[Elided duplicate post with busted URL format. "No praise. No blame." --NM]

I'm not sure that replacing them with David Gregory is going to make a difference.

Let's try this link thing again.

Its important that the MSM gets its biases back under the surface instead of exposed for all to see.

I recommend more exact language. E.g.: "the awareness that they are in the tank politically.

#3 is right. Got to get that perception thing under control.

Are there any right leaning hosts on MSNBC? Joe Scarborough hardly counts. Olberman only has guests that toe his ideological line, and rarely if ever are his guests Republicans, which is fine, it's his show. But to allow him to even partake in a Presidential Debate is beyond stupid. Would they allow Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. to be involved? One thing that has always surprised me is the number of former Democratic administration staffers that are hosting talking heads shows. You don't see many former Republican members with their own shows, other that Tony Snow who passed away, and Buchanan with crossfire, I can't think of any.

And yet Fox News continues unabated.... interesting.

You don't see many former Republican members with their own shows, other that Tony Snow who passed away, and Buchanan with crossfire, I can't think of any.

Why would they need to? Hannity, Cavuto, Neil Gibson... they're all basically figureheads for republican talking points. Hell, Cavuto spends more time on his show attacking Obama's foreign policy experience then he does actually discussing the stock market.

On a tangent, Why does Scarborough hardly count?

Again, maybe not their own shows, but plenty with feature talking time. You've got Karl Rove, Mary Matalin, Bill Krystol etc.

Look, I'm not saying MSNBC should promote biased reporting. After all, I don't watch it. However, I also don't watch FOX, which I consider equally biased.

I'm not saying MSNBC should promote biased reporting. After all, I don't watch it. However, I also don't watch FOX, which I consider equally biased.

Bias doesn't necessarily mean wrong. Our justice system is adversarial in nature - the expectation is that advocates for each side are more likely to expose the truth. I think if there's one thing the last couple elections have shown (largely because of the rise of blogs), it's that the notion of journalists being neutral observers reporting "the truth" doesn't work.

I watch CNN for coverage of Republicans and Fox for coverage of Democrats. (I don't get MSNBC). It's much more informative to hear what the "other side" is thinking than to hear someone cheerleading.

"Hannity, Cavuto, Neil Gibson... they're all basically figureheads for republican talking points."

And what do guys like Matthews and Stephonapolis parrot? Those guys used to write the talking points for democratic campaigns... at least Fox has the grace not to put former campaign managers forward as neutral journalists.

The worst thing i've heard this week out of the MSM, and there has been plenty, was Katie Couric accusing a republican of using talking points when she was reading democratic talking points word for word in her questioning.

"I watch CNN for coverage of Republicans and Fox for coverage of Democrats. (I don't get MSNBC). It's much more informative to hear what the "other side" is thinking than to hear someone cheerleading."

That sounds like a reasonable strategy.

For me though, the coverage by all parties has gotten so damnably unprofessional that I just can't take it anymore. I can barely tolerate the news for more than a few minutes. I get all my information online.

Actually, one of my favorite news shows is "this week with george stephanopolous" during the round table discussions. Here he acts more as a ring leader to left & right than a "journalist". I especially like George will on that show; he talks the least but says the most.

Pentagon hangs a U_Turn, reopens investigation into civilian deaths in Afghanistan raid, despite corroboration of initial (whitewashed?) account by Independent Objective Apolitical Fox News Journalist Oliver North. Yes, that Oliver North.

Is it that MSNBC got poor ratings, or that NBC wants to be on McCain's good side if he wins?

It turns out, it's that McCain threatened to pull out of debates if he couldn't have veto power over personnel.

This is too bad. People who watch MSNBC because FOX is "biased" really deserve Keith Olbermann.

And for occasional viewers like myself, watching Olbermann and Matthews at the conventions was entertaining. Apparently people like me were having too much fun, so Big Mother Peacock had to put an end to that.

David Gregory is just more of the same, minus the notoriety and the personality.

alchemist, I think you are comparing apples and oranges. The position of moderator and commentator. I think Britt Hume and Chris Wallace can moderate these events pretty even-handedly. Olbermann cannot. I think Matthews could, but maybe not this year. Now, if Bill Krystol and Fred Barnes were moderating, it would be a joke.

Personally, I watched old boring PBS for the conventions because (a) they did not have all the crap across the screen; and (b) they got the historians.

If you don't listen to the historians, you get alarmed by things like post #13, subset of the times when candidates make demands of the debate format.

I think the point is, nobody would even suggest that Fred Barnes moderate a debate, much less Sean Hannity. The idea is ludicrious on its face. But for their mirror images on the left, that isnt true for some reason.

Obama won't appear on Fox network, he certainly would never appear at a debate moderated by, say, Bill O'Reilly. Can you imagine?

Also, I'll move my Sullivan-Atlantic divorce date up to late Junuary.

MSNBC is to NBC as
60 Minutes II was to 60 Minutes as
the Newsweek/Atlantic blogs have been to Newsweek and the Atlantic

Though frankly I watch MSNBC. Flip-flopper!

AJL, speaking of preconditions and such, what happened to Obama's pledges to (a) use public campaign financing and (b) to participate in 10 debates with McCain?

Motes, beams, etc.

I think the point is, nobody would even suggest that Fred Barnes moderate a debate, much less Sean Hannity.

Well, I'll suggest it. I think Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracke would make a fine moderation team. If Kondracke is too low-octane for you lefter-than-thou types, throw another liberal in there with them.

At least the questions wouldn't be grotesquely stupid.

Mark: you're behind the times. Obama was on O'Reilly last week. And yes, I never want O'Reilly to moderate a debate. EVER. It's not that he's biased, it's just that the man is a moron. He's egregiously two-standard, although he's so pompous he doesn't see it. He's egocentric to the point where he has to phrase every story about himself and his audience. And he likes to oversimplify ideas until they have the consistency of dehydrated water.

Favourite Colbert line (mock-up of O'Reilly): You're the heroes out there, because you're tired of Washington and you're doing something about it. What are you doing? You're watching MY show.

Now, I can deal with Chris Wallace. He's nowhere near my favorite, but he's pretty fair. Never watched Kondracke.

PD Shaw: I mostly watched PBS too... I like to flip back and forth a little bit so that I get some breakdown of pundit reactions. But mostly I watched the speeches retroactively, so networks weren't a problem anyway.

The Republicans come out of their four year convention the same way the five year economic plan of the CCP is anoounced. We are going to produce 200,000 cubic meters of windpane glass and they produce it. the problem is it's all 3cc thick and 4m by 3m when the windows are 2cc thick and 4m by 5m. You call them on it and you end up in the gulag.

The Democrats come out of their four year plan and act like Yassir
Arafat. They never made a deal they would take.

Every blog has more stones than anything remotely called MSM

"...the perception ..."

The REALITY.

Other than that, right on.