with the rest of the repuke bullshit....

Gregory's ass would have been handed to him long ago!

"They...want the RW shit to work"

there is no reason to get up and watch that crap on Sunday morning. Gregory is the worst.
Can we have one day without politics? sheesh.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Personally I like to watch CBS Sunday Morning. I would be willing to watch MTP if it was more of a balanced show about politics. Since Gregory took over the bias has become unbearable.

There are people here who took issue with Tim Russert, but I always found him to be well informed and willing to question his guests as opposed to feeding them baby bird food.

How about we go back to the format of the sixties when at least three and occasionally four journalist (real ones, not faux reporters like morning joke) would question the politicos. Just a thought. How about a line up of Rachel, Chris, Mrs. Greenspan for balance and Gregory could sit with his thumb in his mouth as real reporters asked the questions.
Speaking of Gregory; I have long thought he wasn't seasoned enough for MTP. Never covered an overseas event. Never done any real reporting as White House correspondent. Too young and impressionable with the right wing. Oh one more thing as Colombo would say. He is dumb as a bucket of hammers. K+R

French to a French guest? Gregory not only swallowed it, but seemed to become an even bigger right wing toady.

babylonsistah. You'd think even those corporate suits at gopmediawhore.inc would care about ratings and see their agenda to drive their gop label into the ground was NOT working after years of this shit.. but, Nooooooooo.. we'd be wrong.

Still too many.

Or Rachel Maddow. That'd work, too. An ENTIRELY different mindset.

or even Linda Ellerbee (she used to work for NBC.)

I think, after CURRENT, that no one will take a chance on him again. Even in his sports slots, he isn't left alone--there's always plenty of cover if he decides he doesn't want to show up.

Look at the set they gave The Young Turks and then look at what they gave Keith. He was alone with a black background. It looked like a hostage video.

He was given an expensive set, they had an electrical issue, they had to move him while it was fixed, and he liked the effect and he also liked jerking the owners' chains, because he realized that he was expected to do a little work promoting the network, as stipulated in his contract, and he wasn't in the mood to deliver.

He was a petulant ass. He had a great gig, was on the cutting edge of what could have been a dynamic network, he was being paid well to pull a good amount of weight, and he let down the side. I blame the demise of CURRENT, a network I enjoyed watching, on him.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/exclusive-why-countdown-with-keith-olbermann-has-been-broadcasting-from-a-dark-place/

I'm not saying that his fans don't "like" him, but a lot of people who USED to like him are no longer fans. He stopped making it about delivering the news, and he started making it about him. I found his drama childish and tiresome.

He acted like a pompous, whining ass while at Current. He didn't fulfill his contract. He didn't understand that everyone works at a start up, there are no "divas."

Jennifer Granholm got it--why couldn't he?

When he just decided to "not show up" during the Presidential contests, leaving Al Gore to fill in for him, that pretty much did it for me.

When they offered him the gig they told him it would be a promotion. He was to be their Tom Brokaw.

They were NOT as well off as they claimed.

And surely you aren't claiming that he had the idea that he would be the equivalent to "Tom Brokaw" in every respect? Brokaw anchored one of the big three nightly news programs; CURRENT was way the hell up in the couple hundreds on the cable dial, with a very small national reach, a limited budget, and they were in growth mode.

Your argument that Olbermann was stupid, unaware of the network's standing, or obtuse is just not believable. He wasn't stupid at all--he just, for "whatever" reasons (fights at work, personality conflicts, personal matters) didn't want to BE there after a bit. He didn't want to do what he said he'd do. He knew what was expected of him, and he didn't perform to standards. Perhaps issues in his personal life caused him to be a Negative Nancy and a No Show, but the bottom line is this--he was the architect of his own demise. He brought it on himself. When he violated the non-disparagement clause with those not-so-coy tweets, the end was nigh.

Anyway, the point I made above, and which stands, is that his reputation as a result of his behavior at CURRENT has pretty much made him toxic, no matter how good he is at bringing the enthusiasm to a current events program. He'd have a lot of trouble getting back on that horse--no one wants to bet on someone who is unreliable in that fashion. He'd have to do a lot of one-off appearances, and "substitute for the regular guy" gigs, before he could convince anyone to trust him and even then I don't know if he could make it work.

From a business standpoint, I'd be reluctant to hire him, because he lets people down. He is great on camera, and not-so-great behind the scenes.

He WAS.

They couldn't afford him.

Now he isn't a "star" and people who once couldn't live without him can barely remember him.

He knew what he was getting into with CURRENT.

He could have said NO.

Thing is, when CURRENT took him, he was damaged goods. They gave him a real, genuine 2nd chance, with a sweet payday if he expended just a little effort, and he squandered it in a fit of pique.

He didn't leave MSNBC on a palanquin--he left with a boot in his ass. He had a deserved reputation as being "difficult," and his work, while often inspired, sometimes crosses a line into obsession, and he's not the only shining star on the horizon. In sum, he can be replaced--and he was.

Turns out they couldn't.

He had an interest in the success of the franchise; he blew it and took everyone with him. When he resorted to the name calling of Gore I just thought he'd completely lost any and all aspects of professionalism. That was cheap and childish.

It's why he's toxic ... in the "news" genre, anyway. He just doesn't work and play well with others.

I think he's where he's best suited to be--in a sports venue, so long as he can get along with his bosses and assuming he doesn't get another case of shingles and leave his followers wondering why he didn't show up for work.

I can see where there would be some aspects of the job that might be fun, and he is a sports fanatic.

His big problem is he fights with his bosses!

Never watch it. As a matter of fact, I watch none of the MSM Sunday political shows anymore.

i dont watch the show :yawn:

So anything to the left of Fox is basically USSR propaganda to them.

about what liberals think, only if they are keeping people on the right happy. I think it's time to take back our 'liberal media' because it's not the bad word that those on the right keep insisting that it is.

have been screaming about a liberal media bias, while all the time almost every single news show of any kind has had a conservative and Republican bias.

I've been known to look puzzled, and say, Oh, dear. I didn't realize Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannity were liberal.

and maybe be more informed from dead-air.

Last edited Sun Jul 13, 2014, 12:50 AM - Edit history (1)

That, in turn, was one of the reasons I killed my television set.

I guess his air of objectivity was too thin for me not to see through it.

It is some sort of Stockholm Syndrome. None of the gas bag shows are even remotely fair to liberals and they never have been as long as I can remember.

He also had the frumpy build and blue collar family background, so he had the IMAGE of being objective.

But, he absolutely would dig deeper on democrats and let up on republicans a bit.

Gregory is the embodiement of the continued degeneration of the media, he can't even try to hide his bias, he has that smarmy presence and you can SEE his gleefulness both in tweaking democrats AND in kissing republican ass.

I also had stopped watching MTP with Russert, it was subversive and had the AIR of legitimacy and it burned my ass during the time of Iraq and all the other shit they pulled under W that the press enabled.

Never have watched it under Gregory, cause he is a certified, 100 percent unabashed sell out.

as if it were a forgone conclusion.

MTP has been crap for over a decade now. This Week and Face the Nation are just as Republicanised as MTP or worse.

He was the first and only good long term (1945-75) host in the long history of MTP.

Spivak was dry, colorless and not even very telegenic, but he'd jump on any guest, without regard for party, status or ideology, trying to get away with saying nothing in 25 words or more. There were not very many softball questions, either. That was back when one could watch television news and turn off the set feeling informed instead of propagated.

I know, I'm dating myself.

Here he is (with others) interviewing MLK:

His Meet The Press used to present itself as "an unrehearsed press conference". I used to watch it with my grandfather.

they even, in the early years, had (gasp)* a woman!

*


http://www.nbcnews.com/video/meet-the-press/33312057#33312057

I do remember a lot of talk about the Vietnam War, including an appearance by one of the leading "doves", Senator Fulbright of Arkansas. Ohhh, my grandfather did not like Senator Fulbright.

anxiously waiting for them, hoping THIS would be the moment when the republican bullshit was exposed and people FINALLY got it.

But, after repeatedly seeing the spin enabling their bullshit, yeah, I gave up on them, too.

Sadly, it now has progressed to an acceptance that it isn't going to change.

"Meet the Press" has mccain/kristol disease. As in - OVERDOSES of john mccain and bill kristol and other CONs - ad nauseam. Needs a Neocon-ectomy, STAT!!!!

Thanks for the thread, babylonsister.

besides being an unabashed right wing sell out butt kisser, which actually advances your career in this day and age.

The guy is a MAJOR intellectual lightweight.

You want to give the show ANY shot at legitimacy in plugging into a pro-con, at least have the host be someone people think has more than a single A battery charging his grey matter.

this jumped out: "Shows that are dominated by conservative and Republican guests are reflective of a majority of the country."

So, I guess conservative shows are fine, 'cause so is the country, but teapartiers are not fine. Or Something. The problem I see is in the premise: liberal policies are preferred by wide margins, once the labels are removed. We are a center-left country, not center-right. Would that the media was aware (I don't expect our masters to accept that, until they are beaten about the head and shoulders with it).

with the rest of the graph otherwise.

I had pretty much thrown the towel in with Russert ...

Never have watched it with Gregory.

Whenever I watched MTP I would start screaming and throw things at the TV. I can barely stomach Face the Nation or the ABC show it's republicans talking points 24/7 if I want to hear the republican view I can turn on Fox. Since Bush was President these Sunday shows are crap. And what really pisses me off is that go easy on the rethugs and only the Democrats are asked hard questions with follow up because the rethug are incapable of talking beyond their talking points.

Who watches that vomit-fest? Old rightwing white guys only, I"m guessing.

Last edited Sun Jul 13, 2014, 01:04 AM - Edit history (1)

He has maintained his gentlemanly demeanor -- that is, he is polite, doesn't talk (or shout) over other people, doesn't let his guests do so either, and he is always knowledgeable and well-prepared. I always come away having learned something, and I value that in a news broadcast.

When Rachel Maddow first got her show on MSNBC she was more like that. She's still good with her research and guests but spends too much time repeating herself during the hour she's given. I want to ask her sometimes if she thinks we didn't get the point the first 6 times she said it.

Having floated that criticism, however, I think she'd be a worthy host for Meet The Press. She's capable of great things, actually, and I expect would bring a balanced spectrum of guests on, to talk about issues in some depth, and no one would be allowed to step all over anyone else's lines.

Gawd created LOL Cats. Thanks SCE!


Love, Peace and Shelter. Lmsp

watching when they had John Macshame on every week

61% of white people voted for romney they control most of the wealth and influence and the corporate media is interested in their views. They are no longer the voting majority 'but minorities who now decide the election have little wealth or power. Single women do hence the view and ellen are put on the corporate media. this is "real politics." You can ask phil donahue about the corporate media in action!

sinking faster and faster as the years go by! Can't wait to see gRegoRy dumped!

and whenever one party has the presidency the other party is off selling books and rage baiting their base. It could also be that Gregory is boring as hell to watch.

Elizabeth Bumiller to be specific, on some panel about media bias, explained the preponderance of republicans on the morning shows on the fact that the president was republican and so naturally they would have on all the administration officials and that would skew the numbers.

they have done repeated studies on it.

The "rational" just changes based on how they need to legitimize it in their THEIR minds.

more a forum to "the other side." There's always a reason not to give the forum more to the Democrats. It's been this way for decades on the Sunday shows.

Not the best formula for attracting and keeping an audience.

replacing Gregory with Joe "Dead Intern in His Office" Scarborough would actually IMPROVE ratings!

they will replace gregory with luke russett. NBC has been training, grooming and nurturing him since his father's death. just watch and wait. I won't of course. Haven't watched a sunday tv for over 20 years.

They love them some son of the godfather ...

Gregory's equal both in terms of dimwittedness and selloutedness, but they hold dear to the legend of Russert.

I quit watching a long time ago.

Someone should pry little Johnny McCain's flabby ass off his permanent seat on "Face the Nation" Book him on Press the Meat, to advocate bombing - well - ANYWHERE. Maybe boost the ratings. Add Senator Foghorn Leghorn Graham, and you have a winner.

Having taught communications and semantics material for years, I always felt that Russert was biased toward Republicans, but a true master at subtlety and appearing objective. It was also true that many more Republicans appeared than did Democrats. When I was a kid, I remember my very liberal mom watching the show when there were plural members of "the press," almost a completely different format.

I suspect even Russert would be having a difficult time navigating the turbulent waters of the radical right.

They are all just far right propaganda releases, just with different faces.

have never once ever heard any one mention anything about any said or done on the Sunday morning political talk shows. Perhaps that's because the vast majority of potential views have much better things to do with their mornings than listen to talking points recited by either party's mouth pieces. Add in the corporate automatons hosting these shows and you've got assurances that nothing of any real importance will be revealed. I know that's how I feel about those uninformative and dull shows.

We stopped doing that when we got rid of our land-line.

Jason Easley strikes again.

Meet the wacky Right Wing!!!!!!!

NBC, their channels are permanently set to Fox.

All these Sunday shows are trying to attract conservative viewers by slanting right but they will never have much luck getting viewers away from Fox. All it does is turn off people on the left and in the center.

toward Republicans.

Russert was just so much sharper than Gregory and also was better at concealing his bias. Russert would brag about asking both sides tough question. Maybe. But when he asked Republicans questions, his entire demeanor was different. Also, there were either no follow up questions or a meatball.

It was more as though he were giving the Republicans and platform to tell their side of the story. Very different when he questioned Democrats.

NBC News is still biased toward Republicans. So is all of NBC.

If they were so concerned about ratings, they would make a half assed attempt to bring them up. A network can't pretend to be middle of the road and skew so blatantly to either the left or the right.

It is the disingenuousness that rankles me. Either they change the name of the show to "Meet the Far Right" and openly accept the dregs of the ratings or they attempt to actually be impartial and allow equal time to both parties. I don't expect a news outlet to skew either left or right, but I do expect them to attempt objectivity in what they broadcast. NBC currently fails in "Meet The Press" because they wear a thin veneer of objectivity that is blatantly right wing. People see through that crap pretty easily.

Here's what they point to - MediaMatters analysis of 2013: http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/01/31/report-ideology-and-partisanship-on-the-2013-br/197861

and they also point to an article based on MediaMatters reporting for 2005 and 2006: http://www.coloradoindependent.com/1585/the-biases-of-sunday-political-talk-shows

In 2005 and 2006:

of human decisions. The decisions made about who to interview and how are being made by people, not by some amorphous force of nature called pro-Republican bias. If David Gregory isn't the one calling the shots then it's his producers. The fact they are even remotely contemplating putting an extremist like Joe Scarborough in to replace him tells you that it's the individuals in charge at NBC who are intentionally bringing about a pro-Republican environment through their decisions.

And in fact I wouldn't mind if EVERY SINGLE GUEST on Meet The Press were Republican and the show was renamed Meet The Republican, if a host like Rachel Maddow was conducting the interviews and asking the tough and inconvenient questions of professional guests like John McCain. I'd watch that show. I think the interviewer and all the softball questions and lack of any factual confrontations or challenges to the answers on the part of host David Gregory is a big part of the problem.

talking points. He is able to have conversations based on FACTS. I know facts are a pesky part of politics.

An intelligent person like Ari is exactly what MTP needs, so if you see Phil, please tell him

There is no such thing as unbiased reporting anymore, it is GOP news all the time...all day long.

With maybe a few tweaks.

They might try a co-host situation, something like crossfire but better. An unrepentant liberal commentator paired with a staunch conservative one. Each one gets to pick a guest and they both interview them.

Then they could have a third guest come on, and be interviewed by a panel of actual journalists--the co-hosts should step back and let the journalists take turns asking questions. Maybe one from print media, one from TV//radio, and one from the "blogosphere/internet."

they've done nothing to correct it.

This is not brain surgery overpaid MTP bosses.

and nothing they could do now would conceivably change my opinion.