| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > TV News Corner > Topic: N. Y. Times examines MSNBC's new election attitude |
Topic: N. Y. Times examines MSNBC's new election attitude
| Author | Message |
| Latin1 | Posted – 2/13/2008 6:51:56 AM | show profile New York Times writer ALESSANDRA STANLEY writes an interesting article about how MSNBC has tried to change its image after having one of their commentators, David Schuster, suspended for saying the Sen. Hillary Clinton was "pimping" Chelsea Clinton. Plus Chris Matthew's remarks in January saying the Sen. Clinton only won because people felt sorry for her. Since the beginning of the primaries there has been a noticeable negative trend by MSNBC commentators toward the Clintons. Since the start of the primaries the commentators at MSNBC have been making unfavorable comments about Sen. Clinton and Bill Clinton. They ususally save their snide comments towards Republicans, but during the primaries MSNBC commentators have been more favorable towards Sen. Obama, while making remarks about Sen. Clinton that would make any seasoned News reporter cringe. Alessandra Stanley describes watching MSNBC news akin to watching misogynist white male college students at a bar. Stanley even writes that the Clinton campgain has noticed that Fox News has been a lot fair in their coverage towards her and that Fox news has been more fair and balanced then MSNBC. Stanley also writes that Fox News even has more female news reporters and commentators then MSNBC, even though the majority are blonde, Fox has more female news personnel as leads at the news desk then MSNBC, while MSNBC is more like a white male 'boys club' compared to is rival at FNC. But during the Potomac primaries MSNBC was really trying to clean up its act. A very interesting article for those who follow news reporting and news commentary. Here is the link to Alessandra Stanley's New York Times article; http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/us/politics/13watch.html?ref=politics The article is title: Instead of Men Behaving Badly, MSNBC Strains for a Polite Primary Night. What are your thoughts about MSNBC trying to put a little civility in their primary reporting? Will it last long? Only time will tell as the Democratic primary race gets tighter and tighter. |
| Latin1 | Posted – 2/13/2008 11:25:59 PM | show profile Any response to LIBERAL Alessandra Stanley's article in the New York Times about the "boys" of MSNBC? |
| skaprincess84 | Posted – 2/14/2008 2:50:16 AM | show profile Nah. |
| larryharrietanalysis | Posted – 2/14/2008 3:20:26 AM | show profile MSNBC is so biased now that they've taken a radical turn to the left. Its not even working for them, their ratings are down. ------ www.larryharriet.blogsome.com |
| Latin1 | Posted – 2/14/2008 5:10:49 PM | show profile Oh don't forget... ...and also bashing, what Olbermann childishly calls, "Faux Noise". Fox is not obsessed like MSNBC is about them. Then they make childish immature rants. |
| jtjt225m | Posted – 2/14/2008 5:59:37 PM | show profile The primary coverage by MSNBC is OK, but could be better. You have one person who has a background of being an anchor man in Olbermann, but that's not who he is anymore. He can "play" one for primary night, but that's not him. You have a political guy in Matthews, but its not a good model either. I think there "nice" coverage will last, they honestly have no choice. They are getting killed in the rating. They are not threatening CNN or FNC. Teaming them up for the midterm elections was a nice attempt, but it still hasn't done anything for them. The NYT article does hint at something that is extremely true. Maybe it was just me reading to much into it, but the coverage has no substance. If you compare MSNBC, FNC, and CNN, what is the main difference? I don't have to watch Anderson Cooper all night long. I don't have to watch Brit Hume or Shep Smith all night long on FNC. My point is they wouldn't have to worry about "behaving", if they used Lester Holt, David Gregory, Andrea Mitchell, or Amy Robach. They could even use Dan Abrams at night, instead of there ridiculous afternoon shift they give him on primary day. The divide between MSNBC and NBC news is going to ruin MSNBC, that's why so many (especially those on this board), think they are a joke. Until Phil Griffith gets a clue, or gets fired, and they bring in someone like a Roger Ailes, they will be gone by 2009. |
| JCB | Posted – 2/15/2008 4:36:42 AM | show profile Chris Matthews Was Right Matthews was absolutely right in his characterization of Hillary's ascendance to the Senate. He shouldn't have apologized--he did it to save his job. Free speech, anyone? Jeez. Hillary'snational approval ratings were IN THE TOILET before Monicagate. She was the most hated woman in the country. (Am I the only one who remembers life pre-1998?) It was widely reported that after she, once again, played the raging Tammy Wynette standing by her errant man and rescued Bill from impeachment, suffering in silence like the good little wife, her approval ratings shot way up. She rode those new approval ratings right to her Senate seat. Duh. Matthews was alluding to that fact, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's the absolute truth. Hillary would NEVER have been elected to the Senate had Monicagate never happened. Anyone who doubts that just wasn't watching closely enough during those years--I was, since Billary have fascinated me from the start, ever since 60 Minutes back in '92. And what about the NYT's obvious pro-Hillary bias??? You can see it in the photos they choose, their coverage, everything...even the fact that they're excoriating MSNBC. Give me a break. |
| Village Gal | Posted – 2/15/2008 1:42:24 PM | show profile I live in NY. The first time, Clinton got easily elected to the Senate because her opponent Guiliani dropped out the last minute because he had cancer. Monicagate had nothing to do with it. She got reelected to a second term because she has been a very effective senator. |
| JCB | Posted – 2/15/2008 6:48:40 PM | show profile I'm a New Yorker too. The Giuliani thing was a blessing, to be sure. But if she had run on the approval ratings she was pulling in before Monicagate, she wouldn't have been elected to crossing guard. Someone else would have swooped in to grab the spot. (Remember that JFK Jr. RECUSED himself from the race--or at least decided not to run--in order to allow Hillary to run? Does ANYONE even remember that??) (And speaking of Giuliani, he too had a serendipitous Hillaryesque metamorphosis when he was magically transformed by 9/11 from evil fascist Nazi to America's savior--it was his Monicagate.) Sorry, but to deny the impact of the impeachment scandal on Hillary's sudden transformation from evil hated harpie to sanctified madonna (lowercase) figure is straight-up hear-no-evil/see-no-evil. We indeed live in a sexist universe--we only love a strong woman if she's exonerating a sexist womanizing bastard and suffering for it (Jackie Kennedy, anyone?). STAND BY YOUR MAN, indeed. (The term "man" being used very loosely here, of course.) The whole country seems to have some warped '90s amnesia these days--it's either Saint Billary or you're a "sexist, biased hate mongerer." |
| Iron Eagle | Posted – 2/15/2008 6:52:55 PM | show profile * Pander On Tax Cuts: In 2001, McCain was one of just two GOP senators to vote against Bush?s destructive tax cuts. Now, however, McCain makes a point of touting his support for making Bush?s tax cuts permanent. * Pander On Stimulus: For the past few months, McCain has been declaring that passing an economic stimulus package is at the very top of his agenda. Yet when the Senate voted earlier this month on a generous bill providing increased assistance to seniors and veterans, McCain skipped the vote. The bill fell just one vote short of passage, a victory for the far right. * Pander To Karl Rove: In the 2000 presidential campaign, Karl Rove launched vicious smear tactics against McCain on behalf of Bush?s campaign. Recently, however, McCain has embraced the right-wing political operative. He said that he has ?always respected Karl Rove as one of the smart great political minds I think in American politics? and specifically refused to condemn Rove?s partisan smears. Huffington Post |
| JCB | Posted – 2/15/2008 6:53:46 PM | show profile Btw, I am not in any way trying to take away from Hillary's obvious competence once getting into office. I'm just saying there is enormous validity to Matthews's statement, and his issuing an apology for it is an embarrassment to all free-speech advocates. Steinem et al. are stuck in the '60s/'70s/'80s with their simplistic, childish, one-dimensional, outdated ideas of "feminism." And I consider myself a flaming feminist, and definitely a Hillary detractor. |
