In a move that can be considered either a turn back to neutral coverage of political events or a fearful tactic to curb further criticism on their network, NBC News has decided to dump Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews as co-anchors of NSNBC's election coverage. Replacing them on the upcoming debates and election night will be White House correspondent David Gregory.
Some say the decision to drop the two most popular personalities on the network from the coverage stemmed from what critics both within and without the organization feared was the channel's perceived shift to the political left (though, many have said that MSNBC has always leaned left as opposed to FOX News that leans right. Apparently, none of their shoes have the same-sized heels.). Others say their demotion stemmed from numerous complaints that came after Olbermann's rant after a 9/11 tribute video was shown at the Republican National Convention. Then there are those who feel their on-air tiffs during the coverage resembled something out of Gossip Girl.
Really, Olbermann is probably more to blame in this demotion than Matthews is. It's no secret where Keith's opinions lay -- as seen nightly on his Countdown show. Adding him to election coverage and not expecting him to express his opinions on what was going on would be tantamount to putting FOX News' Bill O'Reilly in charge of election coverage and asking him to be neutral. What it comes down to is primetime talk show hosts should remain as talk show hosts and not news anchors. Be Conservative, Liberal, Socialist or Anarchist, the urge to express one's opinions are hard to cutoff when done so frequently. Why the suits over at MSNBC thought that Keith could hold it in during the coverage is beyond my thinking.
TV Squad Ten: Cartoon women who should have Playboy centerfolds
Six Mad Men characters who are in limbo after the finale
Fact or Fiction: Big Bang, Brothers & Sisters and CSI
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
9-09-2008 @ 8:39PM
Richie said...
You know, I'm fighting myself on this one. On one hand, I love Keith Olbermann and I think he's a great commentator. On the other hand, he's NOT a journalist or an anchor - he's no Walter Cronkite, he editorializes on things so I think it's kind of dangerous for the integrity of NBC to have him as a legitimate "anchor".
Then again, Fox News doesn't even bother to keep up the appearance of having legitimate anchors on their coverage.
But sweet Jesus, David Gregory is boring.
Reply
9-10-2008 @ 10:11AM
MacGuffin said...
Well said.
I am left of center, but think that Olbermann frequently goes over the edge to the point that it even makes me uncomfortable. That's saying a lot.
MSNBC needs to find a good anchor--not sure if it is David Gregory, although he is improving.
9-09-2008 @ 8:39PM
Oreo said...
Good. I like them fine, well Olberman more than Matthews, but they did a horrible job during the DNC, it was horrid.
Reply
9-09-2008 @ 8:49PM
eugene said...
when did we start judging people against the worst possible examples instead of against the highest standard?
Comparing them against the pundits on Fox isn't right, we should be comparing them against the ethical model of what we expect a journalist to be.
Reply
9-09-2008 @ 9:39PM
Malren said...
Unfortunately we live in a "well he did it first" world where BOTH sides act like it's a race to the bottom. Hence Hannity & O'Reilly and Matthews & Olbermann.
9-09-2008 @ 8:52PM
Bart Smith said...
Can we drop the myth of the liberal media now? MSNBC is owned by General Electric. G.E. is a Conservative company and a major military supplier. They've been none too happy with MSNBC journalist taking a liberal stance, particularly if it's anti-war.
Reply
9-09-2008 @ 9:22PM
Matt said...
Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.
Total money given with the study of journalists contributions to political parties; $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans
Employees of NBC Universal are the most eager givers to the Democrats, racking up $104,184 in contributions this cycle, compared to just $3,150 to Republican candidates
The "myth" as you call it looks more and more to be the Truth.
9-09-2008 @ 10:49PM
bsgfan2003 said...
I think they are more upset about coming in last place in the ratings.
9-10-2008 @ 7:29PM
Dan said...
The "Myth" about Journalists is that they are biased...in reality, they are just more informed and serious about issues. Therefore it would make sense that few of them would donate to the Republican Party because that is the party of ignorance. Why is it that Academics, Intellectuals, Journalists and Scientists all lean Democratic these days? Simple, you have to be stupid to vote Republican with these policies and candidates. Who votes Republican? Religious nuts, racist white people, stodgy old people and rich people who are not intellectuals. Those aren't opinions, those are facts of electoral demographics.
9-10-2008 @ 8:51PM
StillBash said...
You know the problem with all this is that journalists tend to have more money than the average American household.
Even though George W. Bush always claimed that his tax cuts benefit the bottom 50% of the population (income-wise), it has been reported (though not really as public as would've been needed) that in fact the tax cuts mostly benefit the Americans with better than average incomes.
So the real question is: why do journalists with their good incomes still donate more money to the Democrats than to the Republicans, even though they benefit more from a republican president/congress?
I guess the reasons "could" be their need for the truth. Which is, I guess, the reason why they became journalists. The need not to be lied to. The need to have people in charge who don't screw the people they are supposed to be working FOR not against.
Now I don't say that Democrats don't lie nor that they also screw their voters. But they do it less.
The reason why GWBush was able to become president for two terms is that most of the people who are allowed to vote with enough understanding of politics stay at home, making the non-voters the largest "party" there is. "I'm getting screwed anyway, so why vote" is the consensus amongst those people
Problem is that if you let the republicans win, like the last two general elections, you get screwed "a little bit" more.
9-09-2008 @ 9:18PM
JW said...
I never haven't watched MSNBC in a long time. I have tried to ever so often, but just don't care in the world as to what they have to say. I don't have a problem with the anchors or anything, but every time I see Olbermann when flipping channels, he is always saying something about O'Reilly and not about the news. I have decided to stay away from the news channels because I get tired of the same stuff every time I watch.
Reply
9-09-2008 @ 9:22PM
Will said...
Thanks for taking out two bags of trash!
I hope it is only the beginning of the clean up trash(media wing of the Obama campaign) from the news media!
Surly there is room on the daily kos for them all.
Reply
9-09-2008 @ 9:25PM
StillBash said...
*sigh*
Yeah you know, we people with half a brain have standards and that's why it's ok to get rid of both of them. It was unbearable to watch them argue like that.
But then again - wasn't watching the anchors busting a move just as horrible? Shouldn't there be people talking about the uncountable speeches that actually have an opinion themselves instead of just "anchors"? Isn't a convention something completely different than a regular newscast?
I read "Lies and the lying Liars who tell them" again this week, and on the TV next to me there's "God Spoke" running. Seriously, isn't it kind of strange that Fox News (I'm really close to watch "Outfoxed" next) can do whatever they want, claim whatever they please ("Terrorist Fist Bump") and we are annoyed by Olberman?
You know, it's always the same. We can't be bothered by these people. We make up our own minds.
Fine. As long as those with an IQ of 80 and above flock to the voting booths in November as much as the so called "rednecks" do, turn your TV off for the next two months. I don't mind. But get your ass registered and go vote god dammit.
Reply
9-09-2008 @ 9:58PM
Cincinnati Mike said...
Earlier today I commented that it was taking you guys a reeealy long time to get around to this story (which broke early Sunday evening.) But it was worth the wait. This piece was....dare I say it? "Fair and Balanced."
Reply
9-09-2008 @ 10:05PM
jeff said...
I cannot believe it took so long. olbermann has become a cartoon of himself and a Bill Maher wannabe
Reply
9-10-2008 @ 12:11AM
Carissa said...
Having Keith Olbermann host the election coverage is similar having Dennis Miller take over for Fox, or Glenn Beck on CNN. These guys occassionally stay on point and cover news, but their opinions ARE their schtick. An independent, I actually watched MSNBC coverage of the RNC, and found it lacking authority. Seemed like John Stewart should have been there.
Reply
9-10-2008 @ 12:51AM
Jimmy said...
I was surprised to see Olbermann on Football Night In America on Sunday. He used to be a great sportscaster, but he's hard to take in that role now that he's "reinvented" himself on MSNBC.
Reply
9-10-2008 @ 1:57AM
1iPete said...
Your headline and story isn't quite accurate. They have been removed as co-anchors but will continue to appear on the coverage as contributing analysts (along with Maddow, Buchanon et al) with Gregory driving the coverage as host. This really only affects the debate and general election coverage as they are all that remains of this election cycle.
Reply
9-10-2008 @ 9:47AM
chadwick said...
If olbermann would have just shut up during the conventions maybe this wouldn't have happened. MSNBC is at fault here just as much as olbermann. They knew his antics and they turned their head and let it happened. If this is a attempt to look fair and balance it's a very piss poor one. I'm glad this happened but it's not going to make much of a difference on msnbc. Only thing it does is embarrass olbermann. Good. Perhaps this will give olbermann more time to blog and pretend he is a actual journalist.
Reply
9-10-2008 @ 9:32PM
SkepticalReader said...
"many have said that MSNBC has always leaned left as opposed to FOX News that leans right"
Really now? Many others have observed MSNBC pandering to the right. Here is one example worth remembering - where MSNBC replaced Donahue's show with Lester Holt reporting on the invasion of Iraq:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Donahue#MSNBC_program
Reply