pretty decent political week, I mean at least Jesse Jackson didn't say anything about him.

John Cole adds to the list.

Fox News

Grow up.