By 10:40 last night, the guys over at Fox News Channel knew that Obama had tied up California, and effectively won the election. Ohio was not just for show, but close enough. And if FNC, hosted by Karl Rove, among others, was willing to concede a McCain defeat, you know that CNN and MSNBC and all the others were sitting on the news as well.
So why were we all treated to Anderson Cooper talking to a hologram of will.i.am while the next president was waiting in the wings? Wasn't it the point to be the first network that could call this race?
JOSSIP IN-DEPTH — Election Day is almost over! Let's all vote multiple times and then drink a shot for every state that Obama wins, or something.
But on the darkest night before the dawn, what will become of the old media guards come November 5th? More likely than not, there will be a spike in conservative programming and a drop in liberal ones, because people always like to whine against whoever is in charge.
But the problem is not merely a political one: with the print industry dying out like white tigers before we had an endangered species list, and not even blogs safe from eminent demise, there needs to be a radical overhaul in how news can be presented, for the cheap.
So: Not like the question hasn't been asked a trillion times already, but let's take a comprehensive (read: radio!) look again at what tomorrow might bring for your favorite news makers.
CONTINUED »
The biggest controversy on MSNBC this election wasn't whether or not Sarah Palin deserved her clothing allowance, or how good of friends Barack Obama was with Bill Ayers, or even whether or not a "chirpy" lesbian anchor would succeed during prime time. No, the huge debate on Phil Griffin's network was whether Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews' gigantic hissy fits and in-station catfighting was going to prevent either anchor from hosting duties during the historic election.
And so far, it seems like they have. David Gregory and Brian took over most of the duties of straight news coverage, while Keith and Chris were delegated back to their originally scheduled programming of being treated like the pundits they were, instead of the objective news anchors they ostensibly were pretending to be.
But now it is the eve of the great and historic election and suddenly all bets are off. Welcome to MSNBC's All-Nighter "hosted" by Keith and Chris (and "anchored" by David Gregory) ! It's their world folks, we just roll our eyes at it.
Here is MSNBC's Keith Olbermann's Special Comment to Sarah Palin on Oct. 21st, when news of her shopping spree came to light and the liberals jumped on that shit quicker than a picture of Bill Ayers french-kissing John McCain.
"Here's your running mate Senator. This is the hockey mom, connected to the small towns where the real Americans are, struggling and scrimping on a clothing budget that's just $18,000 a week"
And while it's fine and dandy to make fun of Palin's X-treme makeover, this is the same Keith Olbermann that denounced Sean Hannity when the Fox News anchor chided John Edwards on his $400 haircut in 2007.
CONTINUED »
Oh, happy days, we've finally come as nation to a point where we can recognize women as strong, independent political figures, not only in the spectrum of legislation or the presidential race (but whoa, Sarah and Hillary!), but as the heavy-hitting inquirers of those politicians as well.
Just look! Salon named Katie Couric, Rachel Maddow, and Campbell Brown as three of the central figures in "The Year of the Woman," as they call it. And that's great news!
Sort of.
CONTINUED »
Brian Williams of the NBC Nightly News was the last reporter in line to get their interview with Sarah Palin. And the network also got the brunt of the backlash while reporting on the RNC, when Republicans surrounded the cameras and chanted "NBC! NBC!" as some sort of war chant. Although, hell, those sound like fans, not detractors, but who knows.
So why is the McCain camp, and conservatives in general, about as anti-NBC as they are anti-NYT? Well, if you haven't noticed, NBC is just two letters away from MSNBC, that evil biased station with the angry man (not Bill O'Reilly) and the lesbian (not Brian Kilmeade). But NBC does not "control" MSNBC, per se, and their association is only through parent company General Electric's NBC Universal. They are more like estranged siblings (that sometimes share producers and anchors via the NBC News unit) than anything else. Or, you know, so they would have you believe!
But actually, the defense from 30 Rock brass — that the opinions of MSNBC don't impact NBC News proper — might have traction! CONTINUED »
Back in July, just as he was named president of MSNBC, Phil Griffin said Rachel Maddow was "at the top" of a "very short list" of candidates who would get their own show on the network. And then a few weeks later came the announcement: Rachel would get her own show. Since her debut, the bet has paid off. Ratings for The Rachel Maddow Show are through the roof, beating even her Countdown lead-in and competitor Larry King Live in the adult demo. Griffin's reaction? "I’m pinching myself."
Indeed, Griffin is quite pleased with the performance of Maddow's show. Its success has been on his watch, and he gets to claim credit for the increase in ad dollars that should be pouring in. But it wasn't always this way.
In fact, according to an informant on the ground, back when Maddow started popping up as an analyst on MSNBC, he tried to get rid of her. CONTINUED »
"A lot of people like to make fun of cable. They think it’s something for people who don’t get news. No. It’s for people who really understand news, want depth and want it from people they connect to." —MSNBC president Phil Griffin, who's watched his network's ratings soar. Ah yes, this is the stuff of "depth" in the news business.
Hope you've cleared your schedules for an Obamarafic night: At 8:00 p.m. Barack will be giving a 30-minute infomercial/speech/nobody knows on CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and Fox. He will also be the guest on The Daily Show tonight, which runs later but should give Jon Stewart's team enough time to scramble together a couple questions regarding this momentous power play.
But what stations were left out of the love-in?
CONTINUED »
Say what you will about Keith Olbermann, but MSNBC will wholeheartedly defend the guy, if only because he's been printing ratings for the network, and provides the lead-in for new star Rachel Maddow. The liberal left loves the guy; they've got him on Hero Watch. And the conservative right can't stand him; they fear he wants to murder their first born. And then there's folks in the "center," like Campbell Brown, who thinks his whole shtick rings of ideology. Fine. But what's the real measure of a man? Like picking your president, it comes down to who you'd want to share a beer, or a nice glass of cab sav, with. CONTINUED »
Sure, television networks know that come November 4th they'll be out of cash and out of ideas, but until then at least one station plans on having a grand old end-of-the-world time:
On election night, ABC News will transform Times Square into an outdoor global viewing event, with thousands of people watching ABC News coverage of real time election results on three iconic screens — ABC's Super Sign, the enormous digital facade of NASDAQ and the 23-story high Reuters sign.
Cramazing! But couldn't ABC gone in on it with MSNBC, and Fox News, so from left to right screens you get, "Obama is winning" to "Obama is ahead" to "Ohio and Florida still too close to call."
Even the most hardcore Democrats are not going to deny that MSNBC's Keith Olbermann is on their side. The man doesn't even pretend to be non-partisan, which of course has him run afoul of producers of late, who took both Keith and Chris Matthews off of election coverage in favor of David Gregory who is more able to at least pretend to be objective.
But for all his bluster and sarcastic rhetoric, is Keith Olbermann really the left's answer to Fox New's Bill O'Reilly, perhaps the most famous GOP villain since Karl Rove?
The two hosts share an antipathy and, frankly, obsession with each other. O'Reilly never mentions Olbermann's name, but attacks NBC relentlessly. "It's the usual for NBC News," he said about Andrea Mitchell's reporting on the clothing story, "trying to diminish the McCain-Palin ticket in any way they can."
Olbermann bragged about how he and Maddow topped O'Reilly the night before among viewers aged 25-to-54 (NBC essentially ignores older viewers, considering them unattractive to advertisers; O'Reilly dominates that audience)."Happy new contract, Bill," he said, with the song "Celebration" in the background. "We hope you'll enjoy every minute of those four years in third place."
So with all the blistering back-and-forth, is there a way to tell which of the show's your watching if you're not listening for the politics?
Sure there is:
CONTINUED »
We're generally not too impressed with any cable news network's high-definition offering. Do we really need to see Wolf Blitzer or Brian Kilmeade with extra clarity? Being able to lust after a higher-resolution Anderson Cooper (or John King) is one thing, but so far the only tangible advantage anybody has shown is CNN when, during the presidential debates, they used the extra space HD broadcasts provide for those obnoxious pundit pie charts. Then again, only CNN (last September) and Fox News (this May) have made their broadcasts available on a HD channel; MSNBC remains out of the loop — and will remain that way until at least the the second quarter of 2009, missing the election season. So for now, you'll have to rely on our assessment: Yes, 35-year-old Rachel Maddow is as "fresh faced" in HD as she is in standard-def.
Ex-chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, made comments today alluding to his total lack of foresight when it came to current economic implosion. Addressing a Congressional panel today of the House Oversight Committee, Greenspan warned that things might get worse before they get better re: foreclosure and the roller-coaster Dow.
Well thanks, Alan. Could you have managed to use that incredible vision when you actually could have helped? Like raising interest rates or something?
CONTINUED »
Chuck Todd was in the room when the Mcainiac and Palindrone did their one-two step interview with Brian Williams last night. And not to mince words, the NBC News Political Director was a little underwhelmed: "I couldn't see chemistry between John McCain and Sarah Palin. I felt as if we grabbed two people and said 'here, sit next to each other, we are going to conduct an interview.' They are not comfortable with each other yet."
No chemistry between old man and frigid beauty queen? You don't say:
CONTINUED »
We've already mentioned how weird it is that a station like Fox News would object to having their broadcasters appear for a half of second in one of John McCain's political ads, or MSNBC for Obama's. So far, Fox, CBS, and NBC have all petitioned YouTube to remove videos that feature any of their on-air talent, even if the broadcasters themselves are openly for one of the candidates. These stations petition YouTube to take down any video ads that feature Katie Couric, Major Garrett, or Keith Olbermann, and YouTube so far has been prompt about the removal.
Okay, sure, that makes sense because technically it's the networks that own the talent's image, and they can't risk ratings damage by coming out in favor of a certain candidate, even if it is obvious to everyone in the world which way MSNBC and Fox staffers are likely to vote. Fine.
But now John McCain has the support of a digital advocacy group called the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which agrees that super-short segments of news footage falls under the fair use doctrine. A grateful but befuddled McCain replies, "A what advocacy group?"
CONTINUED »
On Sept. 24, the Times' Alessandra Stanley described MSNBC's newest host Rachel Maddow as "A Fresh Female Face Amid Cable Schoolboys." Today, Brian Stelter carries the torch with, "Fresh Face on Cable, Sharp Rise in Ratings." Didn't you know? Rachel Maddow's face is fresh! What does that even mean exactly? For starters, she is 35, which isn't youthful to college students, but next to cable news pundits, she's a child with candy. You can barely see any signs of aging! The L'oreal spokeswoman in waiting, however, is also "fresh" because of the way she carries herself, and her show. Less shouting, more communicating. Less rage and contempt, more well-formed opinions and eloquence. Which are all good reasons behind her ratings bonanza, yes? CONTINUED »
On Morning Joe right now, the hosts quiz early riser, Celebrity Apprentice host, and brown bagger Ivanka Trump on the thesis that reality TV is booooring these days. You know, the thesis that the Times put forth on Sunday. See: Sometimes somebody other than The Drudge Report dictates the news cycle.
In the case of firebrand leftist Keith Olbermann versus the inhumanly rich and powerful conservative Rupert Murdoch, the combatants have a history that extends well beyond Olbermann's almost nightly attacks on Murdoch from his pulpit on MSNBC. A history that belies Olbermann's constant criticism of the man behind the ugly, ugly Fox News channel and one that deserves to be addressed.
CONTINUED »
Looks like the McCain campaign isn't the only organization that has to worry about their cozy relationship with Fannie and Freddie: MSNBC's David Gregory, who's been asked to step up on Meet the Press since Keith and Chris were reduced to pundits by Tom Brokaw, is married to Beth Wilkinson, who was the executive vice president, general counsel, and corporate secretary to Fannie Mae until last month.
Definitely some conflict of interest there, especially when the station will have to start reporting on the federal investigation into Fannie and Freddie, whose loans are the reason our economy started failing in the first place. Will Gregory put work first and forsake his wife, or will he end up as a mortgage meltdown apologist? Or will he just join colleague Andrea Mitchell, wife of former Fed chief Alan Greenspan, in blissful ignorance?
Editorial Director
