I think the heart of the the problem is that MSNBC doesn't have the balls to -be- a liberal network. Maddow and Schultz are liberals; Lawrence O'Donnell is a liberal moderate, and Olbermann is less "liberal" than he's anti-Bush, anti-Fox, and anti-Republican, but the rest of the lineup -- from Joe Scarborough to Andrea Mitchell -- is pretty straightforward conservative or part of the Beltway mentality -- which skews to the right.
I don't mind KO making contributions to anyone he likes, just as I don't care if Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, or any of the "commentators" at Fox does the same -- just own up to it. That's where Olbermann screwed himself; by breaking the rule to begin with (which brings up the question of having to have your employers approve your political stands), by not admitting it, for criticizing the Fox guys for doing the same thing, and even interviewing someone he'd contributed to without disclosing it. Now, all that said, if he were supposed to be a non-biased anchor of a news show giving just the facts, ma'am, he should have been straight- out fired. But he's got an opinion show, and anyone whose IQ is over room temperature knows that. So make him eat dirt for a week and then bring him back and let him give a suitable apology. But don't pretend that MSNBC is some temple of non-partisanship. Every anchor on there -- and Fox -- has an agenda and does their damnedest to push it -- otherwise, they wouldn't be on the air. --Dave Sikula On Nov 6, 10:30 am, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > I think Rachel is making a valid distinction - between being a news > operation with an ideological point of view, and being a fake news operation > that functions as a political operation. We have long had conservative news > outlets (e.g. the Wall Street Journal), but for the most part they are > legitimate and credible news sources. Rachel is saying MSNBC is trying to be > more like the WSJ than FN. The examples she cites support that MSNBC is not > just a liberal version of FN, though they do not make the more difficult > case that they are a liberal version of the WSJ. I think there are somewhere > in between, and probably closer to FN than I am comfortable with. > > But I think Kevin is misunderstanding Rachel's position re Keith. She did > not argue that he did not break the rule, nor did she argue that he should > not be punished. She just argued that, now that he has been punished, he > should be reinstated. In other words, she is arguing about the severity of > the punishment, not that he should be punished: > > *****************************http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/11/06/2010-11-06_rachel... > > "MSNBC rules state that staff can only make political contributions if you > are given the all-clear from superiors in advance, which the star newscaster > did not do. He gave the maximum legal donation of $2,400 to two candidates > in Arizona and one in Kentucky, but it did not come to light until it was > reported by Politico.com. > > "I understand the rule. I understand what it means to break it," Maddow > said. "I believe everyone should face the same treatment under that rule. I > also personally believe that the point has been made and we should have > Keith back hosting Countdown." -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
