Kurtz: The War Between Olbermann and MSNBC Brass Opened Vicious Infighting

Howard Kurtz at The Daily Beast has the inside details of the battle between Keith Olbermann and his superiors at MSNBC over his recent suspension for making unapproved political campaign contributions. Those contributions, sources tell Kurtz, are upsetting other NBC top journalists who are worried that they damage the reputation of the network, and thus their credibility.

Keith Olbermann was having dinner with his manager at an Upper East Side restaurant, chewing over their battle to lift his suspension at MSNBC, when Phil Griffin called.

Michael Price stepped out of the Atlantic Grill to talk to MSNBC’s president, leaving his client with a platter of 18 oysters. It was Sunday, Nov. 7, and Price informed Griffin that if they couldn’t resolve their differences quickly, Olbermann would take his complaints public by accepting invitations from Good Morning America, David Letterman, and Larry King.

Keith Olbermann (Jamie McCarthy / Getty Images) “Why are you putting us in the position where you’re daring us to do this?” Price demanded, his voice rising.

“If you go on GMA, I will fire Keith,” Griffin shot back. Such a move was clearly grounds for dismissal.

The manager returned to the restaurant. He and Olbermann, who had been pushing hard to end the suspension the next day, discussed whether they would be burning bridges by carrying out the threat. Minutes later, their phones buzzed with emails from reporters, asking about a statement that NBC had just released. Olbermann, it said, would be allowed to return to his prime-time show on Tuesday—a day later than he had wanted.

Price called Griffin again. “What compelled you to do that in that way?” he asked.

“We are at war,” Griffin responded.

If so, it was a war that had spread beyond the principal combatants to many of the journalists who work at NBC and MSNBC. From the moment Olbermann was found to have donated money to three Democratic candidates, there has been a deepening sense of anger and frustration among his colleagues, according to interviews with eight knowledgeable sources. These sources, who declined to be quoted by name because of the sensitivity of the situation, say that several of NBC’s front-line stars, including Tom Brokaw, have expressed concern to management that Olbermann has badly damaged MSNBC’s reputation for independence. (NBC and MSNBC executives declined to comment, and Olbermann declined to be interviewed.)

MSNBC Suspends Keith Olbermann Without Pay Over Political Contributions

UPDATE, Nov. 5 at 4:49 p.m. Eastern: Brian Stelter of The New York Times just tweeted "MSNBC now says Chris Hayes will *not* be the sub tonight. No word yet on who will be."

------

Keith Olbermann has been suspended without pay from MSNBC because of his contributions to three political candidates.

The unusual move happened this afternoon after POLITICO reported that he had contributed to the campaigns of three Democratic candidates.

MSNBC President Phil Griffin released the following statement: “I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay."

Usually journalists are bound by ethical standards not to contribute to political campaigns or to be aligned with any political party or movement. Ethic rules concerning partisan commentators on cable TV networks  and political advocacy have been debated for some time now. Many believe they are held to the same standards of new reporters. Others have felt that they are advocates, and do not fall under the same guidelines.

Indeed, journalists have contributed thousands to political campaigns and efforts and not faced suspension. MSNBC published a list of 143 journalists who gave to political campaigns. On that list, published on July 15, 2007, was Joe Scarborough, NBC's "Dateline" correspondent Victoria Corderi, MSNBC.com's Rachel Schwanewede, senior editor of TodayShow.com, and MSNBC.com's Joel Widzer, travel columnist. I cannot find any report that they suffered the same penalty that Olbermann did today.

One other distinction could be that NBC News policy does not prohibit making political contributions, just that you need prior approval from NBC executives to do so. It is possible that Scarborough and the others did receive such prior approvals and Olbermann did not.

Olbermann made campaign contributions to two Arizona members of Congress, Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords, and Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway. Conway lost his bid to Republican and Tea Party candidate Rand Paul. Olbermann made the legal maximum donation of $2,400 to each.

What might be the troubling point to MSNBC brass is the fact the Olbermann made the donation to the Arizona candidates pair on Oct. 28 — the same day that Grijalva appeared as a guest on Olbermann’s “Countdown” show.

POLITICO is also reporting that Chris Hayes, the Washington editor for The Nation and a previous fill-in for Rachel Maddow, who will fill in for Olbermann tonight has also made contributions to political candidates. POLITICO reports that he gave $250 to the congressional campaign of a good friend, Alabama Democrat Josh Segall.

Fox is Even a Bigger Winner Tuesday Than the GOP By Trouncing CNN, MSNBC

Fox had its biggest midterm election night ever, reports Brian Stelter of The New York Times, by clubbing its competitors by about 300 percent.

Fox pulled in 6.96 million viewers in prime time, while CNN averaged 2.42 million viewers, and MSNBC averaged 1.94 million viewers. That's 287 percent more than CNN and 358 percent more than MSNBC.

Stelter reported that the Nielsen Co. would not have comparison numbers against the broadcast networks until tomorrow, but early indications are that Fox would beat them, too.

Among viewers 25 to 54 years old, Fox News averaged 2.43 million in prime time, Stelter writes. CNN averaged 1.03 million among that demographic and MSNBC, 669,000.

Fox averaged 3.06 million viewers during the midterms in 2006, when there was a Democratic wave, Stelter reports. Fox has grown significantly in popularity since then.

CNN, by contrast, has shrunk — it had averaged 2.97 million viewers in the midterms in 2006. MSNBC’s prime-time averages were almost the same in 2006 and 2010.

(On the night of the presidential election in 2008, CNN averaged 12.3 million viewers in prime time, Fox averaged 9 million, and MSNBC averaged 5.9 million.)

The cable news channels’ ratings were inflated all day because of the election, but Fox ratings were inflated more than the others. Fox averaged 3.02 million viewers from 6 a.m. Tuesday to 3 a.m. Wednesday.

Cenk Uygur Officially Now a MSNBC Host



Cenk Uygur



 Cenk Uygur today becomes a contributor and substitute anchor at MSNBC.

Uygur has been a frequent guest on MSNBC and has previously served as a fill-in anchor on “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” “The Ed Show” and "The Dylan Ratigan Show.”

“Cenk’s fresh perspective and his passion for politics make him a great addition to the MSNBC team,” said Phil Griffin, MSNBC president. “He's developed a big following on MSNBC and we welcome him to this new role.”

Uygur is host of "The Young Turks," the first ever live, daily web television talk show. "The Young Turks" streams live online weekdays from 6-9 p.m. Eastern Time, and can be heard on XM/Sirius Satellite Radio from 8-9 p.m. Eastern Time. Uygur is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania — Wharton School of Business and Columbia University Law School. His career began as a practicing lawyer before transitioning to write and host television, and later launch "The Young Turks." Uygur is also a contributing blogger on the Huffington Post, Daily Kos and POLITICO.

EDITOR'S NOTE: The orginial posting had an incorrect photo.

Ed Schultz Calls for Socialism in Talk Radio

MSNBC commentator Ed Schultz told his radio audience this week that Congress should start to look at the Fairness Doctrine and introduce socialism across the board in talk radio. He also appeared to be stunned that Rush Limbaugh is campaigning against the president.

Global Warming and Snow; the Left Can't Have It Both Ways

Dylan Ratigan of MSNBC has been telling his viewers the past few days that the recent major snowstorms on the East Coast are exactly what scientists have been predicting would happen as a result of global warming:



Contessa Brewer of MSNBC followed the same logic:



But these leaders have been saying the opposite, that the recent dry winters are evidence of global warming.

Robert F. Kennedy wrote a couple years ago:

In Virginia, the weather also has changed dramatically. Recently arrived residents in the northern suburbs, accustomed to today's anemic winters, might find it astonishing to learn that there were once ski runs on Ballantrae Hill in McLean, with a rope tow and local ski club. Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don't own a sled. But neighbors came to our home at Hickory Hill nearly every winter weekend to ride saucers and Flexible Flyers.

In those days, I recall my uncle, President Kennedy, standing erect as he rode a toboggan in his top coat, never faltering until he slid into the boxwood at the bottom of the hill. Once, my father, Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, brought a delegation of visiting Eskimos home from the Justice Department for lunch at our house. They spent the afternoon building a great igloo in the deep snow in our backyard. My brothers and sisters played in the structure for several weeks before it began to melt. On weekend afternoons, we commonly joined hundreds of Georgetown residents for ice skating on Washington's C&O Canal, which these days rarely freezes enough to safely skate.

Meanwhile, Exxon Mobil and its carbon cronies continue to pour money into think tanks whose purpose is to deceive the American public into believing that global warming is a fantasy. In 1998, these companies plotted to deceive American citizens about climate science. Their goal, according to a meeting memo, was to orchestrate information so that "recognition of uncertainties become part of the conventional wisdom" and that "those promoting the Kyoto treaty ... appear to be out of touch with reality."

StopGlobalwarming.org warned in 2006 that the lack of snow due to global warming was putting ski resorts out of business in Spain:

Global warming is threatening to put ski resorts out of business in Spain, where nearly all ski slopes are closed for lack of snow, the daily El Pais reported Tuesday. The Pyrenees only have a quarter of the amount of snow which is usual for the beginning of December, and the situation is similar in other wintersport areas.

The only place to go skiing are the Sierra Nevada mountains in the south, but even there, only four kilometres of pistes can be used.

The rest of Spain's 953 kilometres of ski pistes do not have enough snow, a situation which has not occurred to a comparable extent since 1995.

The Environment Ministry attributed the lack of snow to global warming, which threatens thousands of jobs linked to the skiing industry.

In 2007, The Washington Post said the same problem was happening in France and Switzerland:

Abondance is the French Alps' first ski station to fall apparent victim to global warming. It will almost certainly not be the last.

At 3,051 feet, this station between Mont Blanc and Lake Leman falls in the altitude range climate scientists say has seen the most dramatic drop in snowfall in recent generations.

The Alps as a whole, which pull in about 70 million tourists every year primarily for winter sports, are "particularly sensitive" to climate change, according to a study last winter by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

It calls climate change a serious threat to Alpine ski resorts and the regional economies that depend on them. The most recent World Cup ski circuit was badly hit by lack of snow, with several races in the Alps _ even at high altitudes _ called off.

This report was based on a report by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, which said in 2006:

The Alps are particularly sensitive to climate change and recent warming there has been roughly three times the global average. The years 1994, 2000, 2002, and 2003 were the warmest on record in the Alps in the last 500 years (according to high resolution reconstructions of the climate in the region since 1500AD). Climate model projections show even greater changes in the coming decades, with less snow at low altitudes and receding glaciers and melting permafrost higher up.

Presently 90% - 609 out of the 666 medium to large Alpine ski areas - normally have adequate snow cover for at least 100 days per year. The remaining 10% are already operating under marginal conditions. Future climate change could mean a drop in the number of ‘snow-reliable’ ski areas with a 1°C increase in temperature dropping the number to 500, 2°C to 400, and 4 °C to 200.

Of the countries studied, Germany is most at risk, with the 1°C warming scenario leading to a 60% decrease in the number of naturally snow-reliable ski areas. Austria (where half the tourism income, or 4.5% of the national economy, is from winter tourism) is slightly more sensitive than the average. France is about average, Italy slightly above average, and Switzerland would suffer the least though even there a 1°C increase would reduce natural snow by 10% and +4°C would halve the number of snow-reliable slopes.

Despite the description on Drudge's link ("NYT:The Blizzards Are From The Warming..."), John M. Broder of New York Times took a fairly balanced look at the issue:

WASHINGTON — As millions of people along the East Coast hole up in their snowbound homes, the two sides in the climate-change debate are seizing on the mounting drifts to bolster their arguments.

Skeptics of global warming are using the record-setting snows to mock those who warn of dangerous human-driven climate change — this looks more like global cooling, they taunt.

Most climate scientists respond that the ferocious storms are consistent with forecasts that a heating planet will produce more frequent and more intense weather events.

But some independent climate experts say the blizzards in the Northeast no more prove that the planet is cooling than the lack of snow in Vancouver or the downpours in Southern California prove that it is warming.

So, which is it? Couldn't it be possible that we had a few good winters, and now we are having a snowy one? I tend to believe it's just a snowy winter in the Northeast, and that we were due. What is clear is that you can't have it both ways when making a political argument. Either global warming is real or it is not; and if it is real, then it either causes less snow or more snow, but not both.

Chris Matthews: Obama Spoke at the 'Enemy Camp' at West Point

Chris Matthews of MSNBC yesterday described the cadets and soldiers listening to President Barack Obama at West Point as "the enemy camp." It's a stunning description of volunteers willing to put their lives on the line in defense of our country.

Tancredo Storms Off MSNBC Set During Interview With Moulitsas

Former GOP congressman Tom Tancredo walked off the set last night during a discussion about health care with Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas and David Shuster.

Shuster, who was sitting in for Ed Schultz on his MSNBC show, asked Tancredo whether the Veterans Administration, which is a single-payer system, is also a "threat to our freedom."

Tancredo said there were problems with the VA and told Moulitsas he should talk more to veterans. Moulitsas responded by saying; ""I did not get a deferment because I was too depressed to fight in a war that I supported in Vietnam." The former congresman from Colorado soon left the set.

Moulitsas is a veteran, and Tancredo got a 1-Y deferment from serving during the Vietnam war, meaning he was qualified for military service only in time of national emergency due to his depression.

It's Tea Time! Cable Networks More Concerned About Competition's Viewpoint Than Good Journalism

While certainly multiple protests around the country are worthy of attention from news organizations, some cable TV journalists have started sniping at each other in regards to coverage. Much of it is predictable, but through the course of the day it has become a bit of a side show.

James Rainey at The Los Angeles Times notes the different perspectives offered by FOX News and MSNBC:

You'd expect conservative commentators like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity to be hyping today's wave of anti-tax "tea parties." But Fox personalities labeled "news" anchors are right there with their blessings too -- one telling us the protests will focus on "how much of our hard-earned money is going to the federal government," another assuring us the tea parties themselves are sparking economic activity.

The Fox promotions people have been pumping up the volume, with ads celebrating hundreds of rallies and citizens who are "demanding real economic solutions." That's in contrast, you see, to the fake solutions President Obama wants to foist on the American people. ...

That said, some liberal media voices seem just as intent on squelching the protesters before they've shoveled a single bag of Lipton into a single pond. At MSNBC, commentators Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews wrote off the demonstrations as the work of nothing more than crackpots or political stooges.

I've got a novel idea: How about if we wait and see what happens at these rallies? Maybe journalists can watch, report how many people are there, describe the kinds of things they say and tell us what they plan to do next.

CNN correspondent Susan Roesgen became an activist defending the federal government while pretending to cover the event as a unbias journalist. She interrupted one of the protesters and slammed the event for being “anti-government,” “anti-CNN,” and “not really family viewing.”

Roesgen asked a man holding his toddler, “Why are you here today?” The man started to respond saying, “Because I hear a president say that he believed in what Lincoln stood for. Lincoln’s primary thing was he believed people had the right to liberty and they had the right”

She then interrupted him by asking, “But sir, what does that have to do with taxes? What does this have to do with your taxes?” She continued asking questions over his as he asked her to “let me finish my point.” One crowd member was heard to yell “shut up” to the Roesgen.

When the man finished his statement about people having the “right to the fruits of their own labor” and “government should not take it,” Roesgen began arguing with him again and other protesters began to get upset.

She closed by saying “you get the general tenor of this. Anti-government, anti-CNN since this is highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network FOX and since I can’t really hear much more and I think this is not really family viewing. Toss it back to you Kyra.”

Not exactly down-the-middle reporting by a long shot. Her report is here:


MSNBC’s commentators have been hammering FOX all week long, going as low as to use some vile humor in their discussions.

On Tuesday’s “Countdown,” Keith Olbermann played clips of Fox personalities talking up tea parties. “As ever,” he said, Fox was “showing both sides ‘fair and balanced’ — supporting the tea baggers and sponsoring the tea baggers.” Rachel Maddow said that “our colleagues at Fox News are not just reporting on tea bagging, they are officially promoting it."

David Shuster had this piece:



On the other side of the discussion, FOX is serving up the tea parties by promoting them. “Fox appears to be promoting these events at the same time it is presenting them in a way that looks like reporting,” said Stephen Burgard, director of Northeastern University’s School of Journalism, told POLITICO's Michael Calderone.

Burgard called the practice “pseudo-journalism,” adding: “We have seen this before from Fox News Channel, but its role as galvanizer of opposition to President Obama's policies and leadership posture appears to be emerging.”



A Fox spokesperson said the network did not have an executive available to speak about its tea party coverage. A second Fox representative declined repeated offers to address the charge that it was blurring the lines between journalism and advocacy.

While tea party organizers say their movement is nonpartisan, the protests lean hard to the right: Newt Gingrich and Michelle Malkin are on board, as is Freedom Works, an organization run by former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey. And more than a dozen prominent Republicans were set to participate in tea party protests Wednesday, including South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and a slew of other Republicans from Congress.

Liberals Pushing for Cenk Uygur or Sam Seder to Get MSNBC's 10 p.m. Slot

MSNBC officials have been deluged with endorsements from liberal viewers who want either Cenk Uygur or Sam Seder to follow Rachel Maddow in the 10 p.m. Eastern slot, a time period that would be attractive to the West Coast audience.

The grass-roots campaigns started when it became apparent that the cable outlet is contemplating creating a new show for the slot that is occupied by a repeat of "Countdown With Keith Olbermann," Matea Gold of the Los Angeles Times reports.

Cenk Uygur is known for the Internet show "The Young Turks" and Sam Seder is an on-air personality for Air America.





Here is some of Gold's report:

The lobbying efforts have drawn thousands of supporters and led fans to pepper MSNBC with e-mails in support of their favorite personality. Hundreds of people have posted messages of support online, some even creating their own video spots. (Give the time slot to "The Young Turks," warns one, "or I'll switch back to CNN.") Liberal bloggers on sites like MyDD.com have also weighed in.

They all hope that MSNBC will choose a host cast from the same left-leaning mold as Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, who have helped power the cable channel's ratings.

"You have a block with two unabashedly progressive voices that doesn't exist anywhere else on cable news," said Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, founder of Daily Kos, who urged his readers to back Seder for the spot. "We want to take advantage of locking up that third hour, if we can."

MSNBC President Phil Griffin said he's not necessarily looking for someone who shares the political leanings of Olbermann and Maddow, but is delighted by the response.

"If people identify with us, I'm thrilled," he said.

"Obviously, we're going to have flow between our shows," Griffin added. "But it isn't going to be ideology that drives it. I want that hour to be edgy, to be smart, to be a little snarky."

A fresh show for the slot is desperately needed for MSNBC. The Olbermann reruns are in fourth place, getting a run for its money by CNN's Nancy Grace. Here are the Feb. 17 numbers from TVbythenumbers.com:

10 PM P2+ (25-54) (35-64)
On the Record w/Greta—1,825,000 viewers (399,000) (645,000)
Anderson Cooper 360—1,443,000 viewers (572,000) (583,000)
Countdown w/Keith Olbermann—727,000 viewers (237,000) (360,000)
On the Money—170,000 viewers (66,000) (123,000)
Nancy Grace –724,000 viewers (273,000) (436,000)

Pelosi: Democrats Are Innocent of Any Blame in Financial Crisis, It's All GOP's Fault

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, appearing on MSNBC today, said the Democrats had no role in the current financial crisis, and that all the blame belongs to President Bush and the rest of the Republican Party.

“I think the American people have had it with this situation where the middle-income people in our country are not protected from the ramifications of the risk-taking and the greed of these financial institutions,” Pelosi told MSNBC.

When asked whether the Democrats “deserve some responsibility” regarding the economic crisis, Pelosi responded: “No.”

“John McCain said that this is a result of overregulation by the Democrats in Congress,” she added. “Either he doesn’t know what he's talking about or he’s misrepresenting the facts as he knows them. But it’s simply not true.”

Grossman: Move MSNBC Away From NBC News

NBC should move MSNBC away from its news division and place it under its cable group, so says Ben Grossman of the trade publication Broadcasting & Cable.

So after watching all the drama recently, I have one solution that would allow both brands to continue as independent success stories: separate them. NBC should pull MSNBC out from under the NBC News umbrella altogether. Put it in the cable group alongside USA and Bravo and all its other money-printing brands that are carrying the NBCU portfolio. Just have NBC News program certain shows or dayparts on MSNBC, as it does on the NBC broadcast network.

With one move, MSNBC would be free to pursue the borderline-brilliant programming strategy that has elevated the network, while at the same time protecting the venerable NBC News brand, which is a bit under siege following the loss of Tim Russert and the silliness that occurred during the conventions.

I'm old-school when it comes to terms such as “television news.” I was trained by some fantastic news people like the late, great Jim Thistle in Boston University's broadcast journalism program. I still believe that the person who presents the news should be completely objective, leaving the clearly defined analysts to then weigh in with opinions.

Even then, those analysts don't necessarily need to be one-sided to provide invaluable commentary. Russert taught us all that. And that's where NBC fell down when it let Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews anchor convention coverage.

Weather Service on Ike: Leave Galveston or Face 'Certain Death'

The National Weather Service issued a dire warning to Galveston residents as Hurricane Ike prepares to make landfall either tonight or early tomorrow: Leave or risk death.

"All neighborhoods ... and possibly entire coastal communities ... will be inundated during the period of peak storm tide. Persons not heeding evacuation orders in single-family one- or two-story homes may face certain death."

While thousands have already left the ares, many still are determined to ride the storm out.

Ike is currently a Category 2 storm, but forecasters predict that it will strengthen to a Category 3 storm before coming ashore early Saturday morning between Sargent, Texas, and Galveston. The National Hurricane Center reports that at 11 a.m. Eastern Ike's winds were near 105 mph as its center was about 195 miles southeast of Galveston, and moving west-northwest at 12 mph.

MSNBC reports on the rising cost of gas:

Wholesale gasoline prices on the Gulf Coast moved even further into uncharted territory to around $4.85 a gallon, as refineries anticipated that Ike would incur at least a significant pause in their operations, and at worst severe damage to their facilities.

Gulf Coast wholesale gasoline last traded at around $4.75 a gallon, said Ben Brockwell, director of data pricing and information services. That was up substantially from about $3.25 on Wednesday and less than $3 on Tuesday.

Wholesale prices are what refineries charge retailers before they get marked up further for the consumer.

“The path of the storm has put the entire supply chain under stress from the refinery level all the way to the retail station level,” Brockwell said. “Hopefully it’s a temporary phenomenon, but we won’t know until next week.”

October gasoline futures climbed 6.52 cents to $2.8140 a gallon on Nymex, while the average U.S. retail price for gasoline edged up less than a penny to $3.675 a gallon, according to auto club AAA, the Oil Price Information Service and Wright Express.

Light, sweet crude for October delivery rose 62 cents to $101.49 a barrel in late morning trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The contract fell $1.71 to settle at $100.87 on Thursday after dropping as low as $100.10 per barrel. The last time Nymex crude traded below the $100 mark was April 2.

Obama: 'You Can Put Lipstick on a Pig; It's Still a Pig'

The Democrats are stepping up their personal attacks on Gov. Sarah Palin, and it starts from the top of the ticket.

Ben Smith of Politico writes in his blog today that Sen. Barack Obama is using questionable references on the stump in regards to his characterization of Gov. Sarah Palin. In this case, he talked today about a "pig.":

Amie Parnes reports from Lebanon, VA:

Obama poked fun of McCain and Palin's new "change" mantra.

"You can put lipstick on a pig," he said as the crowd cheered. "It's still a pig."

"You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still gonna stink."

"We've had enough of the same old thing."

The crowd apparently took the "lipstick" line as a reference to Palin, who described the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull in a single word: "lipstick."

Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen reported today that the line was used elsewhere:

Democratic Congressman Russ Carnahan on Tuesday – introducing Joe Biden at a campaign event – ripped into Palin’s record and punctuated it with this snarky jab. “There’s no way you can dress up that record, even with a lot of lipstick,” he said. Later in the day, Obama used a variation of the lipstick line, though he was clearly talking about the McCain-Palin reform rhetoric. "You can put lipstick on a pig," he said. "It's still a pig."

This comes a day after Keith Olbermann used his MSNBC show to attack Palin's faith, labeling it as "extreme" and asking if Americans should be terrified.

Reaction to Olbermann's Demotion at MSNBC

It seems that your opinion of Keith Olbermann and his demotion at MSNBC over the weekend is guided by what side of the aisle you stand on.

Michelle Malkin comments:

MSNBC, the left-wing basket case cable network, is in full meltdown mode. After several weeks of on-air sniping and tantrums from the Spittle Twins, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, executives at NBC apparently staged an intervention.

They will no longer anchor political coverage or the debates. The fair and balanced savior?

Jeff Bercovici in Mixed Media says:

MSNBC has finally come to its senses and taken Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews off anchor duty -- and Olbermann's reaction perfectly illustrates why it was necessary to do so.

Throughout the election season, Olbermann and Matthews have co-anchored event coverage even though both function as opinion journalists in their primary roles at the network -- Olbermann as host of Countdown and Matthews as host of Hardball. MSNBC president Phil Griffin has said this arrangement worked because the two men "put on different hats" to anchor straight news coverage.

But no one seems to have briefed Olbermann on the whole hat-switching thing. He capped off two weeks of embarrassing convention hijinx by launching into a lecture on Thursday night after the Republican National Convention featured a tribute to the victims of 9/11. Olbermann decreed the video "inappropriate" and exploitative.

According to The New York Times and The Washington Post, that character break led directly to this weekend's decision to have David Gregory anchor all upcoming election coverage.

Olbermann claims he initiated the conversation about taking himself out of the anchor chair -- but he also tells the Times, "I found it ironic and instructive that I could have easily said exactly what I did say, exactly when I did say it, if I had been wearing a different hat, and nobody would have taken any issue."

Media Channel has this to offer:

MSNBC’s announcement that it is replacing Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews with David Gregory as anchors for its main political events (the upcoming presidential debates and election) vividly illustrates several long-obvious facts. First, nothing changes the behavior of our media corporations more easily than vocal demands and complaints from the Right, which petrify media executives and cause them to snap into line. ...

Second, in response to media criticism that the press is insufficiently substantive and adversarial to political power, the claim is frequently made that media outlets are simply driven by the profit motive, and that their programming choices are nothing more than a by-product of ratings. But in MSNBC’s case, that is plainly untrue. Back in 2003, they actually canceled their highest-rated program, Phil Donahue’s show, for purely ideological reasons — because, at a time when the establishment “liberal media” were systematically amplifying the Government’s pro-war views and excluding anti-war views, that short-lived MSNBC show was one of the only venues in America where one could hear anti-war viewpoints, and NBC’s fear of angering the Government and the Right clearly caused them, first, to impose extreme and unusual restrictions on the show’s content, and then to cancel it altogether.

Third, this episode demonstrates what Eric Alterman documented several years ago: that the greatest and most transparent myth in American politics is that the U.S. has a “liberal media.” That is a myth that is maintained, first and foremost, by defining anyone who isn’t Rush Limbaugh as a “liberal.” Hence, people such as the wife of Bush official Dan Senor (Campbell Brown) is a “liberal,” as is Alan Greenspan’s wife (Andrea Mitchell), along with establishment-worshipers such as Rush-Limbaugh-admirer Brian Williams, right-wing-talking-points-spouting Charlie Gibson, and anyone who writes for the war-enabling New York Times and Washington Post.

Perhaps nothing demonstrates this absurd dynamic more than the painfully inane perception that Chris Matthews — for years a prime target of liberal media critics — is some sort of “liberal.”

Finally, and perhaps most notably of all, Olbermann’s role as anchor somehow destroys the journalistic brand of both MSNBC and NBC, while Fox News continues to be deemed a legitimate news outlet by our political and media establishment. Fox does this despite (more accurately: due to) its employing Brit Hume as its main anchor — someone who is every bit as partisan and ideological as Keith Olbermannn is (at least), who regularly spews the nastiest and most vicious right-wing talking points, yet because he’s not a liberal, is deemed to be a legitimate news anchor.

And finally, a blogger at Daily Kos has this to say, which is backed up by hundreds of comments on the blog:

NBC bent over and took one for the GE team because of complaints from Republicans. So kudos to NBC...America can't have too much fair and balanced news coverage.

MSNBC Drops Olbermann, Matthews From Anchor Chairs

MSNBC's grand experiment of using liberal commentators Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews as news anchors during the network's election coverage appears to be over, reports Brian Stelter of The New York Times tonight on its web site.

After accusations of on-camera bias, and some animosity between the cable network and NBC, network executives decided over the weekend to replace the pair with David Gregory as the news anchor on election night and during the debates, Stelter writes. Olbermann and Matthews will appear as commentators.

“The most disappointing shift is to see the partisan attitude move from prime time into what’s supposed to be straight news programming,” said Davidson Goldin, formerly the editorial director of MSNBC and a co-founder of the reputation management firm DolceGoldin, as quoted in the report.

A portion of Stelter's report is as follows:

Executives at the channel’s parent company, NBC Universal, had high hopes for MSNBC’s coverage of the political conventions. Instead, the coverage frequently descended into on-air squabbles between the anchors, embarrassing some workers at NBC’s news division, and quite possibly alienating viewers. Although MSNBC nearly doubled its total audience compared with the 2004 conventions, its competitive position did not improve, as it remained in last place among the broadcast and cable news networks. In prime time, the channel averaged 2.2 million viewers during the Democratic convention and 1.7 million viewers during the Republican convention.

The success of the Fox News Channel in the past decade along with the growth of political blogs have convinced many media companies that provocative commentary attracts viewers and lures Web browsers more than straight news delivered dispassionately.

“In a rapidly changing media environment, this is the great philosophical debate,” Phil Griffin, the president of MSNBC, said in a telephone interview Saturday. Fighting the ratings game, he added, “the bottom line is that we’re experiencing incredible success.”

But as the past two weeks have shown, that success has a downside. When the vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin lamented media bias during her speech, attendees of the Republican convention loudly chanted “NBC.”

In interviews, 10 current and former staff members said that long-simmering tensions between MSNBC and NBC reached a boiling point during the conventions. “MSNBC is behaving like a heroin addict,” one senior staff member observed. “They’re living from fix to fix and swearing they’ll go into rehab the next week.”

The issue may have come to a head when Olbermann, acting as the Republican convention anchor, apologized for the network for broadcasting a video tribute to the victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Here is a tape of that comment, along with the tribute that was aired:



"I'm sorry, it's necessary to say this and I wanted to separate myself from the others on the air about this," he said on air, looking shaken. "If at this late date, any television network had of its own accord showed that much videotape, and that much graphic videotape of 9/11, and I speak as somebody who lost a few friends there, it, we, would be rightly eviscerated at all quarters, perhaps by the Republican Party itself, for exploiting the memories of the dead and perhaps even for trying to evoke that pain again. If you reacted to that videotape the way I did, I apologize. It is a subject of great pain for many of us still and was probably not appropriate to be shown. We'll continue in a moment."

The statement was widely praised by liberal bloggers and commentators, and widely criticized by conservatives.

Olbermann told The New York Times today that that moment — and the perception that he is “not utterly neutral” — reignited the debate about his role on political nights.

“I found it ironic and instructive that I could have easily said exactly what I did say, exactly when I did say it, if I had been wearing a different hat, and nobody would have taken any issue,” he told the Times.

Andrea Mitchell Lost in a Balloon Drop!

In one of the funnier moments in the convention coverage these past two weeks, Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC is embedded on the Republican Convention floor and is under attack by a massive balloon drop!

Mixed Reviews on McCain's Speech

Most pundits followed the expected line after John McCain's acceptance speech last night at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul. The ones who you would expect to like it praised the speech, and the commentators who are backing Barack Obama did't see much to get excited about it. Clearly, McCain had a tough act to follow after Sarah Palin's performance.

In my book, Chuck Todd said it best when he said that McCain was probably happy it was over with, and is eager to get to the more intimate settings of the debates.

David Gergen gives high marks on CNN:

A few thoughts as John McCain takes his bows: one cannot leave that speech without having enormous respect for him as a war hero and patriot. His retelling of his story tonight was extremely moving. I have long been a fan of John McCain the human being and I came away even more impressed tonight. It is worth remembering that a McCain has fought in every American war since 1776.

In terms of addressing America's big challenges, however, I found the speech much less compelling. It was a very general recitation of fairly standard Republican approaches (how is he really different from Bush on policy?), and it did not address many issues such as getting us out of an economic ditch, heading off the worst financial crisis since the Depression, exploding health care costs, and more. Overall, I thought that part of the speech was thin.

Kudos to McCain for leaving personal partisan rancor out of the speech. Personally, I wish that he had curbed some of that earlier in the convention.

Overall, I came away believing that the McCain-Palin ticket will be very formidable this fall. And even though the speech was long, I thought that when one judges its political impact, I would give it an A.

Peter Baker of The New York Times says McCain is not running to the center, he's running to become the opposition:

The effort to position Mr. McCain and the Republicans as the true agents of change benefited this week from his selection of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate. Known for taking on her own state party over corruption and wasteful spending, Ms. Palin projects the image of the ultimate Washington outsider, literally from more than 2,800 miles outside the Capital Beltway. And she would be the first woman to serve as vice president.

But as a matter of history, it is easier to run as the opposition party if you actually are the opposition party.

“When the president of the United States is from your own party, to present yourself as a change agent is not the easiest thing to pull off,” said Joe Trippi, a Democratic strategist. Referring to Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, Mr. Trippi added, “All Obama has to do is say, ‘Bush-McCain, Bush-McCain.’ ”

Chuck Todd said McCain missed the mark. "the convention will not be remembered for this acceptance speech. It will be remembered for Sarah Palin." He also noted there was no humor in the speech and that McCain is probably relieved that it's over. He said McCain is probably looking forward to the debates, where he might fare better.

Chris Matthews said McCain was separating himself from the party and George Bush. "This crowd is applauding his divorce from this administration." He went on to say that the delegates might not like the tone of his tact, but they may see a winner here.

David Gregory said that in the course of three days that McCain gave the Republicans the picture that he is a fighter, and that he has some fight in him left.

Noonan on Open Mic: Palin Means It's Over

MSNBC's Chuck Todd, Republican Party strategist Mike Murphy and Wall Steet Journal Columnist Peggy Noonan discover what an open microphone can do for you. Noonan, is overheard saying: "It's over" and that she did not think Palin was the most qualified pick available to McCain.



Frank James of swamppolitics.com wrote this about the exchange:

What makes Noonan's comments over the open microphone so fascinating is that in her column which appeared in the today's Wall Street Journal she certainly seemed a lot more supportive to Palin than she did on the NBC set when she thought the mic was turned off.

"Because she jumbles up so many cultural categories, because she is a feminist not in the Yale Gender Studies sense but the How Do I Reload This Thang way, because she is a woman who in style, history, moxie and femininity is exactly like a normal American feminist and not an Abstract Theory feminist; because she wears makeup and heels and eats mooseburgers and is Alaska Tough, as Time magazine put it; because she is conservative, and pro-2nd Amendment and pro-life; and because conservatives can smell this sort of thing -- who is really one of them and who is not -- and will fight to the death for one of their beleaguered own; because of all of this she is a real and present danger to the American left, and to the Obama candidacy."

Noonan writes about the incident here and tries to explain to her readers what she meant.

Media Defends Palin Coverage, Attacks Speech

Keith Olbermann describes Sarah Palin's speech as condescending, insulting, and dismissive of community activists:



Olbermann here see a lot of sarcasm:



Before the speech, Olbermann had a tough time figuring out who Palin was referring to when she talked about the media elite, and how she could care less if she's not in their good graces. This excerpt is from Geoffrey Dickens of Newsbusters.org:

OLBERMANN: We're getting some of the excerpts now Andrea and I think it's fair to say there don't seem to be any excerpts anyway, any significant attacks on Obama or the Democrats, however guess who has been attacked? That would be probably us, as collective us. Let me read one before we go back to the floor at the Excel Center. "Why She Is Going to Washington D.C." is the headline on this excerpt.

"I'm not a member of the permanent political establishment, she says, and I've learned quickly these past few days that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, than some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone. But here's a little newsflash for all those reporters and commentators, I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion, I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country."

Who those reporters and commentators might be she does not say, at least not in the excerpt. It will be interesting to see if they're named in that speech. There's no one I can think of, off the top of my head, who did what she is apparently complaining of tonight, but she will be doing the complaining herself.

Jennifer Harper, writing for the Washington Times today, said that the honeymoon period was short-lived and is over. She talked to some media experts about the Palin coverage:

Some say the press is clearly awry.

"It's completely fair to question Palin's experience, question her record, and question her judgment. Every candidate should expect that. But what's jaw-dropping here is how a supposedly feminist media elite can so abruptly drop all their principles and start questioning whether a mother of five can handle this job. They don't only look biased, but extremely partisan and opportunistic," said Tim Graham of the Media Research Center.

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, agreed. "The choice of Governor Palin is exposing the rank hypocrisy of the 'enlightened' gatekeepers of the mainstream media."

"While some blame bloggers or Democrats for the most appalling rumors or smears, the mainstream media has also been eager to focus their obsessive coverage - not on Governor Palin's accomplishments - but her personal decisions as a woman. Decisions for which the media clearly have visceral contempt," she said.

A sympathetic public could ultimately favor Mrs. Palin, she added, faulting journalists who offer more favorable coverage to Sen. Barack Obama, and those who appear to think "that the Palins should have chosen abortion over giving life to a special-needs child or teenage pregnancy."

Phil Pedlikin, president of the Down Syndrome Association of Northern Virginia, said the coverage of Mrs. Palin as the mother of a child with Down syndrome has been very mixed.

"We have found it frustrating that, even though Governor Palin has never suggested it, quite the opposite really, the emphasis of many reports has been on the 'burden' that she faces because her child has Down syndrome. Also, she is sometimes portrayed as a hero because of this additional 'burden.' We are not heroes because we have children with Down syndrome. Our children are the heroes," Mr. Pedlikin said.

In a column dripping with his own sarcasm, Roger Simon apologises for the media (well, NOT) in Politico:

On behalf of the media, I would like to say we are sorry.

On behalf of the elite media, I would like to say we are very sorry.

We have asked questions this week that we should never have asked.

We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?

We have asked mean questions like: How well did John McCain know her before he selected her? How well did his campaign vet her? And was she his first choice?

Bad questions. Bad media. Bad.