Wow, I happened to flip on the Rachel Maddow show for the first time tonight, and I'm disappointed. There is no pretense at all of evenhandedness. Rachel gives her commentary, then interviews a Democratic politician about the problems with John McCain, then interviews progressive columnist Thomas Frank. This is all presented in a "news" like format, with the line between reporting and editorializing completely blurred.
Don't get me wrong. I like Rachel Maddow. I enjoy her commentary. I probably agree with 90% of her political views. I agree with almost everything her guests have had so far. But I think the way her show is structured to avoid opposing views reflects a sad state of affairs in our country.
Yes I know all about Fox News. When I first innocently encountered it in September 2001, I reacted with horror and disgust that there was such a rancid mix of subtle and not-so-subtle right-wing editorial content mixed right in amongst the "news" coverage. I was outraged and angered. But the answer I hoped to find some 7 years later was not a competing "anti-Fox" network. I'm afraid that's what MSNBC has become.
UPDATE: A lot of you are taking the MSNBC/FOX comparison literally. I'm by no means trying to suggest equivalency in terms of the level of bias in their overall content. What I am suggesting is that this current media environment where the lines are blurred between news and commentary is not something to be happy about, even when the commentary happens to help balance out some of what comes out of FOX.
----
Clearly MSNBC has gone with the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" school of television "news". In fact they aren't really about news. They are about ratings. After all Keith Olbermann, Maddow's apparent TV mentor, reminds us of his ratings all the time
Yes I have the same criticism of his show. I don't disagree with much of his editorializing, but his reporting is so biased that I pretty much can't let myself believe anything he says. Today he says Palin's lawyers are arguing that the reason she fired Monegan was because he sought funding to help rape victims. I happen to have followed that story pretty closely, so I know that's not quite the argument Palin's lawyers made. (Not surprising, because as Keith himself pointed out, it would be an argument that would make her look even worse). Palin's lawyers have actually accused Monegan of insubordination, and have cited his trip to Washington to seek funding for a project that was not "yet" approved.
http://www.adn.com/...
"The last straw" leading up to Monegan's firing, Van Flein wrote, was Monegan's planned trip to Washington, D.C., to seek funding for a new, multimillion-dollar sexual assault initiative the governor hadn't yet approved.
Are they making a weak argument? I think so. Does it make them look bad that the purpose of Monegan's trip was to seek funding for a sexual assault initiative? I certainly think so. But that just makes my point. The cold hard facts of what Palin's lawyer has said are damaging enough to his case. Instead of quoting indirectly and asking the viewpoint of someone he knows he agrees with, why can't Olbermann just quote the words exactly, and give someone with an opposing view an attempt to defend them? I think it would be both more objective and more effective in advancing his viewpoint.
So yeah, I suppose it puts me in the minority here on Daily Kos, but I was actually relieved when MSNBC announced Olbermann and Matthews will no longer be anchoring their election night coverage. I believe Olbermann has his place, but that place is the editorial "pages" of the network, and not in a position traditionally occupied by someone acting as an objective observer. His convention coverage was embarrassing - for example, during the Dem convention he blasts an AP "analysis" wire story for being biased against Obama's speech, then during the Republican convention he read a similar negative story about McCain's speech, also from AP, but this time without questioning it.
MSNBC realized had to do something. They're election night coverage had all the pretense of being news coverage, and mixing unopposed editorializing in with it so tightly was so obviously crossing the line that they got push back. Apparently much of that push back came from members of the NBC news department, who saw the potential danger that their own professional reputations might be compromised. Hey I'm no fan of Brian Williams or Tom Brokaw - they have little to offer as pundits. So why not let them be the ones who read the news and have Olbermann do commentary, and give him someone who disagrees to argue with?
Opinion has its place in political coverage - by all means include it. But do so in a way that clearly presents it as opinion, and gives opposing views a chance to be heard (yes even Pat Buchanan has a role to play). To let one person's opinions go unchallenged, and to intermingle them with news coverage, is simply irresponsible, unprofessional and unethical, whether or not I happen to agree with the opinion being voiced. Propaganda is propaganda - some of sources of it may be more dangerous than others, but when it is allowed to flourish we all lose, eventually.