On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Kevin M. <drunkbastar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/11/05/5417114-on-cable-news-and-cable-not-news > > I posted most of this to Dave's Facebook when he linked to Rachel > Maddow's response, but it seems to fit here, too. > > Rachel's excuse is, "Keith did this, but what FoxNews does is worse." > Is that really the standard to be compared to? > > Because the MSNBC hosts do not specifically state the name of a > candidate is supposed to be some critical difference between their > brand of partisan rhetoric and that of FoxNews? I think that is > splitting the hair mighty thin. If you watch an MSNBC program with an > IQ higher than 85 and can guess who the host voted for, the host has a > political bias and has swayed away from being a journalist reporting > facts. What FoxNews does, they do openly and in some cases salaciously > -- that I grant you. But just because I usually agree with Keith > doesn't mean I don't understand he regularly features equally biased > pieces. > > If the rule is not to do something and he did it, than he deserves to > get in trouble. If he finds the rule wrong, then he should not work > for the company. He doesn't get to break the rules because he is a > popular host. As is often the case with fame, we hold known people to > a higher standard. In this case, Keith was informed of the standard > and chose to ignore it. In such an instance, it would have been wrong > for NBC to do nothing -- in fact, it would have made them FoxNews. > I think Rachel is making a valid distinction - between being a news operation with an ideological point of view, and being a fake news operation that functions as a political operation. We have long had conservative news outlets (e.g. the Wall Street Journal), but for the most part they are legitimate and credible news sources. Rachel is saying MSNBC is trying to be more like the WSJ than FN. The examples she cites support that MSNBC is not just a liberal version of FN, though they do not make the more difficult case that they are a liberal version of the WSJ. I think there are somewhere in between, and probably closer to FN than I am comfortable with. But I think Kevin is misunderstanding Rachel's position re Keith. She did not argue that he did not break the rule, nor did she argue that he should not be punished. She just argued that, now that he has been punished, he should be reinstated. In other words, she is arguing about the severity of the punishment, not that he should be punished: ***************************** http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/11/06/2010-11-06_rachel_maddow_on_suspended_keith_olbermann_msnbc_should_reinstate_him.html "MSNBC rules state that staff can only make political contributions if you are given the all-clear from superiors in advance, which the star newscaster did not do. He gave the maximum legal donation of $2,400 to two candidates in Arizona and one in Kentucky, but it did not come to light until it was reported by Politico.com. "I understand the rule. I understand what it means to break it," Maddow said. "I believe everyone should face the same treatment under that rule. I also personally believe that the point has been made and we should have Keith back hosting Countdown." -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
