Olbermann and Matthews dismissed as election anchors

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Karlhungis
Awesome. Now the world can get more "Fair and Balanced" reporting from the likes of Fox News.

Was waiting for this comment, so thanks for stepping up with it!

So, it seems that you don't like Fox for being "biased".

But if MSNBC was also "biased" but you somehow thought that was OK ...

Wouldn't that qualify as being hypocritical?

You see for a level playing field, it either has to be both or none.

MSNBC isn't left enough. They're just left enough to piss of a conservative. Any real liberal would be able to tell you they are a lot closer to what is defined in America as the "centre (forgive my Canadian spelling, or don't)."

reply to post by tyranny22


Are you seriously using Dan Rather to further the cause of true journalism?

Once upon a time he was to be looked at with respect but that time has passed. He totally disgraced himself with the National Guard Memo's, right in the middle of a Presidential campaign. Yeah, he wasn't trying to influence things.

reply to post by Merle8


I would respectfully disagree with your contention that MSNBC is in the political center, if it were, it's ratings would be better.

Let's look at their lineup:

Morning Joe: It's sole right wing show.

Race for the Whitehouse: Pretty much current events/news of the Race

Hardball with Chris Matthews: Interesting show, I still watch it, but Matthews definitely has Democratic (actually Obama only) leanings. Would you honestly expect him to be fair in a McCain / Obama Debate? I've lost respect for him with his Obama idol worshiping.

Countdown with Keith O.: Umm if you think he is the Center of America, I would check your level, it's way off to the left.

Rachel Maddow Show: Let's see.... a former Air America host... yeah that's not the left.

All of MSNBC's primetime shows are definitely left and 60% of the named shows are Left.

I think Michelle Malkum and O'Reilly would be the perfect match

for a fair and balanced elections blow by blow.

It really doesnt matter who tells the lies, does it now.

And it really doesnt matter who plays what part anymore.

This is no longer the USA.

The quicker you realize it, the better off you will be and the less disappointed in the end.

Bah!!! I hate to sound miserable, but lets be honest here.

I believe that one of the primary reasons that they were removed had to do with the ratings. MSNBC's ratings for convention coverage were dead last, among the cable networks. Money talks. They must have been doing something wrong, to end up on the bottom of the pile, night after night.

Furthermore, they were posing as anchors, who are supposed to be unbiased. People that compare them to O'Reilly are comparing apples to oranges, as O'Reilly is not a news anchor.

reply to post by pavil


Dan Rather is the epitome of TRUE JOURNALISM.

Maybe his story was agenda driven, but at least it was based on HIS own agenda and not a CORPORATE agenda.

If you were employed by a corporation would you support their agenda over your own?

I respect the man even more for standing up for something he believed in ... whether it turned out to be true or not ... at least his intentions remained true to himself. There's a phrase associated to those that don't remain true to their beliefs ... it's called "selling-out". Which pretty much sums up most broadcast news these days.

He still has my respect.

Originally posted by tyranny22

Dan Rather is the epitome of TRUE JOURNALISM.

Maybe his story was agenda driven, but at least it was based on HIS own agenda and not a CORPORATE agenda.

Respectfully, with all due respect, your standards of Journalism are lower than mine I guess. I thought a Journalist reports on the story fairly and accurately, not making a story fit their "agenda".

We will have to agree to disagree.

reply to post by pavil


Glad you could climb down from your Ivory Tower and respond. I know you hold yourself in high regard and all, but to say that my standards of reporting are lower is completely arrogant.

Different? Definitely. Lower? I think not.

Indeed. Agree to disagree.

Rather has a long history of disputes with Republican presidents ... from Bush Jr. to Bush Sr. to Regan and all the way back to Nixon's Watergate Scandal.

Speaking of Watergate ... maybe you should take a closer look at this subject. It's a prime example of investigative reporting without verifiable sources. Rather's Memogate and Nixon's Watergate were very similar in factual, verifiable evidence. The only difference was that Watergate turned out to be true ... Memogate turned out to be false.

Rather has even stated since:

...if I knew then what I know now, I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question."

If you're going to blame someone for "Memogate", maybe you should take a better look at Texas Army National Guard officer Lt. Col. Bill Burkett.

He's the "deep throat" of this scandal.

How would Nixon be regarded today had "Deep Throat" never surfaced in 1974? Heck, where would the United States be? It's hard to tell. But, thank God we still have investigative reporters with the balls to try to get the truth out to the public. Dan Rather was, and in my mind still is, one of the best.

[edit on 10-9-2008 by tyranny22]

reply to post by tyranny22



Drifting off topic.


Spare me the personal comments.

Yes, Dan Rather did have a distinguished career, however he ended at CBS in disgrace, do you dispute that? His reporting of the Memogate is a huge black mark on his record.

If you think his reporting of the Memogate was a shining example of journalistic excellence, then yes, your standards are lower than mine. You may dispute that, but I don't think many will agree with you.

Good Day.

Spare me the personal comments and I'll spare you the personal comment responses.

I do not see any disgrace in Dan Rather being fired from CBS. He was doing what any good investigative journalist is paid to do. It just so happened that his source misled the agency. Dan Rather was made an example of my those in charge of the corporation. It must be noted that story producer and other contributors were fired along with Rather. I know you'd like to place black mark on Rather's record alone, but he was more a less the messenger that was shot, so to speak.

Ask anyone your like what their opinion is. But, I guarantee that the majority of the public will have the same opinion that you hold. Because that's what they've been told to believe. Just like anything else the mainstream news says, people tend to take it as gospel, rather than coming to a conclusion of their own by objectively viewing each side.

But, ask anyone in the industry. I think you'll be surprised by the amount that would lean toward my side.

Originally posted by tyranny22
I do not see any disgrace in Dan Rather being fired from CBS. He was doing what any good investigative journalist is paid to do. Itnot a sign that just so happened that his source misled the agency.

This response may be slightly off topic, but goes to show how people can get so wrapped up in politics that they fail to see both sides of an issue. It also demonstrates the need for a level playing field and for everyone to Deny Hypocrisy (and Ignorance of course).

So, being misled by a source is not a problem for Dan Rather and should not reflect on him in a negative way.

Very interesting, because when Bush (and almost everyone else) accepted and acted on bad information from the CIA and other respected intelligence sources on whether Iraq had WMD's, Bush was called by many a "liar". We've heard it for years now.

Step back from your partisanship long enough to see that the two situations are the same except for the players.

If Bush is a liar, then so is Rather. If Rather is not a liar, then neither is Bush.

reply to post by centurion1211


Nice example, though nothing is as black and white as it seems. The premise for each example do seem very much to be the same, but there remains a big difference in that Rather immediately admitted to being wrong and retracted the story.

Sure, Dan Rather unknowingly put out a story based on lies from another source - as did Bush. But, Bush never backed down and to this day supports his position on invading Iraq, though his evidence for doing so was based on lies.

It's the difference in being a humble person trying to do one's job and being an arrogant prick that thinks he's never wrong.

I'll let everyone have their response and withdraw from the conversation. Rather than further drawing this thread away from topic, I see now that I should have let my original point and the response to it stand. I apologize to Centurion1211 for venturing off topic.

Originally posted by tyranny22
reply to post by centurion1211

 

Nice example, though nothing is as black and white as it seems. The premise for each example do seem very much to be the same, but there remains a big difference in that Rather immediately admitted to being wrong and retracted the story.

As a matter of fact, I recall the Rathergate issue much differently. In my recollection, Rather was very stubborn and kept saying that the allegations were true for quite awhile even after it was proven they weren't. I wonder if Rather still thinks he was right to this very day.

Here is more information on that from almost a year (9/27/2005) after the election, with Rather still remaining defiant.

article

Rather: Bush Guard Memo Story "Accurate," Never Proven Not So
In an interview with Marvin Kalb carried live by C-SPAN from the National Press Club on Monday night, Dan Rather made quite clear that he believes in the accuracy of his Bush National Guard story based on what everyone else realizes were fabricated memos.

Even more proof that my Rather-Bush analogy is accurate.

[edit on 9/11/2008 by centurion1211]