Guiliani first to attack MSNBC over debate coverage

JaJae · 05-05-2007, 03:20 PM

Can Keith Olbermann straddle the line between news and opinion?
By Associated Press
Friday, May 4, 2007 - Updated: 06:10 PM EST

NEW YORK - In an angry commentary on April 25, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann accused Rudolph Giuliani of using the language of Osama bin Laden with "the same chilling nonchalance of the madman" to argue that Republicans would keep Americans safer than Democrats from terror.
Eight days later, Olbermann hosted MSNBC’s coverage of the first debate among Republican candidates for president.
Olbermann’s popularity and evolving image as an idealogue has led NBC News to stretch traditional notions of journalistic objectivity. The danger for MSNBC is provoking the same anger among Republicans that Democrats feel toward Fox News Channel.
The Giuliani campaign privately expressed its concern to NBC News about Olbermann’s role in the days leading up to last Thursday’s debate.
MSNBC’s use of Olbermann as a host for major events predated his "special comments," which began appearing late last summer at the end of "Countdown," his irreverent prime-time newscast. The periodic commentaries often seethe with anger toward the Bush administration and against the war. Spread quickly over the Internet, they’ve made him a liberal icon and raised his show’s ratings.
Olbermann knows to leave his opinions at home when he anchors events, said Phil Griffin, NBC News senior vice president.
"Keith’s an adult," Griffin said. "He can tell when it’s appropriate to express himself in a commentary and when to be a journalist. That’s one of his strengths. He knows exactly the tone and his role when he’s doing anything."
He served Thursday both before and after the debate in exactly the position Griffin intended, as the quarterback for coverage. For the most part, he introduced interviews and questioned MSNBC analysts on their own opinions of how the debate went.
In asking about Giuliani’s response to a question on Roe vs. Wade, Olbermann asked, "Do you think that’s consistent with _ let’s use the kind word _ an evolving position on abortion?"
Similarly, he noted that Giuliani early in the debate appeared to offer an olive branch to Democrats but slipped back into harsher language, including the argument that a Republican president would keep the country safer than a Democrat.
"Did Mr. Giuliani correct course in the middle of the debate?" he asked. "Did someone slip him a note under the door and say, ’don’t be nice to Democrats under any circumstances?’"
For many years, the rule for journalists was simple: maintain strict objectivity. Even for television hosts unafraid to say what they think _ Chris Matthews, for instance _ there’s still a little mystery about what they’ll do inside a voting booth.
Some journalists are such purists that they don’t vote at all.
To one critic, Olbermann’s actual performance at the debate and in similar situations was less important than the message sent by his presence.
"It’s sort of like putting a professional wrestler in an anchor chair and saying ’he can do this,’" said Tim Graham, director of media analysis at the Media Research Center, a conservative watchdog. "Well, he can do this. But he’s known as a professional wrestler."
Unlike the Democrats who have made a point of standing up to Fox, there’s been little public protest among Republicans about MSNBC’s use of Olbermann at news events. That doesn’t mean it has gone unnoticed. Graham said there’s a real debate among conservatives over how to deal with him: should he be ignored or loudly criticized, knowing how effectively Olbermann has turned Bill O’Reilly’s attacks into a badge of honor?
The Giuliani campaign would not publicly discuss what it thinks about Olbermann, or whether it had made those feelings known to NBC, a spokeswoman said.
But MSNBC spokesman Jeremy Gaines said a Giuliani campaign representative had called NBC News to complain about Olbermann being part of the debate telecast following his commentary. Olbermann was not told about the protest until after he came off the air Thursday, he said.
Other GOP presidential campaigns have expressed concerns about Olbermann to NBC News, according to a New York political strategist who requested anonymity to protect his clients.
Questions about the objectivity of television news personalities have been around as long as there was a TV set to yell back at. Now we’re in an era where anchors blog, they emote, they lift the curtain to expose how their shows operate.
"It’s a different world," Griffin said, "and I think Keith has mastered this world better than anybody."
The popularity of Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck on CNN alone illustrates how opinion has become more important on cable news. A general public that laughs at Jon Stewart’s take on the news has probably become accustomed to a point of view, said Mark Jurkowitz, associate director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
"I wonder, candidly, how many people parse the ethics on this anymore, other than people in the industry," he said.
Clearly there’s a taste in America for both a partisan and nonpartisan press.
The middle ground is where it gets tricky.
Having Olbermann anchor _ as he will continue, with Matthews, for big political nights throughout the campaign _ is the MSNBC equivalent of Fox News Channel assigning the same duties to O’Reilly.
Fox has never done that, perhaps mindful of the immediate controversy that would result. Fox has tried to differentiate between its news operation and its prime-time opinion shows, even as its critics believe strongly that’s bunk. In this case, MSNBC doesn’t try to separate news and opinion people, even as it tries to separate news and opinion.
"We’re not hiding from it," Griffin said. "We’re saying he can do both."

We're in a new world of media where the liberal media can do essentially do whatever they want and get a pass while Fox is restrained by liberals. Olbermann's role in the debates in my opinion completely negates any argument over the Democrats running out of Fox. If Fox handled the debate it would have been with a moderator and pre & post coverage would have been handled by political commentators... they would have gotten two liberals and two conservatives as they always have done. Hannity or O'Rielly would not have been on the panel. Fox knows they have to keep the news and opinion separate. NBC flaunts that they are not going to.

I have to say, I don't like hearing that Rudy complained. Makes him sound like a crybaby. He knew Olbermann would be involved and we all know MSNBC has been growing more and more liberal as of late. The difference as a whole is that the Republican candidates didn't cry to get out of the debates on MSNBC while the Democrats did. The Republicans didn't stand united against MSNBC's bias and so they were subjected to it. Rudy speaking out makes him sound like the crybaby of the bunch who were willing to take their shots and get their message out.

JaJae · 05-05-2007, 03:33 PM

More complaints from the Media Research Center (Conservative Group against liberal media bias)

Discussing the agenda of questions posed by Chris Matthews and the reporters from Politico.com, Noyes observed: "It's the kind of stuff you find liberal bloggers complaining about, questions like, 'Is Karl Rove your friend,' 'Do you believe in evolution,' [questions] designed to trip up Republicans and make them look like they were against science. The question from Jim VandeHei, 'What's the deal with the corruption in your party?' This was all a series of very left-leaning questions to G.O.P. candidates. And there's no problem asking Republicans tough questions, but if you look at the tone of the Democratic debate, it was all softballs compared to what Republicans got last night. There's really two different standards for the two parties."

After running down some of the more obnoxious questions thrown at the candidates at last night's debate, Cavuto pointed out how "none of those Republicans was afraid to be at a venue where they knew they would probably get snide questions like this on a network or with a host who has a certain leaning. Yet none of their counterparts in the Democratic Party would dare appear here."

Noyes agreed: "Well, that's true. It's amazing that Democrats are trying to avoid having a debate on the Fox News Channel. Fox News had debates in the last cycle. A lot of the questioners brought in — they were not Fox employees — they were some liberal reporters like Gwen Ifill and Juan Williams, along with some of Fox's own people like Carl Cameron. Nobody had any complaints about that [debate]. Now, because they want to please the left-wing blogosphere, they're acting like if appearing on Fox is somehow a dangerous and terrible thing to do. Here you have Republicans going on MSNBC, which is a really, become a very far-left wing network in the last few months, few years, and they all seemed to have a pretty good time and got their message out."

It's getting to the point where the Democrats aren't playing fair. They won't go on Fox, but the Republicans deal with MSNBC and Olberdouche for their first debate. It's as if the Dems are stacking the media on their side as if they already weren't.

JaJae · 05-05-2007, 03:51 PM

Is Karl Rove your friend?
Do you believe in evolution?
What's the deal with corruption in your party?
"What is the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni?"
Loaded questions referring to standing up for woman's rights including wages, abortion, etc...
"Seriously, would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back in the White House?"

All these questions were designed to trip up the candidates. They had to sort out the questions they wanted to ask and there seemed to be quite a bit of "gotcha" questions that Democrats wouldn't have gotten. The Dems got things like "What are you going to do about Healthcare?" Mostly questions that reflected the issues to promote their agendas. Republicans were asked questions in hopes of getting them to slip and embarrass themselves.

garbagemanlb · 05-05-2007, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Is Karl Rove your friend?
Do you believe in evolution?
What's the deal with corruption in your party?
"What is the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni?"
Loaded questions referring to standing up for woman's rights including wages, abortion, etc...
"Seriously, would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back in the White House?"

All these questions were designed to trip up the candidates. They had to sort out the questions they wanted to ask and there seemed to be quite a bit of "gotcha" questions that Democrats wouldn't have gotten. The Dems got things like "What are you going to do about Healthcare?" Mostly questions that reflected the issues to promote their agendas. Republicans were asked questions in hopes of getting them to slip and embarrass themselves.

While I agree that a lot of the questions were stupid, I'll hold out judgement until I see what a FNC-hosted debate would like like for Democrats.

'Please explain in 30 seconds why you hate America'

JaJae · 05-05-2007, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by garbagemanlb

While I agree that a lot of the questions were stupid, I'll hold out judgement until I see what a FNC-hosted debate would like like for Democrats.

'Please explain in 30 seconds why you hate America'

You joke, but they asked "What do you dislike most about America?" on MSNBC. Clearly a question in hopes of getting a candidate to say something that hits the front pages of the news... like many of the questions they received.

Fox has held debates in the past that were nowhere near this blatantly biased. And to top it off the Dems run from Fox News to please the Kossers and liberal bloggers. In my opinion to level the playing field the Dems deserve the same treatment the GOP got in this first debate. I don't think Fox would be so blatantly biased though if they held a debate considering how in check they are kept.

The Dems got some tough questions, but nowhere near the ridiculousness of the MSNBC debate. The pre and post debates slandered the GOP and praised the Dems and then the debate was filled with questions to get the candidates to slip and barely asked questions related to the major issues. The Dems got questions mostly tailored to their agenda.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 05-05-2007, 04:46 PM

Why didn't all of these conservatives just agree to do the debate on Fox?

JaJae · 05-05-2007, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Why didn't all of these conservatives just agree to do the debate on Fox?

Because they weren't crybabies and perhaps they wanted to get their message out to people who normally wouldn't give them two squirts of piss? I'm sure Fox would have been more than happy to hold it. However, if they had done it on Fox I'm sure the media and the blogosphere would have made a huge deal about it. At least now they've done one on MSNBC so if they choose to do one on Fox in the future it won't look as bad.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 05-05-2007, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Because they weren't crybabies?

Yet they're crying now? I'm just saying there's no point in the candidates or anyone else bitching about the coverage because they could've easily done the debate on FNC.

JaJae · 05-05-2007, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Yet they're crying now?

Not publicly. If anything Rudy's campaign workers privately told MSNBC they felt the debate was unfair. They didn't go to the media with the story, MSNBC did. What's wrong with someone's campaigners saying they felt their were biased, especially when this debate was one of the worst excuses for a partisan debate in the history of our nation? They're not crying nor did they not go on the show. Their complaint was that Keith would be part of the pre and post show and Keith is biased. They still went on the debate without crying and they were all good sports to the bullshit questions.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 05-05-2007, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

You joke, but they asked "What do you dislike most about America?" on MSNBC. Clearly a question in hopes of getting a candidate to say something that hits the front pages of the news... like many of the questions they received.

I don't think it was as devious as that. I found the debate a little ridiculous in that it appeared to be a contest about who could be the most optimistic and loving of America (unlike those liberals who hate america). It came off as a little fake at times because to be a good president, you have to have an idea about what you don't like in order to fix it. I found it almost necessary for that question to be asked since the candidates seemed so afraid to say anything critical on their own. Not to mention their answers to many of the other questions were predictable. This was actually interesting.

JaJae · 05-05-2007, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I don't think it was as devious as that. I found the debate a little ridiculous in that it appeared to be a contest about who could be the most optimistic and loving of America (unlike those liberals who hate america). It came off as a little fake at times because to be a good president, you have to have an idea about what you don't like in order to fix it. I found it almost necessary for that question to be asked since the candidates seemed so afraid to say anything critical on their own. Not to mention their answers to many of the other questions were predictable. This was actually interesting.

"Say anything critical of their own"... The fact that the a major part of the debate focused on attempting to get the Republicans to be critical of their own and forcing them to go into defensive mode shows just how biased the debate was. The Democrats got a lot of questions on things like healthcare and all the things they're running on. Republicans got a lot of questions trying to get them to be critical of themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I have ZERO problems with politicians getting asked tough questions. It needs to happen more often. But in presidential debates, both sides need to be on a level playing field. Republicans are getting bombarded by the mainstream media and the Dems are getting softballs and refusing to go on any outlet where their bloggers feel could ask them a tough question.

Scrum · 05-05-2007, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

We're in a new world of media where the liberal media can do essentially do whatever they want and get a pass while Fox is restrained by liberals.

Please tell me how fox is restrained by liberals?

What a fucking joke.

Donkey® · 05-05-2007, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

You joke, but they asked "What do you dislike most about America?" on MSNBC. Clearly a question in hopes of getting a candidate to say something that hits the front pages of the news... like many of the questions they received.

Fox has held debates in the past that were nowhere near this blatantly biased. And to top it off the Dems run from Fox News to please the Kossers and liberal bloggers. In my opinion to level the playing field the Dems deserve the same treatment the GOP got in this first debate. I don't think Fox would be so blatantly biased though if they held a debate considering how in check they are kept.

The Dems got some tough questions, but nowhere near the ridiculousness of the MSNBC debate. The pre and post debates slandered the GOP and praised the Dems and then the debate was filled with questions to get the candidates to slip and barely asked questions related to the major issues. The Dems got questions mostly tailored to their agenda.

"What do you dislike about America" is a completely legit question. Period. When a candidate says "OMG EVERYTHING IS PERFECT" that is the most ridiculous answer of all. If you can't objectively look at the United States and see ANYTHING about it you don't like, you have no hope.

JaJae · 05-05-2007, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

"What do you dislike about America" is a completely legit question. Period.

I never said it wasn't, nor do I have a problem with hardball questions. I do have a problem when one political party gets these kinds of legit questions which seem to be designed to take them out of context or to be used to embarrass them and the other party gets mostly softball questions. There needs to be a balance.

JaJae · 05-05-2007, 10:05 PM

What do the conservatives on this forum think of the debate? Do you think they should stop doing debates no such liberal outlets. Edward's campaign said this:

“We believe there's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending they're objective," said Jonathan Prince, Edwards' deputy campaign manager.

And liberals on here tended to agree. Do conservatives also agree now that they have seen case in point what the liberal media is going to be doing to them?

Could the quote be just as easily reversed:

We believe there's just no reason for Republicans to give <insert biased outlet here> a platform to advance the left-wing agenda while pretending they're objective

JaJae · 05-06-2007, 12:05 AM

Originally Posted by Scrum

Please tell me how fox is restrained by liberals?

What a fucking joke.

If Fox News had done what MSNBC did, every blog, news outlet and person getting paid to use a typewriter would be writing about it. MSNBC does it and gets away with it. That's how Fox is kept in check. I can't imagine the reaction the candidates and mainstream media would have had if Fox held this kind of debate.

Imagine if Fox led a debate with a pre-show and aftershow hosted by O'Rielly and rather than asking the candidates key questions about their platforms, asked them mostly questions that looked like they were taken straight from FreeRepublic.com. I think the reactions would be slightly different.

This whole debate reminded me of that Mike Stark idiot who was heckling.. "is it true you spit on your first wife!!!" and was surprised when he was asked to leave cause it was just an "honest question". He might as well have been writing the questions the Republicans got. The Dems got mostly softballs pertaining to issues they wanted to discuss. The GOP got mostly questions that were designed to get them to say something that could be used against them. If Fox had been behind that and the situation were reversed there would have been hell to pay.

SpicyMcVoodoo · 05-06-2007, 02:17 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

If Fox News had done what MSNBC did, every blog, news outlet and person getting paid to use a typewriter would be writing about it. MSNBC does it and gets away with it. That's how Fox is kept in check. I can't imagine the reaction the candidates and mainstream media would have had if Fox held this kind of debate.

I'll admit it was fucked up to have Olberman do the pre and post show, but MSNBC is not on the same level at all with FNC. FNC would have gotten more scrutiny because FNC is an insult to journalistic integrity.

FNC flagrantly throws aside objectively and intentionally biases itself to the right as a matter of pride. MSNBC may sometimes not be completely objective, but there is no directive from the top to be purposely liberal. This is why people shit on FNC more than any other channel, regardless of how imperfect the other channels are. So long as FNC continues to purposely be right wing, they'll always get lots of scrutiny.

In other words, since FNC makes no effort whatsoever to check itself by design, other people have to keep them in check. The other so-called liberal outlets at least make some effort to check themselves by not trying to be overtly left biased.