Olbermann and Matthews No Longer Anchoring Special MSNBC Election Coverage: Pros and Cons

It's being reported all over that Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews will no longer be anchoring special election coverage on MSNBC. In terms of what's ahead in this political season, this means we won't see them anchoring election night or debate coverage. They will both continue in their Countdown and Hardball shows.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I've criticized Olbermann's tirades on everything from 24 to Hillary Clinton and Bill O'Reilly. Matthews is not as extreme, but he had problems talking about Hillary Clinton, too - and I noticed that as an Obama supporter. In the Democratic and Republican convention coverage, Olbermann dissed Joe Scarborough on the air, and Matthews and Pat Buchanan went at it tooth and nail.

The last two incidents get at why I feel more than one way about MSNBC's change of anchors. I agree politically with everything Olbermann said to Scarborough, and everything Matthews said to Buchanan. Further, a leftist tilt at MSNBC balances the rightest tilt at Fox News, which is certainly not "balanced" on its own.

In the end, I guess MSNBC did the right thing, though. There is a distinction between an anchor and a commentator, one which Fox News respects by not putting its commentators - such O'Reilly, Hannity, and Colmes - in the anchor chair. Our politics is indeed better served when we can get some semblance of objectivity in our anchors and let the commentators have at it.

But if this signals a retreat by MSNBC from the Democratic leanings of its commentators, I'll be sure to complain loudly about that, too.

Newspapers Continue to Excel, and Broadcast Media Fail, in Fair Coverage of Ron Paul

Superb video of mainstream media pundits smirking and disinforming the public about Ron Paul and his supporters...



For some reason, I find the George Stephanopoulos smug comment on ABC News at the end that Ron Paul can't possibly win - made directly to Ron Paul - the most irritating. If for no reason other than to see Stephanopolous's reaction, it would be great for Ron Paul to win at least the Republican nomination. There would be many good and profound results from that, and among them - no place close to the top of the benefits but still among them - would be once and for all exposing the damage the mass media do to our democracy, and the power of voters to overcome it.

Thanks to Lee on MySpace for bringing this video to my attention.

Meanwhile, my student Mike Plugh e-mailed me about the following New York Times article about Ron Paul today, written by Katharine Q. Seelye and Leslie Wayne. It's a fair, factual, intelligent essay on where the Ron Paul candidacy stands now, and how it got there.

As I've noted before, it's interesting that the print press by and large has been doing a much better job of reporting this election campaign, and in particular Ron Paul's candidacy, than the mainstream broadcast and cable media. Certainly, some of the television coverage of Ron Paul - Alan Colmes on Fox, Tucker Carlson and sometimes Chris Matthews on Fox - has been objective, but more often than not we get Stephanopoulos, Hannity, and their snide misrepresentations.

Possibly there is something about text - whether online or on paper - the encourages fairness and accuracy of reporting.

Whatever the reason, the election of 2008 is so far shaping up as the traditional paper press, and the Internet's, finest hour.

Hannity & Colmes Split Over Ron Paul's 1st Place in FOX 's Latest Post-Debate Poll

Well, the universe is finally a lot more as it should be. You may recall that after the last Republican Presidential debate on Fox, Hannity and Colmes - who disagree about just about everything - were as one in their certainty that Ron Paul's first place finish in Fox's after-debate phone-in text poll was some kind of fix - multiple dialing by the same people, to be exact, even though Fox had wisely made that option not possible.

Hannity was up to his same tricks tonight - braying that Ron Paul's first place finish was "stacked". Whereas Colmes, to his credit, calmly said he was reporting the results. As was the case last time, Hannity didn't bother to offer any evidence.

You can see this all in the YouTube clip that follows. Also sweet about this is the way Hannity has the gall to complain to Ron Paul that Hannity gets booed by Ron Paul supporters when Hannity gives speeches.

Booed? Hannity should count his lucky stars that he continues to have a microphone. I certainly would never hire anyone with such a poor standard of truth and evidence to teach courses in a department in which I was Chair...

My Sept 28 2007 Lecture at Fordham University about the Media Misreporting of Ron Paul

This is the lecture I delivered to my "Introduction to Communication and Media Studies" class at Fordham University on September 28, 2007 about the media misreporting of Ron Paul.

The lecture, with student questions at the end, was about 50 minutes. It's divided in five parts on the YouTube video, as follows: 1. history of polling ... ABC May 2007 misreporting of Ron Paul ... 2. ABC continues misreporting Ron Paul (early August 2007).... 3. Mark Levin urges disinformation against Ron Paul on ABC radio ... Kucinich gets cropped ... the First Amendment ... 4. Hannity & Colmes misreport Ron Paul on Fox News ... reasons behind all of this ... 5. I answer student questions ...

Note that the above is, of course, current only as of September 28, 2007, and contains no mention of ABC affiliate WMUR TV in New Hampshire failing to cover the Ron Paul "Family Day" rally on September 30...

Hannity & Colmes Denigrate Ron Paul's First Place in FOX News Post-Debate Poll

So now Fox News' - via Hannity and Colmes - joins ABC News in denigrating the results of its own post-debate polls. As of about 30 minutes ago, Ron Paul was in first place with 33% percent of respondents who said he won tonight's Republican Presidential debate in New Hampshire, broadcast on Fox News, with Rudy Giuliani in second place with 16% (in the final results, Mike Huckabee moved into second place, with 18% of respondents who said he won).

Commented Hannity and Colmes on Ron Paul's victory in the Fox News poll: Ron Paul supporters were busy dialing in multiple times.

Interestingly, Ron Paul's exchange with Mike Hucbabee was the most replayed segment of the debate, was indeed its high point. Ron Paul went after Huckabee's - and all the other Republicans' - position that everyone should get behind the US war effort in Iraq. We have no valid business being there, Ron Paul emphasized, fighting in a war that was started on the basis on false information, and in defiance of our Constitution.

How is it that Hannity and Colmes, who agree on so little else, can be so quick to discount the possibility that maybe Ron Paul's first-place showing is an expression of how tired Americans are of this wrong war? And trot out the tired "multiple" dialing herring, with no cited evidence whatsoever?

The answer, I think, is that whatever Hannity and Colmes' differences of opinion, that are representatives of the same arrogant, old-line media thinking that afflicts ABC News. Hannity and Colmes owe America an apology.

Just this afternoon, I distributed my syllabus to my Intro to Communication and Media Studies class at Fordham University. September 28 will be the day I'll deliver my special lecture on the mainstream media's misreporting of Ron Paul.