MyDD :: On Olbermann & Matthews

On Olbermann & Matthews

by Maryscott OConnor, Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:36:19 AM EST

Crossposted from MY LEFT WING

So... MSNBC "dropped" Olbermann and Matthews as anchors.

Well... Olbermann, for one, has NO BUSINESS being a news anchor.

He might as well be wearing an Obama t-shirt on the air every night.

He knows it, we know it and everyone else knows it.

I'm pretty sure that's why he excused himself from Minneapolis.

Matthews CANNOT anchor a news desk; he doesn't have the skill set, and I'm pretty damned sure he knows it -- god knows the rest of the world does. God knows the person who washes his drool-covered shirts does (I'm sorry, Tweety; I do sort of like you, but you DO sort of drop spittle more than an arthritic halfback drops shovel passes.)

This wasn't a fucking FIRING.

The one who should be fired... is Tom Brokaw.

Tom Brokaw, venerable though he may be, needs, if not outright firing, new status as "MOSTLY retired" after that BIZARRE display after the "9/11 Tribute."

It is arguable that what Olbermann did may or may not have been necessary or appropriate. What is NOT arguable? That Brokaw was OFF HIS NUT: A huge "Tribute" to the "fallen" occurs... the lights come up... and he basically clears his throat and says, "So, anyway, back to my dry analysis of this convention." For over 90 seconds. He fails to acknowledge the so-called "tribute."

Now, some might argue Brokaw's staggering faux pas was, in fact, a slowing of journalistic reflexes. That he was aware of the appalling, nakedly opportunistic and manipulative douchebaggery the Republicans had just displayed in that so-called "tribute" -- and simply didn't know what else to do but pretend he hadn't seen it.

I would argue that Brokaw is probably too far up their asses to know the difference between their usual douchebaggery and moments of unusually grotesque and nauseously partisan Republican fuckwaddery.

But that's probably just me.

The fact is, the only surprising thing about the news that Olbermann and Matthews have "been removed" from the anchor desk at MCNBC (aside from the admittedly cruel wording, which is probably little more than a sop to the people who really wanted them kicked off the network entirely)...

Is the fact that this so-called "dismissal" happened AFTER the conventions... AFTER the effect of their partisan editorial commentary has already done the bulk of its work. Sure, there's still Election Night. But no one's votes will be affected on Election Night.

So, no, AG... For some reason, I just do not see this particular moment in news history as the one that's going to lose it for Obama.

Tags: Media (all tags)

Permalink :: 10 Comments :: Post a Comment

And, because I dig the image: (2.00 / 1)

If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution

by Maryscott OConnor on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:36:47 AM EST

Probably for the best (none / 0)

I'm a big fan of Olbermann... not so much of Matthews... but even I was starting to get embarassed at the biased coverage.

I like Keith when he comes in after a speech with fact checks. Not so much when he drools on the Democrat and insults the Republican.

The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 10:49:00 AM EST

Ridiculously biased (none / 0)

Olbermann and Matthews as "News" anchors? Come on, people. That said, I have ZERO issues with them being analysts, where they can show their biases. But anchors? It would be laughable if not so pathetic.

Say what you want about Fox, but at least they wouldn't put O'Reilly or Hannity in as anchors.

by DaTruth on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:01:58 AM EST

Re: Ridiculously biased (none / 0)

No fox would only make Carl Cameron whose wife worked for Bush's campaign to be the reporter assigned to Bush in 2000. Roger A who runs the channel worked for the republicans. Naw Fox is fair and balanced....hahahaha. Get a clue.

A vote for John McCain is a vote against Hillary Clinton

by realistdem on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:37:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Olbermann & Matthews (none / 0)

I don't see Olbermann as a new anchor. He does his best work as an Editorialist, not a News Anchor, as he has no pretenses of being anything but partisan...after all, reality has a liberal bias.

accepting McLettuce is like being 9 years old and forced to eat your own cooking

by Sychotic1 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:38:22 PM EST

Continue to boycott MSNBC (none / 0)

I'm sticking with PBS for election coverage.

by Sieglinde on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:47:56 PM EST

Brokaw (none / 0)

So he basically just said "moving right along"? What else could he have done? If he'd said something pious and solemn, it would have dignified the stupidity. If he'd said "wow, that was crass" (more subtly, of course), he would have handed McCain a great big stick which could be used to work the refs for the rest of the fall.

I think he was in a bad spot, and chose the least-worst response.

I am not a crook!

by username on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:26:58 PM EST

Re: On Olbermann & Matthews (2.00 / 1)

I think this is a fight between NBC over the air personnel with their bosses and MSNBC for prestige and primacy, where NBC Over the air is insisting that it should have had the spot and are going public with it. And it's the bosses who made that choice, not KO or CM. Over the Air is still struggling to figure out what to do about their own ouster of Brokaw, who is not taking it well. Part of this, not a small part, is a generational change from the primacy of Over the Air, and this is them fighting back.

I didn't watch the Over the Air coverage and so have no idea if the MSNBC guys were the moderators there, and part of what is missing from this dispute is why if the Over the Air was covering it for their own prime time, they didn't have their own feed with their own personalities. But that's a choice the bosses made. I do know that during the day, my local affiliate had local programming, not the coverage. So I watched MSNBC as I normally would have anyway.

The real problem that the convention coverage had was that someone made a policy choice not to cover the forty or so little speakers with a few minutes each, which left huge amounts of time to be filled by talking heads. And it seems that most of what is being complained about is what happened to that, which is a program director's issue.

by Christy1947 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:33:10 PM EST

You're missing the point (2.00 / 2)

Olbermann and Matthews were not acting as "news anchors". They were commenting on the convention. Were they biased, yes, towards intelligent discussion as opposed to making up stuff to try to appear unbiased. Don't you get tired of commentators who, when the Republicans say something stupid, feel they really shouldn't point that out!

Frankly, I don't see as there's going to be much difference. Same players. Different seats. We'll get David Gregory, who is pretty terrible as a show host, and Keith and Chris will be even less obliged to make excuses for the right.

Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.

by Travis Stark on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:45:39 PM EST

Re: On Olbermann & Matthews (2.00 / 1)

well, MSNBC is scrambling to fill in Tim's shoes

I think they should have Chuck Todd do more.

by colebiancardi on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 03:20:20 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.