HAS MSNBC DEMOTED OLBERMANN AND MATTHEWS?

[The Voice of Reason]

A friend just called me claiming she heard that MNSBC has demoted both Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann from anchors to just commentators. I said wait a minute, what are you talking about? She said that both men will no longer have a role in covering the elections, like they did when they anchored both conventions, but will still be used by the network as commentators.
I then asked what brought about this change? She said that one, or both men overstepped the line with personal comments regarding one of the presidential or vice presidential candidates. (most likely the Republicans)
Has anyone else heard about the (alledged) decision by MSNBC?

 

[MarcB]

Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090800008.html?hpid=entnews

NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/b...l?_r=3&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

 

[kms575]

Having to demote your two "commentators" less than 2 months before the general election? That's what you call a train wreck. Now if only the Morning Joe (especially Mika) would go away. Gee, that would leave nothing left!

Yes, Matthews and Olbermann have been docemented as being over the line several times this summer. Time to put MSNBC out of its misery I think.

 

[Mark Giardina]

Score one for professional journalism!

Its about damn time the "suits" at MSNBC realized what most of viewers knew already; that Olbermann and Matthews are bias.

I was shocked that the network allowed those two to anchor both conventions. It's one thing to be a commentator; quite another to be an anchor or reporter.

Interesting to read both Times and Post articles quoting NBC reporters, and Tom Brokaw, comments about both Olbermann and Matthews.

 

[kms575]

Score one for professional journalism!

Its about damn time the "suits" at MSNBC realized what most of viewers knew already; that Olbermann and Matthews are bias.

I was shocked that the network allowed those two to anchor both conventions. It's one thing to be a commentator; quite another to be an anchor or reporter.

Interesting to read both Times and Post articles quoting NBC reporters, and Tom Brokaw, comments about both Olbermann and Matthews.

What must Tim be thinking?

 

[Mark Giardina]

What must Tim be thinking?

Had Tim Russert lived, I doubt very much that Matthews and Olbermann would have anchored both conventions.

 

[dhett]

Doesn't sound like a move away from bias to me - they're just unleashing Olbermann and Matthews from any need to look objective.

And David Gregory? From interviews I've seen with him, he's no less biased than the other two. Let's see if he can hide it better than they did.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Now if only the Morning Joe (especially Mika) would go away.

Some will disagree with me, but I think Imus in the Morning was more of an entertaining program than Morning Joe. Wasn't Imus' show the highest-rated program on that network? If MSNBC executive were smart they would bring Imus back to the network. Let Morning Joe go back to Florida where he belongs.

 

[kms575]

Now if only the Morning Joe (especially Mika) would go away.

Some will disagree with me, but I think Imus in the Morning was more of an entertaining program than Morning Joe. Wasn't Imus' show the highest-rated program on that network? If MSNBC executive were smart they would bring Imus back to the network. Let Morning Joe go back to Florida where he belongs.

I don't mind Joe, but I personally think that show and format (and co-host) are just horrible.

 

[DToTheJ]

Maybe MSNBC should just simulcast Michael Smerconish's radio show from WPHT in Philly. His contract is almost up at the radio station, so why not turn it into a new Imus-like situation?

 

[dgendvil]

This can remind you of CBS back in 1964 when anchor Walter Cronkite was demoted for Roger Mudd & Robert Trout in their convention coverage. Mudd did little anchoring experience, while the experienced Trout did the analysis, too. I think he will still anchored the general election that year, too.

 

[R.D.P.]

Personally, I'm glad that Olbermann got "The Boot". I know that many of you may support and like him. However I have "Major Issues" with him. I watched his Wednesday night program and found it to be very entertaining indeed.

Check out this link and the video, to see why I made that last statement. I've seen the Liberals get mad and upset but never like this.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26645619

R.D.P. <><

P.S. Glad that Matthews got the boot too. I have issues with him, as well.

 

[DToTheJ]

Are you referring to the lipstick issue or his 9/11 anniversary "special comment"?

 

[landtuna]

RDP,

Did you have issues with their convention coverage or their respective MSNBC shows (Hardball & Countdown)?

I agree with management in this case that people who perform mainly as commentators should not be placed in a reporting role. Some people do just fine and can drop the commentary bias when reporting and others have problems. In this case it seems both Keith and Chris had commentary baggage that didn't suit their reporting roles. I didn't watch the conventions so don't know what might have triggered this decision.

If I want pure news I have many options. If I want commentary I go to Keith.

 

[R.D.P.]

I was refering to his "Comment" that was on Wednesday night. It's featured on the link that I included in that post.

MSNBC's convention coverage was alright but their talk shows are too "Liberal" for me.

R.D.P. <><

 

[arnoldevns]

Who's an anchor and who is a commentator? This is a question that used to be pretty easy to answer.
Yet, the cable "news" channels have blurred this line for everyone.

At one time, Olbermann could have been considered an anchor. He had worked as a journalist, not in politics, and was generally hired to "anchor" a news show. That was in his first run at MSNBC. He left and went to Fox for a while before coming back with a more open-ended talk show. When "Countdown" began it was his debut as a commentator. He's developed quite a following as a result. The problem is that MSNBC never quite wanted to admit it was just a talk show. That was a huge mistake.

Chris Matthews has always been a commentator. He's worked in politics for Democrats and was generally brought in to talk politics from the Democratic perspective. There is nothing wrong with that. Unfortunately, when MSNBC gave him his own show they again didn't really want to admit it was a talk show.

Tim Russert was a lawyer and political operative for Democrats too. He was chief of staff for Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York. He was hired by NBC primarily for his political expertise to help negotiate getting interviews for NBC news shows. His skill at that job led NBC to make him the Washington bureau chief. He was not a journalist in the traditional sense. He was generally brought on to shows to give his opinion as a commentator. His hosting of Meet The Press was a dicey proposition. He knew that and I think tried his best to play it down the middle. I don't think you'll find a lot of politicians in Washington who think he was biased one way or the other on that show. To be fair, the other sunday morning talk shows have frequently featured commentaries by the host where they were free to give their opinion.

I think the problem for MSNBC this year was that they had no plan in place on how to go forward without Tim Russert. They though that they could just make Olbermann and Matthews do what he did. Those two are just not cut of the same cloth as Russert. Furthermore, they were put on shows where the primary draw was their opinion. It was unfair to ask them to be unbiased anchors of political events.

MSNBC should have replaced Russert with Brokaw the way Meet The Press did. David Gregory is not a good journalist. He too often lets his personal opinion slip into his reporting and questioning. It's been widely reported that Russert had more than a few heated conversations with Gregory about this problem.

The real problem with MSNBC is that it does not know what to do with itself. It's really a problem that both MSNBC and CNN have been struggling with for years.

CNN used to run a pretty good operation with good journalism. When MSNBC started they did much the same thing with people like Brian Williams hosting hour long news shows. Aside from Imus, they just didn't really have any talk shows. Then along came Fox News.

Fox's Roger Ailes treated the battle with CNN and MSNBC like a political campaign. He identified an untapped market and filled the need. Conservatives have felt for a long time like they have nowhere to watch that isn't liberally biased. Ailes sought to give them a channel they could watch. He also saw that CNN's highest rated show was Larry King - a talk show. So he put on 3 hours of talk shows in prime time. He hired people who are entertaining to watch and who generally present a conservative view of the news. Fox initially had a problem of few households being able to receive the network. They solved that by buying their way on to cable systems. Then word spread about the type of programming they offered and demand for the channel became high. Eventually this led them to pass their rivals and become the number one cable "news" channel in the country.

CNN and MSNBC screwed up by accepting the notion that Fox was a competitor. Both networks should have stated that Fox is a news/talk channel - not a news channel. Instead, they have both tried to copy Fox while still calling themselves news channels. The problem they have is that they are still trying to serve the same liberal audience that has plenty of other sources for "news." They have also hired people who are just not that good at talk shows or turned people into talk show hosts who are not well suited for it. Lou Dobbs on CNN is a one note nutcase. Olbermann looks like he's forgotten to take the green pills again. Matthews is always yelling. Anderson Cooper is boring and biased. Larry King is okay, but frequently interviews people who are of little interest to the viewer.

CNN further screwed up by destroying Headline News with talk shows. The worst of all is Nancy Grace. This is the single most unappealing person on cable news. (right up there with Bill O'Reilly)

If CNN or MSNBC were smart they'd ditch the talk shows, hire good journalists and start doing 24/7 of news again. In particular, they need to beef up their global news operations to bring more world news to this country. Eventually, they'd see their numbers grow. They could rightly look down on their competitors as "not news" channels.

As it is, they've made many people view hosts like Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann as "anchors" instead of talk show hosts. That's how you get in the mess MSNBC sees itself in today.

 

[LKellerIII]

I was refering to his "Comment" that was on Wednesday night. It's featured on the link that I included in that post.

MSNBC's convention coverage was alright but their talk shows are too "Liberal" for me.

R.D.P. <><

I'm neither a fan or detractor of Olberman. But his Wednesday comment was an editorial comment, and was labeled as such.

Regardless, the line between news and editorial comment has been blurred from time to time over the decades - that's nothing new. A few of the boards today have noted the passing of former Los Angeles anchorman George Putnam, who was blurring that line from the right wing on LA television throughout the 50s, 60s and 70s.

In my opinion, Fox News blurs this line constantly, and rarely bothers to label it as commentary. It's a big world and a big cable dial these days - there should be room for news reported from both political viewpoints.

 

[formeraa]

tested --

You are showing your right-wing bias. What is the Fox cable channel called? That's right, it's called
"Fox NEWS". It has a unabashed right-wing slant. PERIOD.

Frankly, if MSNBC wants to have a left-wing bias, it's their decision. I believe that Keith and Chris simply have large egos -- kind of like having Hannity and O'Reilly co-anchoring the political coverage. So, the experiment didn't work. Meanwhile, Rachel Maddow's show has started...

 

[arnoldevns]

tested --

You are showing your right-wing bias. What is the Fox cable channel called? That's right, it's called
"Fox NEWS". It has a unabashed right-wing slant. PERIOD.

Frankly, if MSNBC wants to have a left-wing bias, it's their decision. I believe that Keith and Chris simply have large egos -- kind of like having Hannity and O'Reilly co-anchoring the political coverage. So, the experiment didn't work. Meanwhile, Rachel Maddow's show has started...

When did I ever say the Fox News Channel wasn't biased? That fact is at the foundation of my post. Yes, it's called the Fox News Channel. It is, in reality, a news/talk channel. My whole point was that CNN and MSNBC got themselves in a big mess when they treated Fox as a competitor and then tried to copy them. It has created a real ethical problem for everyone in trying to say who is an anchor and who is a commentator.

Read before you flame next time.