Salon: The Right dictates MSNBC's programming decisions

by Glenn Greenwald

Excerpt...

In May White House Chief of Staff Ed Gillespie "sent a scathing letter to NBC News, accusing the news network of 'deceptively' editing an interview with President Bush on the issue of appeasement and Iran." Gillespie warned NBC as follows:

I'm sure you don't want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the "news" as reported on NBC and the "opinion" as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines. I welcome your response to this letter, and hope it is one that reassures your broadcast network's viewers that blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olbermann at MSNBC don't hold editorial sway over the NBC network news division.

Yesterday, Gillespie got exactly the "response" that he demanded from a super-compliant MSBNC. There is no question whatsoever that the Bush administration, the McCain campaign, and the Right generally have recently made it a top priority to force MSNBC to remove Olbermann (and Chris Matthews) from playing a prominent role in its election coverage, and MSNBC has now complied with the Right's demands. Does it need to be explained why it is disturbing in the extreme that the White House and the McCain campaign can so transparently dictate MSNBC's programming choices?

Second, in response to media criticism that the press is insufficiently substantive and adversarial to political power, the claim is frequently made that media outlets are simply driven by the profit motive, and that their programming choices are nothing more than a by-product of ratings. But in MSNBC's case, that is plainly untrue. Back in 2003, they actually canceled their highest-rated program, Phil Donahue's show, for purely ideological reasons -- because, at a time when the establishment "liberal media" were systematically amplifying the Government's pro-war views and excluding anti-war views, that short-lived MSNBC show was one of the only venues in America where one could hear anti-war viewpoints, and NBC's fear of angering the Government and the Right clearly caused them, first, to impose extreme and unusual restrictions on the show's content, and then to cancel it altogether.

And now here is MSNBC publicly removing (and therefore diminishing) the person who is, by far, its most valuable asset: Keith Olbermann. The NYT article noted:

As Mr. Olbermann raised his voice, his ratings rose as well, and he now reaches more than one million viewers a night, a higher television rating than any other show in the troubled 12-year history of the network. As a result, his identity largely defines MSNBC. "They have banked the entirety of the network on Keith Olbermann," one employee said. . . . At an anniversary party for Mr. Olbermann in April, Zucker called "Countdown" "one of the signature brands of the entire company."

The irrefutable fact is that nothing attracts ratings for MSNBC -- and nothing has attracted ratings in the entire history of that channel -- the way that Olbermann does. Yet here is MSNBC removing him from the anchor position, reducing his role in its political coverage, and clearly diminishing his stature (and implicitly criticizing his coverage). That is extraordinary for a media company to publicly embarrass, diminish and tarnish its own principal asset. It is plainly doing so for ideological, not ratings-based, reasons: namely, it fears doing anything to anger the White House, the McCain campaign and the Right in this country.

Third, this episode demonstrates what Eric Alterman documented several years ago: that the greatest and most transparent myth in American politics is that the U.S. has a "liberal media." That is a myth that is maintained, first and foremost, by defining anyone who isn't Rush Limbaugh as a "liberal." Hence, people such as the wife of Bush official Dan Senor (Campbell Brown) is a "liberal," as is Alan Greenspan's wife (Andrea Mitchell), along with establishment-worshipers such as Rush-Limbaugh-admirer Brian Williams, right-wing-talking-points-spouting Charlie Gibson, and anyone who writes for the war-enabling New York Times and Washington Post.

Perhaps nothing demonstrates this absurd dynamic more than the painfully inane perception that Chris Matthews -- for years a prime target of liberal media critics -- is some sort of "liberal." That's the same "liberal" Chris Matthews who, over the years, has said things like this:

I like . Everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs, maybe on the left . . . We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. . . . Why don't the damn Democrats give the president his day? He won today. He did well today. . . . Thank you very much. James Jeffrey, assistant to Condoleezza Rice. We're huge fans -- bring her back with you next time.

Or see the "liberal" Matthews fawning over Fred Thompson's attractive manliness and Rudy Giuliani's powerful authority and the charming masculinity of Republicans versus the "geekier, nerdier" Democrats. That is who is deemed to be a "liberal" in our political culture because the reality, as Atrios frequently puts it, is that the only hard and fast rule is: "Your liberal media: no liberals allowed."

This has been going on for years. As I wrote in response to the uproar generated at places like The New Republic over the fact that MSNBC has now given an actual liberal, Rachel Maddow, her own show and is thereby jeopardizing non-partisan, objective, high-minded journalism:

Over the past seven years, the following people have hosted prime-time cable news shows: Joe Scarborough (MSNBC), Michael Savage (MSNBC), Glenn Beck (CNN), Tucker Carlson (MSNBC), Nancy Grace (CNN), Bill O'Reilly (Fox) and Sean Hannity (Fox). None of that seemed to bother the likes of Zimmerman. None of that was depicted as the downfall of objective journalism or the destruction of civil, elevated, high-minded discourse.

Several of those hosts had and continue to have atrocious ratings (Carlson, Beck, Scarborough), yet were kept for years.

Beyond that, network and cable shows routinely convene panels filled with right-wing views and devoid of anything remotely approaching liberalism, and that creates no controversy. Just this past weekend, I subjected myself while traveling to ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, and the panel discussing Sarah Palin was composed of right-wing ideologue George Will, establishment-spokesperson Cokie Roberts, and reporter Sam Donaldson. That is typical for television panels: right-wing partisans such as Will are "balanced" not by any liberals but by allegedly "neutral journalists" such as Roberts or Donaldson. That's because the Right has created a reality where anyone who isn't explicitly Rush Limbaugh is deemed to be a "liberal" (hence, Donaldson likely qualifies) and no actual liberal ever needs to be included. That's how we have a "liberal media" where the principal rule is that actual liberals are systematically excluded, and it's why the ascent of Olbermann (who is, in fact, far more of a Bush critic than a doctrinaire liberal) has created such turmoil -- because it violates that central rule prohibiting liberals from appearing in the Liberal Media.

Finally, and perhaps most notably of all, Olbermann's role as anchor somehow destroys the journalistic brand of both MSNBC and NBC, while Fox News continues to be deemed a legitimate news outlet by our political and media establishment. Fox does this despite (more accurately: due to) its employing Brit Hume as its main anchor -- someone who is every bit as partisan and ideological as Keith Olbermannn is (at least), who regularly spews the nastiest and most vicious right-wing talking points, yet because he's not a liberal, is deemed to be a legitimate news anchor.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/08/msnbc/

all three news-conglomerates...CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS and of course Fox?

Why can't we organize and tell our reps. and party leaders that we think it's ok if they go to appear on these 'network talking head shows' and good luck with that, but we won't be watching and tell them why we won't be watching as this article clearly shows us; that 'we' are not part of the 'we the people', we're just the slaves in the gallows to beaten and horsewhipped into listening and accepting what the 'news' master wants us to listen to and accept.

Honest to God, if anyone turns these networks on just to listen...you simply feed the beast and the beast gets more powerful. I turned the tee-vee off except for watching some programs on c-span, pbs and Jon Stewart/Colbert. My husband likes sports...other than that...no tee-vee for me. I can watch what I need to watch on YouTube vids posted on-line.

What's the deal folks? Why?

We can all turn off our tvs, but as long as clips of the shows racks up views on You Tube, the networks won't change anything. And honestly, we need to keep watching them, on a certain level, to continue to monitor their content.

"Liberal media" may be the most destructive meme out there.

It's the orwellian speak we on the left recognize...but have no powerful bullhorn to correct.

The Reich cannot afford to 'loose' this election - they are now in panic mode and from her on out - will pull out ALL of the stops.

Watch your back

for sports and other entertainment. We can go there for commentary, if we so choose. But going there for "news" makes as much sense as shopping for shoes at your local barber shop.

:thumbsup:

Love your style of communication! It's Molly Ivins-isk. (I Luv Molly :loveya: )

Molly was truly one-of-a-kind, and very much a high mark worth aspiring to. I hold no illusions of ever reaching her stature, but going in her direction is one heck of a trip!

:kick:

Its the same as with Air America. They were boycotted by all the people with the money.

The first thing we need to do is get rid of the "liberal media bias" bullshite meme.

Secondly, we need to organize and show the networks that there are more people out there who want fair coverage, or even some liberal coverage to answer all of the Right's media dominance. The networks are afraid of being labeled as "liberal", which discredits them, as it says they are biases and untrustworthy. Support KO, Rachel, Jon Stewart, Colbert, Bill Marr. Write to those networks and the companies who sponsor them, and tell them you appreciate the FAIR coverage they give, and you will continue to sponsor them, and anything like them.

Third, literally wage war on right-wing media. Ge educated and call them on their lies and hypocrisy. Write letters to every company that you hear an advertisement from on their shows/networks. Tell them you will NOT buy anything from a company that supports lies and misinformation and bias. We need to take it down. Write your Congressman in support of the Fairness Doctrine. Get on YouTube and post every misinformation and hypocrisy you can. Remember to speak "in soundbytes". Its easiest for the public to digest. Go to right-wing web sites and invade their comment sections with truth. You are a soldier, and this is serious. We can win, even if we are at a financial disadvantage. We have the side of justice, public opinion, and the best interest of the nation at heart. We cannot lose with those on our sides. If we all dedicated even 10 minutes a day to this war, it would change the tides.

I am considering changing my major to journalism, or even law, and dedicating my life to taking them down.

General Electric sells oil. Palin is a big-oil buddy. Connect the dots.

Let us all give thanks that we live here, because the new Kinder and Gentler Template for the newfangled Inverted Totalitarianism that has been imposed on Americans means that at least for now, we will likely not suffer the fears and agonies of the physical component of danger that has accompanied every Bush-like totalitarian national takeover EXCEPT this one and Putin's.

So, we have the creepy "luxury" of knowing how Hitler's opposition felt in some small way while being completely devoid of the terror that comes with living in a Classical Totalitarian State, which is basically ALL totalitarian states prior to BushPutinist America, Russia and China (which is still pretty Classical relative to the other two Sister Nations).

In some ways, it feels to me like standing in the eye of a hurricane if it was unmoving. All around, the fabric of liberty, democracy, and simple human decency is being torn asunder by 165+ MPH winds.

Yet in the midst of the horror all around, I and all of us really, except for those few like those at the RNC, in Miami and other places where the future is peeking through, stand unscathed and unharmed, with no real danger of harm for now.

As I said...eerily calm and creepy, considering the Old American Republic has mostly crumbled around us.