SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Dangerous Liaison

POLITICS MAY 27, 2008

Dangerous Liaison

BY ISAAC CHOTINER

Two weeks ago, on the night of Barack Obama’s big win and narrow loss in the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, respectively, I turned my television set to MSNBC, as I normally do on election nights. It was early in the evening, and Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann were discussing the first exit polls that were trickling in. Considering that the exit polls in these contests have been--to say the least--a bit unreliable, I assumed that they weren’t going to put much stock in the numbers. Just two weeks earlier, I had watched MSNBC’s coverage of the Pennsylvania primary, where an excited Matthews practically gave the state to Obama, only to acknowledge later that Clinton had easily won. Surely, Matthews and company were not going to make the same mistake again.



They didn’t--but only because the exit polls, predicting a good night for Obama, happened to be right; the coverage itself was exactly the same. And this was only the latest example of the network’s undeniable Obama favoritism. David Shuster’s comment about the Clintons’ “pimping out” their daughter, Chelsea, was clearly boneheaded, but, as Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson pointed out, it caused such a stir among Clintonites because it highlighted the rest of the network’s anti-Hillary coverage. Now, that’s not to say that their slant has been bad for business; to the contrary. And it has certainly made for some enjoyable television--Matthews is often supremely engaging (who, after all, does not enjoy watching someone exclaim that seeing Obama speak gives him a “thrill going up my leg”), and however withering he can be, Olbermann is frequently hilarious. But the network’s coverage has helped create a bubble around Obama supporters that in the end is neither healthy nor desirable.



In fact, MSNBC’s bias has actually hurt the Illinois senator. After all, it was the Obama cheerleading from MSNBC (among others) that helped lead to Clinton’s New Hampshire comeback. And even if you think (as I do) that the Clintons have made too big of a deal out of the “sexist” and “unfair” portrayal their candidate has received in the press, if you watch enough MSNBC, you realize that their claim isn’t without truth. How could you believe otherwise when Olbermann, with his trademark hauteur, told Hillary that “voluntarily or inadvertently, you are still awash in this filth [of the campaign],” or when Matthews took such self-evident glee in trouncing Clinton in between the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary? Similarly now, by mocking Clinton’s decision to stay in the race, Olbermann has only bolstered her argument that “the boys” are trying to push her out. And finally, on a number of primary nights, but most notably in Pennsylvania and Ohio/Texas, MSNBC has become so excited by early exit polls that it has raised expectations that Obama ultimately could not live up to.



Now, the question of whether the network’s coverage is healthy for Obama supporters is a little more subjective. If you are someone who gets his international and “hard” news elsewhere, MSNBC is particularly appealing. I increasingly started watching the channel last year because of its political focus, and for the novelty of seeing outspoken liberals on television. How often does one hear a news anchor rant against the corruption of Bush’s Washington, after all? As the campaign progressed, however, it became clear that neither Matthews nor Olbermann could stand Hillary Clinton. This, I must admit, I found appealing, too--especially because I agreed with the hosts that some of the Clinton campaign’s tactics have been either ridiculous or dirty or both.



Still, a downside quickly surfaced. Shuster’s “pimping” remark and Matthews’s crude (even if somewhat accurate) comment about the Monica Lewinsky scandal being a boon for Hillary’s political career were notable precisely because they had nothing to do with policy or ideology. It wasn’t as if Shuster and Matthews and Olbermann were siding with Obama on the issue of individual mandates. Rather, by giving “the personal” precedence over “the political,” the network was using Hillary Hatred to fuel its coverage in a similar fashion to how Fox News uses Democrat Hatred to excite its viewers. But there is a distinction here that makes MSNBC’s agenda almost more disquieting than Fox’s. With Fox, I have to believe that most people know they’re watching something that approximates GOP talking points (seeing an analyst like Paul Begala spin for Hillary on CNN doesn’t really stick, either; everyone knows he’s an apparatchik). With MSNBC, however, the bias is much harder to pin down. Does it stem from a personal vendetta? Sexism? Corporate diktat? Who knows? If an Obama presidency were to bomb in a way similar to George W. Bush’s (unlikely, sure, but I’m speaking hypothetically here), it’s difficult to imagine that MSNBC would treat Obama as reverentially as Fox still does Bush. (In fact, I could see an issue like press access leading to a break between the channel and President Obama even if he thrives in office.) Conservatives have ably chipped away at the press’s credibility these past few years, with disturbing results; now--consciously or not--with their aggressive, intra-Democrat side-taking, MSNBC is doing the same thing.



Dangerously, too, MSNBC's coverage can lead to a perverse sort of cognitive dissonance in viewers like, well, me. Throughout the primary process, I often found myself much more bullish on the Illinois Senator's chances after watching MSNBC than I had any reason to be. After Obama's Iowa victory, for instance, I remember hearing Matthews' description of a giant "wave" of Obamamania sweeping across the nation; surely, the race was over. Likewise, during the month of February, when Obama won eleven straight primaries, I recall watching the network and occasionally convincing myself that Clinton was certain to drop out before Texas and Ohio because her chances had become so diminished. The problem here is that when supposedly "straight" news anchors phrase questions in leading ways, and report one campaign's spin as if it were fact, it distorts what is actually going on in the campaign--even for those of us who make a living obsessing over and writing about politics. And when anchormen themselves shill for Obama, the distinction between his talking points and the truth grows even blurrier still. So, as much as I find MSNBC entertaining, their creation of a parallel, pro-Obama universe is the type of thing I'd expect of Fox. That's when I know it's time to change the channel.



Isaac Chotiner is a frequent contributor to The New Republic.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 461 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

461 comments

You've hit the nail on the head. I am a strong progressive, but I've find the tenor of the MSNBC coverage over the last few months, combined with the way most progressive blogs have repeated whatever is said on the network as gospel, as a major problem. It's like we've got our own FOX news. Olbermann in particular is really starting to become his own worst enemy. A liberal O'Reilly. It's probably good for their ratings, but it's starting to turn in to an echo chamber over there.

- Eugene C.

May 27, 2008 at 12:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I've watched a lot of MSNBC over the past few months and I haven't noticed the sexism that has been the subject lately as Hillary's campaign goes down the tubes. Apparently, Chris Matthews has said some things that support this charge, but Hillary has made some statements about working / white Americans and assassinations that put her in a bad light too. If Matthews is sexist, perhaps it is fair to charge Hillary with racism? Back in January, I supported Edwards. My preferences behind him were, in order, Biden, Clinton, Obama. Now I am supporting Obama - so I guess I am a sexist. Give us a break Isaac. Hillary has run a terrible campaign and has only picked up steam at the end by going heavily negative against the man who clearly is going to be the party's nominee. She has moved to the right and has become the darling of the uneducated and slightly racist voting segment. Now we are treated to dishonest presentations of the popular vote that ignore caucus states and include states the candidates agreed not to campaign in. Why would anyone want to see this continue? What exactly should the guys at MSNBC say about this? I think Russert and Matthews can both be obnoxious sometimes. Olberman is often over-the-top. But Hillary has earned every bit of scorn she has received. Blaming media sexism is ridiculous. Neil

- Neil

May 27, 2008 at 2:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you, thank you. I could not have said it better. I watched MSNBC religiously for the past few years because I found commentary that was more in keeping with the facts, as they developed, rather than facts created by Fox News to make W look good. I loved when Keith Olbermann called Bush to task for his decisions and statements. But what a surprise I was in for when Chris and Olbermann took sides in the democratic campaign and, short of personally endorsing Obama, have done everything in their power to pull Obama up and push Hillary down. I recall one morning on the Joe Scarborough show, when Mica finally asked Chris if he was endorsing Obama, because he could not stop singing his praises. On the other hand, they can't say anything nice about Hillary. Even when they are forced to report news that is positive for her campaign, they are quick to follow it with a negative statement about her, her family, monica or her followers. It's almost predictable. I've heard them critize her eyes, her cleavage, her pant suits, what she did not say, her age, even PMS (she's too old)etc. While they constantly critize Bill Clinton, they never report on Michelle Obama. You are correct, I also had to change the channel a long time ago. CNN's Jack Cafferty is no better. Even Tim Russett was so rude to Hillary during a debate that my husband called me and said "I hate Tim Russett" and hung up. What else can you expect. In a world created by men for men, Hillary threatens their universe.

- Mary

May 27, 2008 at 3:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

lol, ok, well you still are going to lose in the quest to deny Obama, who ever they may be.....

- Mancha de Platano

May 27, 2008 at 4:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So, the guy was happy for Obama so what......

- Mancha de Platano

May 27, 2008 at 4:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I certainly agree with you. I have been in the US for just 7 months from Japan and was very excited to be in the land of fair and balanced media reporting, but having watched MSNBC, I was so appalled and dismayed that such unbalanced and sexist comments actually exist in the US media. Although I'm a liberal democrat and know that FOX is pro Bush, I still enjoy FOX's much more fair reporting of the democratic primary. MSNBC reporters should go back to school and relearn the fundamental of journalism. Shame on you! CM, KM and TR.

- Toku

May 27, 2008 at 5:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Major difference between Fox News and MSNBC is that Fox isn't using Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly as hosts of their debates. They keep the opinion talent away from "hard" news events.

- Howard

May 27, 2008 at 6:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chotiner, I believe you should perpetuate your political education by watching Matthews and Olbermann exclusively...y-y-yep!

- John Barbaro

May 27, 2008 at 6:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have never seen Keith Olbermann challanged by a conservative. Olbermann doesn't allow them to appear on his tv show. Fox always has several strong liberals on every show. Methinks Olbermann is unable to debate the issues with someone who disagrees with him.

- JPM

May 27, 2008 at 7:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You have to laugh at this effort. The writer is clearly confused, flummoxed even. It has finally dawned on him that MSNBC is a lot like Fox. Imagine that! Earth to Isaac Chotiner, MSNBC has become something of a mirror image of Fox because, drum roll please, that's exactly what they are consciously trying to do. Why is this so hard for liberals to grasp? For years Fox was storming upward in cable news/commentary ratings and creating a ruckus. At the same time literally no one watched MSNBC. The answer? Well brazen imitation of course! MSNBC has different biases than Fox but the same format. And the ratings for MSNBC have increased dramatically, so it worked. Imitation truly is the sincerest form of flattery. The most hilarious part of the essay is the following: "The problem here is that when supposedly "straight" news anchors phrase questions in leading ways, and report one campaign's spin as if it were fact, it distorts what is actually going on in the campaign.." You have to love this naiveté. Marvelous. This “deep” insight unwittingly stumbles on the reality that this is exactly why Fox was founded. Conservatives for many, many years had just this observation about the so called "mainstream" (liberal) media. The writer here needs to think a little harder and gain a tad more experience and perspective. But at least he’s trying.

- Erick

May 27, 2008 at 7:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obviously you did not have your TV turned on for the weeks when MSNBC, like every other media outlet, was discussing Rev Wright 24/7. Not to mention "Bitter-Gate." Not to mention commentators like Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, and Pat Buchanan loudly praising Clinton for being "tough" and screaming that Obama could not win white working-class voters.

- Cass

May 27, 2008 at 8:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The problem with much of MSNBV is that they portray the news as straight anchors instead of opinion because MSNBC is opinion news not hard news. They are trying to have it both ways and that is bleeding into their hard news on NBC and dragging them both down. As much as you want to bash FOX at least you know with them which is hard news and which is opinion news. When you have someone like Olberwoman doing their election and debate coverage that says it all. That would be like O'Rielly doing the coverage on FOX.

- kabookey

May 27, 2008 at 8:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What a dumb, backhanded column. Let's see: naughty, naughty MSNBC. I might agree with what they're saying, but tsk, tsk on them for sayiing it. This is like a non-denial denial. Chotiner is taking MSNBC to task because its bias is so obvious that it's embarassing not to,NOT because he sees anything wrong with it. Mr. Chotiner, the difference between MSNBC and Fox is that Fox would never let Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity moderate a debate among Democrats. Keith Obermann is the perfect incarnation of Howard Beal, the insane anchorman in the movie Network.

- Robert

May 27, 2008 at 8:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chris Matthews on MSNBC has gotten so biased I've quit watching them. All the media are slanted but Chris has fallen in love with what he says and has lost his objectivity.

- Broomcorn Picker

May 27, 2008 at 8:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Change the channel to what? Another 'mainstream media' channel doing the same thing as MSNBC on a more subtle bias, er, basis?

- Bryan

May 27, 2008 at 8:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Belated as it is, I'm glad to read a journalist who is finally balking at the collapsed boundary between news-reporting and personal bias. MSNBC is a fine example. Perhaps if there were more repulsion expressed earlier, one would not have had to watch the demise of the one-time responsible news journalist, Tim Russert.

- Jane

May 27, 2008 at 8:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MSNBC has the nerve to call out Fox News for being biased....it's pretty arrogant of them. My husband and I had to quit watching MSNBC, and you are right, it will hurt Obama. I think Mika whatever her last name is, is totally in love with Obama, it's sickening

- Terence

May 27, 2008 at 8:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am one of those who supports Obama and was unhappy with MSNBC comentators for how they poured it on about Hillary's strength and Barack's weakness in Pennsylvania. Chotiner does not impress me with his stance in leading off his article. Chotiner needs to explain why the pro Mc Cain biases of The New Republic, and FOX News for that matter, do not damage the Republicans.

- Raditz

May 27, 2008 at 9:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

While I agree that no network should shill for a cantidate, even one I support like Obama, I find it funny that you call out MSNBC for doing it when all of them do it, Fox for Bush and McCain, CNN is very clinton supporting, I mean if you want unbiased TV news you might as well try Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

- axt113

May 27, 2008 at 9:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bravo! At least one commentator had finally the courage to say what MSNBC has been up to in this primary season. All of us have biases and some of the commentators earn their living by flaunting their biases, but what Chris Mathews and his gang has been doing is totally unprofessional. They have distorted facts to favor Obama. While pretending to give us news they have given us propaganda. In 2004 someone invented a device called FOX blocker. We badly need a MSNBC blocker. This news channel needs to be shut down.

- iThinker

May 27, 2008 at 9:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No one but you watches MNBC. This is the bastard stepchild of NBC where it puts its rejects. When Oberman talks people sniff for flatus.

- David

May 27, 2008 at 9:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am appalled and downright frightened to think that Obama's campaign, from start to finish, has been fueled and downright pushed upon us by MSMBC, as well as other pro-Obama networks. Not only is it downright wrong because it is so pathetically unbalanced and childish, it condones people speaking out in reactive, unthoughtful and immature ways. What great role models for our children! As well, the blatent mysogeny now is clear and it makes most of us woman, whether black, red, white or gray, uncomfortable. In terms of Obama's character and message, most of what I see now is that he is weak, much like Bush, in that he is not standing up and rising above the muck. He is part of it. Hillary seems to be the one rising above now. Please let the people speak.

- Rebecca

May 27, 2008 at 9:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I couldn't disagree with you more. I have tivo and if you watched before the PA primary Chris was all over Obama about bowling, bitter-gate, he's not one of us. Were you watching then? Keith if you recall favored Clinton above anyone else. Bill Maher lost his job over the Clinton's and Keith too. Have you ever thought they are just democrats upset because they are also intelligent and regardless of what is bein said anyone with common sense knows the Clintons are up to no good. CNN is biased towards Clinton and what about all the republican strategist defending her like she is one of them. Do you watch Morning Joe? To come down on KO and Chris because they dare to call the Clinton's out on the obvious not to mention it is not opinion it is fact and as for the polls being wrong NOT she is a thief and a liar. Since I was a child my grandmother and mother use to tell me "If you lie, you'll steal, if you steal, you'll kill" The Clintons have a horrible reputation and they have been given the free press and a free pass. Everything they say and do wrong is excused away while Obama is held to the highest standards that no one else meets. I for one feels MSM needs a wake up call because their true colors are starting to show for MSNBC to have Pat Buchanan and Joe (right wing conservatives and racist)means unlike everyone else in the game they try to be fair and balanced. What about Tucker Carlson and Andrea Mitchell. Your article proves my point it is not objective but subjective and is not true journalism but a biased opinion passed off as such.

- K. Brown

May 27, 2008 at 9:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No one but you watches MNBC. This is the bastard stepchild of NBC where it puts its rejects. When Oberman talks people sniff for flatus.

- David

May 27, 2008 at 9:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chotiner is absolutely right. It's a truly disgusting display of propaganda masquerading as journalism -- MSNBC ought to be forced to register with the FEC for its contributions to the Obama campaign.

- John

May 27, 2008 at 9:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No. MSNBO's bias has helped Obama, I assume. Their audience is huge, and American viewers are easily manipulated.

- Andrew

May 27, 2008 at 9:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Look, I am a Republican. I watch MSNBC for the coverage. If Clinton were ahead of Obama, Clintonwould be SCREAMING for Obama to quit...in fact, she would be demanding it and all coverage would be on her. Fair is fair. The man (Obama) has earned the spotlight and the coverage as the FRONT RUNNER candidate. I (along with my wife and our coffee cluth of republican voters) have switched over and will be voting for Obama...WHY? Because McCain is a grumpy old man whohas been part and parcel of the same old boy politics in Washington DC forever. It is time for a change.

- Jim Feher

May 27, 2008 at 9:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The ONLY Pro Obama newshow on televison be it ABC NBC CBS, MSNBC, CNN is Countdown. I DARE anyone to prove differently to me. Hardball and Chris Matthews Pro Obama what a joke that is. One week he seems to be then the next he is attacking when Obama has done NOTHING to change his stance. CNN forget it thats Clinton News Network. I notice they've taken to Pimping Clinton as VP these days as if they have nothing better to do. Just compare Obama's bitter comments with Clintons assasination comment and then tell me that there is a Pro Obama network out there. I wish people would stop taking Hilary's word that there is a Pro Obama bias out there because its a bunch of BS he just doesnt whine and complain when the media start put him through the wringer unlike Hilary and John McCain. Carol

- Carol

May 27, 2008 at 9:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Excellent analysis. I have stopped watching what was my favorite cable news network because of this disgraceful partisanship.

- Don

May 27, 2008 at 9:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I used to be an avid watcher of msnbc. However, since the primary season (and thus Obama-bias) began, I no longer watch it. In fact, I deleted it from my channel line-up. The msnbc website, which advocates for palestinian terrorism (e.g., its front-page story on Israel's 60th birthday) is even worse.

- David

May 27, 2008 at 9:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is a pure gabbage, considering that you didn't see it worthy to whine about Fox News coverage of McCain.

- james

May 27, 2008 at 9:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And Fox's bias towards McCain (Against Obama) is acceptable? As the saying goes, we don't see the world as it is, we see the world as we are... Want to follow Hillary, turn your TV to CNN (Clinton News Network)

- Gone Fishing

May 27, 2008 at 9:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

BRAVO! Finally a "REAL" reporter expressing a real in depth analysis- like you read my mind. There are so many of us who have the same clear analysis of MSNBC. You are my hero! Why are others afraid to speak up???? Do you think Mathews or Oberman EVER watch their own shows afterwards??? Truly these men have reached a low point in their careers. I support Hillary. However in time Obama would have been ready and then after the 4 or 8 yrs I would have cheered him on. Sadly he looses even if he makes it to the presidency. Just like my prediction on Bush...the lack of international savy will place us in jeporady. Best scenario he will follow good advisers and will be a puppet like Bush (but to some good)...Then who would we really electing? This will be his legacy - weak and manipulated by old school party leaders. The worse scenario... Obama has bad advisors political and spiritual...and obvious disaster for America and his career. Again he looses politically and in history. Obama isn't ready!

- Michele Nicola Grossmiller

May 27, 2008 at 9:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I personally watch MSNBC to get Pat Buchanan's witty and informed commentary on the Democratic Party Primary process.

- iwasacowboy

May 27, 2008 at 9:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree msnbc and nbc chris, keith and tim are distroying network plus they obviously are very pro-obama as entire network, chris is very sexist person, but cnn and fox are doing much better job plus look at ratings of fox almost 200% higher then others in every segment - msnbc and nbc are extremely shady and dirty jurnalisam

- john

May 27, 2008 at 9:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chotiner reports, with glee, his response to watching MSNBC; at least he's honest. And he should indeed change the channel--but to what? The truth is that there is nowhere left to go--on the networks, on cable, in major newspapers or on the Web--for unbiased news reporting. I used to be furious when news reports calmly used a "On-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand" approach. Not any more. Everywhere, all the time, it's spin. So we gravitate to those outlets that tell us what we want to hear. And as our own prejudices and predilections are bounced at us again and again we become more blind and more intolerant and more divided. There is no "free" press any longer; it is all bought and sold (thanks for the honesty about "network diktat.") So much for democracy. This primary campaign will be seen, in future, as the beginning of the end of democracy as we have come to know it.

- Steven Bauer

May 27, 2008 at 9:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

as a reformed msnbc addict, i am in 100% agreement with your position-but the ratings success suggests the audience is simply looking for reinforcement of their own opinion--i've even switched from nbc nightly since i no longer trust its objectivity

- jim

May 27, 2008 at 9:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I've not noticed much pro Obama coverage from Pat Buchanan or Joe Scarborough, but surely you're right about Matthews and Olbermann. Just switch the channels though, to CNN--the Clinton News Network, led by Blitzer and Dobbs-, or to Fox, the all insane McCain network, and you can get what passes for balance in the increasingly irresponsible world of 24/7 cable network political news. Just give me Russert and Gergen once a week.

- dwmulenex

May 27, 2008 at 9:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You know the liberal bias is bad when liberals start to get embarressed by it, welcome to reality. Your other mistake is confusing Matthews and especially Olberman as "anchors".

- mike

May 27, 2008 at 9:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You're kidding right? You think MSNBC is simply a liberal version of FOXNews... That the two are somehow analogous? Oh come now, you're deluding yourself. MSNBC is so far to the left, they have turned into the TV version of Air America. The bias at FOX nowhere near approaches the outright campaigning happening on MSNBC. - Yes, campaigning. I applaud you for having the situational awareness to recognize the bias, but geeze, you're still in denial about the scope.

- Stunned

May 27, 2008 at 9:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I cannot agree more. I am a fervent Obama supporter and do not think Clinton has the integrity to be a good president. However, I watched MSNBC on Friday and the entire show seemed to harp on Clinton's "assassination" reference. The vitriol and slanted presentation was straight out of the Fox News playbook. This was not news, it was an agenda. And while I often like KOlberman he becomes a caricature when he rants. His "Special Comment" segment has devolved from presciently pointing out that which other networks ignore to personal vendettas. Oh well....I guess now liberals have their own Fox.

- MHStrawn

May 27, 2008 at 9:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Honestly, I think the author dost protest too much. Watch the News-Hour for news, turn on one of the cable news channels for opinion. There is not a single 'news' person on the cable shows, they are pundits and columnists sitting behind formidible looking desks and play-acting. I love Olbermann, but I don't treat him as if he actually were the second-coming of his hero, Edward R. Murrow. Matthews I can take or leave, but I never presume him to be anything other than an old party hack. Fun to watch, but about as substantial as a bag of Funions. Also, what is the actual viewership of MSNBC? Can their coverage actually move that many votes? Seems highly unlikely. Fox News has a much stronger relationship with the people who pull the levers for candidates, and their overall viewership numbers support that idea. If I want news, even political news, I will watch a news program. Or better yet, read a newspaper or journal that can devote more than three minutes at a time to analysis.

- kgrant1054

May 27, 2008 at 9:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You watched MSNBC to see the "novelty of outspoken liberals"?????? All you have to do is tune to CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS...or listen to NPR. They are wall to wall liberal.

- Increase Mather

May 27, 2008 at 9:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The article is excellent but it does leave out a few things; After Hillary's victory speech in West Virginia Olbermann said sommething to the efffect of--well that wasn't exactly the Sermon on the Mount. He also suggested that someone should take Hillary into a room and come out alone. Matthews has referred to Hillary as a "she devil". Over on CNN we have good ole' Jack Cafferty who said on The Situation Room on January 4th 2008, "Barack Obama's victory speech last night was unbelievably brilliant..finally we have someone who can help us take our country back." More recently CNN commentator Alex Castellanos opined that it was time to take Hillary "to the vet" ie euthanized. Cafferty also smirked once when he raised the specter of Hillary getting run over by a flatbed truck. Let me tell you NO black man running for president would have had to endure these sorts of violent images referenced to THEM.

- Dean

May 27, 2008 at 9:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good column. I watch the Obama Hour with Keith Olbermann daily, and I have to admit that the anti-Hillary bias is so thick I found myself unable to pull the lever for Obama. I just could not help but react to that kind of bias. If they would take a neutral stance it would help Obama.

- Barry Ickes

May 27, 2008 at 9:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And when Hillary beats Obama again by wide margins in these last 3 (PR, MN & SoD) primaries (She beat him in WVA by 41%, in KY by 35%...,)MSNBC, the NY Times & the rest of the Obama shills in the mainstream press will once again call for her to drop out even after she wins the popular vote.

- Frankie

May 27, 2008 at 9:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No question that MSNBC has become a shill for Obama. I find it highly amusing that liberals feel that MSNBC is the liberal answer to Fox News. Fox leans slightly to the right but allows all veiwpoints to be heard. There are as many liberal voices on Fox as conservative ones. If just one of you liberals would get it right where Fox is concerned I would be amazed. I've watched them for 8 years and I've never seen them "cheer lead" for anyone. If Obama loses the election what will MSNBC do? Their audience will be completely gone. By the way....Fox kills MSNBC in the ratings in every time slot.

- JAY JOHNSON

May 27, 2008 at 9:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I find MSNBC's liberal slant, and Pro-Obama coverage refreshing. The main reason I stopped watching networks news is because I thought conservatism was too entrenched in the coverage, and I'm not just talking FOX News. CNN has also began to slant right, with its hiring of Tony Snow, and even in the way it covers the candidates. According to CNN, every statement released by the Obama Campaign is spin, whereas McCain's statements are pure fact. I also don't think all of MSNBC is pro-Obama, but there are some anchors who are. Just as CNN has Lou Dobbs, who HATES Obama, MSNBC has Olbermann who loves him.

- Anthony

May 27, 2008 at 9:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Amen! I was a huge MSNBC fan and hated FOX News. I literally had MSNBC on all day. But found their bias disturbing, I began feeling like I was being manipulated and I started to not like Obama and his cheerleading croonies, who are manipultaing the election with personal propanganda. For the first time ever, I felt like Fox was being fairer then MSNBC and I turned the channel. Believe it or not (its hard for me to believe it) I switch between CNN and Fox now. The clincher for me was that each time Clinton would win a state it was downplayed sometimes even ignored(by MSNBC) and each time Obama would win, MSNBC would celebrate and declare the race was over!

- Keston

May 27, 2008 at 9:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The fact that you don't see MSNBC as a sick, crippled perversion of journalism is testament to how journalism has lost all professional and ethical standards. You see the ugly abortion that is MSNBC as a pleasure since it agrees with your predjudices. Their twisting of the truth doesn't even seem to bother. No wonder Americans have lost respect for the MSM.

- Chris Monson

May 27, 2008 at 9:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And when Hillary beats Obama again by wide margins in these last 3 (PR, MN & SoD) primaries (She beat him in WVA by 41%, in KY by 35%...,)MSNBC, the NY Times & the rest of the Obama shills in the mainstream press will once again call for her to drop out even after she wins the popular vote. On to the Convention. Hillary in '08

- Frankie

May 27, 2008 at 9:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chris M would french kill OB on TV should he be able to get away with it! As for Keith O, et al, nuts all!

- Mmarquez

May 27, 2008 at 10:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You miss a very important point-- During Keith Olberman's first stint at MSNBC in the 90's - he actually quit/was simultaneously fired by the network because of his refusal to do a nightly broadcast about the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The man lost his job over principle because he felt the Lewinsky scandal was unfairly being portrayed to President Clinton. This prior pro Clinton stance was part of the reason Keith got those exclusive interviews with Bill Clinton last year etc What we are witnessing - and I feel his pain - is Keith's sadness and disappointment at the direction of the Clinton campaign. I see Keith coming from the same place as Rachel Maddow - true progressives who are smart and whether they were pro Hillary or pro Barack, they are pro Democrat. They knew when the nominating contest was over and they resent/angry/upset/surprised that Sen Hillary Clinton took from early March on - to disparaging Sen Obama as if she were the republican candidate and not a member of the same party. People can say Keith is pompous - he can be -- but that doesn't alter one simple fact: He is right

- alison

May 27, 2008 at 10:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good article, except for the pro-Obama part. I quit watching MSNBC around early January, after being addicted when it was more like just obsessive political coverage. Having sworn off MSNBC--the sexism and race-based worship of Obama makes me both gag and see red--I swore off all political coverage on television. I see Obama as a repeat of the media Bush push in 2000, with a good chance of a similar outcome if he is elected, which I fervently pray he will not be (and suspect is the case). Television coverage is not for serious people--not even close. I fear, though, that it has an effect, and we will henceforth zig zag between disastrous fad presidencies.

- MereMortal

May 27, 2008 at 10:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chotiner: Your article was a breath of fresh air. Finally some truth to what has been going on for quite a while. I had switched from MSNBC a while ago as it seemed that from Morning (Mica - Morning Joe)to night Matthews, Olbermann et al, did nothing other than bash Clinton. A few emails went unanswered at the GE level leaving me with the assumption they liked what they had seen. Be that as it may, the bottom line is personal responsibility and whether or not Senator Clinton's supporters will remember the trashing Mathews had given her if and when he decides to run for office in PA. I think they will and deservedly so.

- Mark David

May 27, 2008 at 10:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Somehow I wonder if the writer has been watching the Fox network coverage...everytime I turn to the station there is a person blasting Obama and praising Clinton...go figure. Thank God we each have the right to change the station until we find the one broadcasting the comments we desire to hear.

- Tan

May 27, 2008 at 10:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

obamaganda (n) information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help Sen. Barack Obama and harm his political opponents.

- len09

May 27, 2008 at 10:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And when Hillary beats Obama again by wide margins in these last 3 (PR, MN & SoD) primaries (She beat him in WVA by 41%, in KY by 35%...,)MSNBC, the NY Times & the rest of the Obama shills in the mainstream press will once again call for her to drop out even after she wins the popular vote. On to the Convention. Hillary in '08

- Frankie

May 27, 2008 at 10:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

WE have ALL Changed the Channel - long AGO!! MSNBC is a DISGRACE to News/Media FACT reporting

- Molly

May 27, 2008 at 10:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It sure sounds like a "personal vendetta" whenever OLDBORMAN speaks! I changed Networks when MSNBC canceled Tucker Carlson's show - because he is TOO Fair and Balanced.

- Anne M. Graham

May 27, 2008 at 10:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is no such thing as an objective journalist. ABC continually reports that Clinton leads in the popular vote and she hasn't since March 5 when they started this claim. Olberman and Mathews and all of us do not like the continual lies (FL and MI "don't matter" she said and now she is all about not "disenfranchising" these states) There is the gas tax holiday, and far from rejecting and denouncing the racist support of her campaign, she celebrates it. That Olberman and Mathews cite these "policy decisions" in her campaign and take issue with is not what I would call "bias", unless there is such a thing as being biased in favor of fair play. The comparisson ot fox news is ridiculous here. When president bush is caught red handed lying htey don;t say a word, and I'm sure if Obama was caught doing hte same they would be all over it, the thing is who has been caught in hypocrisy, dishonesty and finally her shameful calculation about a possible assassination is HRC. It's not a matter of preferring Obama, it's a matter of preferring a less slimy brand of politics.

- Daniel Smith

May 27, 2008 at 10:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For someone who "obsesses about politics", Mr. Chotiner seems very confused. O'Reilly & Hannity are not news programs - they are personality shows. Matthews & Olbermann are not news programs - they are personality shows. The fact that these personality shows focus on politics, and often feature reporters (especially on MSNBC), doesn't make them anything more than entertainment. Mr. Chotiner somehow seems to believe that Chris Matthews' mind-reading, crystal-ball gazing, blue-sky hypotheticals somehow reflect an actual reality. Get a grip, Isaac!

- pilsener

May 27, 2008 at 10:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I find this article very interesting in the fact that the author writes of the support of Obama by MSNBC but writes nothing of the overwhelming support of Clinton by Fox News, ABC and CNN (as many are now referring to as the Clinton News Network). Fox News bashed Obama 24/7 for far too long, eventually two of their own employees called them out for it, on air. Rarely a day goes by that Fox's Hannity does not bring up Rev. Wright or O'Reilly doesn't bash Obama. As many say in the media one judges the coverage of a candidate based on the lens they view it in. Evidently Mr. Chotiner is viewing MSNBC's coverage while wearing Clinton supporter lens. At least he's watching a network that is the most fair and balanced of them all.

- Lynn

May 27, 2008 at 10:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you, thank you. Here's another liberal who used to get a kick out of MSNBC but had to give it up. I can still watch a minute or two of FOX while flipping channels, but I feel betrayed by the venom on MSNBC. My take on Olbermann is that he is dancing for the demographic that he has often said is the one that "counts," aka the young Obama supporters. Chris Matthews is too fascinated by Chris Matthews to ever be taken seriously.

- krosebrook

May 27, 2008 at 10:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ABSOLUTE MUST READ BEFORE YOU VOTE FOR OBAMA http://www.dontvoteobama.net BOYCOTT CNN & MSNBC for manipulating the Presidential election with the biased pushing of obama before researching. Hillary Clinton's plummets Obama in West Virginia and KY raises serious doubts over Barack Obama's ability. It is a fact that no Democrat has won the White House since 1916 without winning West Virginia, Obama lost West Virginia by more than 40 points, an enormous fall, voters who went against Obama — white, rural, older, low-income and without college degrees — don't just live in West Virginia. They live everywhere in the country, in places Obama needs to win in a general election. In anticipation of the West Virginia primary, college students for Obama were hurling insults at farmers and truck drivers. Now we hear pained remarks from the Obama camp that many white men won't vote for any black. Oh really? No one was complaining during the early races in Iowa, Maryland, Virginia and Wisconsin, when most of the white male participants backed Obama. That was before the Rev. Jeremiah Wright ugliness became public. Obama's inability to persuade working-class white voters to back him points to serious problem for him in the presidential election. A large percentage of voters who backed Mrs Clinton said they would not vote for Obama in the presidential race if he becomes the nominee. Disrespecting the nearly 17 million who have supported Clinton is politically unwise, but turning them into "the enemy" is insane. Bill Clinton presided over the longest peacetime expansion since World War II. His budget surpluses put his so-called conservative predecessors and successor to shame. Wouldn't a vow to build on the Clinton legacy, rather than dismantle it, be a better tack for the Obama campaign? More proof Obama is to inexperienced and as a political elite out of touch with everyday America, Obama received glowing, it's-over-he-is-the-nominee coverage for the past six days, and that amounted to nothing in West Virginia. One has to wonder if the giddy praise and tingling feelings jolting up the legs of ALL at CNN and the Chris Matthewses, Keith Olbermanns cable news "Wright-free zones" of the world amounts to a hill of beans. Voters have figured out the biased media and no longer relying on them for truth!

- BOYCOTT CNN & MSNBC

May 27, 2008 at 10:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The cable news shows are little more than cheering sections for their favorites in politics and culture. We basically have three cable news shows, they are as follows: (1) CNN: The Clinton News Network (2) MSNBC, aka ONN: The Obama News Network (3) Fox News, aka RNN: The Republican News Network The good news is that that this may finally shatter the myth, still clung to be some, that there is or ever was an independent, objective news media. WAKE UP!!!!

- MWS

May 27, 2008 at 10:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The article is rigth on. I watch MSNBC seldomly now. Amazingly I switched to Fox News, which I now think is more balanced. The liberal talk radio and the networks have done more to divide the democratic party than the candidates themselves. I have been a true blue democrat since 1984 when I was of age to vote. This is the first election that I will be voting republican. The meadia has pushed Obama down our throat, just like they did the Iraq war. They will also turn on him when the going gets tough (then they will see the inexperience to handle the current crisis here and abroad), just like the Iraq war. I've always heard the term "liberal media", now I know what it means.

- Rick

May 27, 2008 at 10:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I disagree with the opinion of this author. I have watched the same coverage of this campaign and MSNBC has not favored Obama at all. They played the Wright videos and discussed the story (in negative terms)all possible angles more than any other network. They seemed to have downscaled criticism on Obama after he gave a speech in North Carolina where he exhorted the media to stay focused on the issues and refrain from irrelevant stories.

- Maria Boggiano

May 27, 2008 at 10:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with you. I turned on the television last Friday to catch the end of Keith Olberman's countdown, that would be 5/23/08 and was absolutely ASTOUNDED to watch Olberman literally frothing at the mouth about forgiving Hillary Clinton for a long list of things, going into a rage that would easily equal Bill O'Reilly's meltdown so popular on YouTube recently. At the peak of his unfettered hate spew, he was castigating Hillary for her remarks on RFK, (never mind that this month Vanity Fair sports a front cover photo of RFK and does a big article about the tragedy), this was an unspeakable crime in Oberman's eyes and you would have to watch it to believe how much power he believes he has as a demagogue. At that moment, he brought to mind for me, one of those maniac dicatators such as Adolph Hitler, (just paint on a moustache and see the uncanny likeness in the lines) in his blind hatred for Hillary Clinton...it verged on the wrong side of sanity for my liking and worse, made me uncomfortable as I conjured up images of how Obama's administration could be if this country did not have such a solid democratic system...well dressed thugs like Olberman would be the polit police and all those not towing the party line ...well the mind does wander. It showed to me that he, at any rate, has a serious syncophant problem with regard to his worship of Obama the God..it was like that. Check it out why don't ya susannah jones

- susannahjones

May 27, 2008 at 10:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

New Republic still trying to put some spin in favor of Hillary. It doesn't matter, it'll all be over soon.

- BLUTO

May 27, 2008 at 10:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here Here Lynn- excellent comment/post.

- BLUTO

May 27, 2008 at 10:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What universe are you living on?

- Aaron

May 27, 2008 at 10:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT on the money!

- Egirl

May 27, 2008 at 10:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

correcto!

- Dave

May 27, 2008 at 10:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Although there may be room on the networks for the liberal counterpart to Fox, browbeating Democratic candidates by fellow Democrats on national television is not the best way to strengthen this market.

- Monte Reitz

May 27, 2008 at 10:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

first time blogger....i disagree....I think MSNBC is more balance than.....FOX AND CNN.......

- aj

May 27, 2008 at 10:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

of course MSNBC is (Obama) biased and its intention was to become a liberal fox to boost ratings. But is not 'real' news. Its just of pundits paid for talking. I don't think any of them are trained journalists. Its like the "E" network for people into politics. I miss the days when reporters acutally reported. But networks have cut their reporting staff as they don't want to pay for them. For real news I now watch PBS or listen to NPR where there are still some standards of journalistic integrity. But, we are to blame, after all. We consume this crap........

- ellen

May 27, 2008 at 10:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr Isaac, you obviously been watching TOO MUCH TV...its time for you to get your head out of your ARSE and jump on the train...because your poor attempt to derail will only sink you deeper into the "Hall of Shame" BARACK OBAMA 08 & 12

- Keith

May 27, 2008 at 10:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I disagree. I think they make good cases and use some common sense. like this whole story about Hillary and her assassination comment. Come on everyone there IS a hidden message not they she wants Barack assassinated even though that is a way for her to be nominated it is the FACT that an assassination has happened before and in JUNE of all months. The point Hillary was trying to make was that "ANYTHING COULD HAPPEN"....that is the point and it is SO NEGATIVE. Instead of being positive and trying to do what is best for the party which is to suspend her campaign, she wants to defy and keep on with her campaign...remember it was Hillary that started the attacking...especially in a negative way. She lost IOWA and then won in New Hampsire by less than 5 points. I mean she is going to get a hit because she was "EVITABLE"....she did not care of Fl and Mich until the end when she now NEEDS them even though they can not help her. If she had 11 straight victories like Obama they would have called for him to end. But that is speculation just like it is for her to say that "SOMETHING" could still happen. There is nothing stopping her from suspending and start healing the party and if something happens she now gets her wish. She is so stubburn, selfish, and has no humility and MSNBC sees it, other news shows see it, and the people are all starting to see it even her supporters. She did this too herself...yes there has been sexism...yes there has been racism...but that is the issue...division is what is hurting this primary...and this was started by Hillary because that was the only way for her to win, plus that is how Washington is. If you want to be divided vote for Hillary, if you want to be united vote for Barack....Aren't we the UNITED States of America.....

- James

May 27, 2008 at 10:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh boy. These comments are unbelievable. Anyone who can't see the hatred for Hillary from Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman is just plain blind! Why would anyone listen to them spew such hatred? How can you have an open mind if you only listen to that? Bill O'Reilly has at least made an attempt to be fair to all the candidates. That is more than you can say for MSNBC. I turned the channel a long time ago. And...how can anyone in their right mind think Obama would be the better nominee?

- Bennie

May 27, 2008 at 10:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

that is even worse, that he had his nose up another politician's arse....wow, quite stunning actually to think this guy Olberman has such a serious brown nosing problem....were you bullied in the school yard then Keith, this is a poor sign in the emotional development stakes there Keith, huh! susannah jones

- susannahjones

May 27, 2008 at 10:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I can't watch Olbermann who is a self parody and who allows for no--not a whit of--diverse opinion on his show and is disappointed when interviewees distance themselves on occasion from his leading questions. Matthews is better and has guests with differing opinions and axes to grind. I generally prefer opinion shows on Fox to opinion show on MSNBC. O'Reilly can be incisive, while also he can make a fool of himself. But at least he allows for some diversity as well. And Hannity and Colmes are fun to watch, Hannity a not ineffective Johnny One Note who tests his guets' mettle and Colmes adding a modicum of blance. Infinitely better than Olbermann, who ultimately is nauseating in his preening, self important, self righteousness.

- itzik basman

May 27, 2008 at 10:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your a t-bag

- McCain08

May 27, 2008 at 10:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

While generally agreeing with this commentary one comment jumped out at me. Since when is it good for a news anchor to "rant" about anything.

- Bill

May 27, 2008 at 10:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

DID YOU EVER SEE SEAN HANNITY TALKING ABOUT REV WRIGHT AND AYERS,HE'S A GOT AN OBSSESION WITH'IT,PLEASE TELL THIS GUY WE NEED TALK ABOUT ISSUES,I'M TIRED OF THIS GUY.THANK YOU.

- JORGE MIRANDA

May 27, 2008 at 10:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

yep--fawning on a candidate is tiresome--a good "prince of darkness" can be worthwhile, as sometimes Pat can be, like some who offset his gambits, too.

- Dave

May 27, 2008 at 11:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MSNBC's campaign coverage makes Fox look like a model of objectivity. Fox now stands positioned to legitimately claim it provided Hillary Clinton with fair coverage. One hopes that Fox will use its new respect wisely. Also, MSNBC's abdication of objectivity inclines some to reject Obama (should he be the nominee) in favor of McCain, just to ensure that biased pundits stand precluded from producing nominees by virtue of biased coverage.

- Ed Fairness

May 27, 2008 at 11:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama will be exposed.soon. a militant eletist some news people are looking into his connections with the group called the weatherman, and another group in the chicago area he supports,endorsed. lol the folks at mslsd ratings are in shambles.take a look. they LOVE obama,they WILL NOT look into his political backround because,honestly all there is is his wackey anti-american views. go to u tube and look at keith obarman on letterman who states he is not voting and backs no politician but slams george bush and every republican for finding out about his personal life. msnbc is supporting obama . period . they are scared crap. they dont want to be percieved as racist for asking about obamas wifes racial overtones. scared. period. see for yourself. mccain will win . its already over.

- David

May 27, 2008 at 11:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I thought MSNBC had a good formula when their nighttime line-up was Matthews, Carlson, Olbermann, Scarborough. That group ranged from hard right to hard left, but were all reasonably reality-based. But I was a little surprised when in 2006 the election-night coverage was anchored not by, say, Matthews and Scarborough, but by Matthews and Olbermann. It wasn't long before Carlson and Scarborough were dropped from the evening schedule. I'm an Obama supporter and an MSNBC watcher, and I don't have a special problem with Matthews and Olbermann. They should keep doing more or less what they're doing. But I do have an issue with MSNBC's programming decisions; they should go back to a line-up like they used to have.

- Scott Calvin

May 27, 2008 at 11:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So what's your point? If Fox News is doing somthing similar, why cry foul when it comes to MSNBC?

- Kobina Arku

May 27, 2008 at 11:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Olbermann and Matthews are type-examples of pompous, intolerant,hypocritical, liberal loud-mouths who render crule simple judgements too quickly on complex issues and whole groups of people, most notably "typical bitter working-calss whites", who happen to not support their Messiah man-fantasy, Obama. It's obvious that neither of these punks have ever worked a single day in the real world and do not understand the day-to-day lives of average, "typical, bitter, working-class white Americans". For the hateful insults they have hurled at these folks, Olbermann and Matthews deserve a public a"swhipping by a group of "typical bitter, working-class, white Americans" in a Walmart parking lot in some small town in the heartland. At least the other networks, don't blatantly assume that those that do not support Obama are racist and ignorant.

- Typical working-class white guy

May 27, 2008 at 11:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But that's only by using Clinton's metrics...not counting the caucus states because she didn't win them. Clinton didn't win the big states Ohio, and PA until the Republican's had their nominee and Rush started Operation Chaos for Ohio and Texas. Since then her popular vote has increased due to the support of Republican's that "switched for a day" to vote for her to keep chaos in the party. They would never had supported her in the general. That's why Clinton didn't end up winning Texas after the caucus. The Republican's voted for her in the box(Operation Chaos) where no one knew they were voting for her, but they would not show up at a caucus and publically support her when they really were not...hence Obama wins Texas caucus.

- Lynn

May 27, 2008 at 11:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's so wonderful to find articles written by people who can think independently and rationally rather than give into the mob mentality that has taken over the media, pundits, and half of the democratic party. Thank you.

- JJR

May 27, 2008 at 11:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Obama-Clinton conflict unvarnished the press corps biases that always comforted us. Now it hurts. I loved Norman Cousins in the Saturday Review and read the NYT every Sunday. Along with NPR, they gave Fox its opportunity and success among the Philistines. We never had the objectivity from any of above that one might find in the great European press, and we shouldn't lament that we don't have it from MSNBC for HRC. The Democratic Primary is the perfect storm of liberal compassions to right the wrongs against two suffering minorities (though the standard bearers are products of numerous elite schools and current family incomes in the top .1%). We want entertainment, and we sure got it from the US Press Corps in the Democratic Primary. The Presidential campaign will be a boring exercise at best.

- Don S

May 27, 2008 at 11:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't see anything wrong with MSNBC's coverage of Senator Obama. As a whole, it's very balanced. Mr. Chotiner focuses on only two of the network's shows while ignoring the network's morning and afternoon promgramming, as well as the late night "The Verdict with Dam Abrams" show, which are hardly pro-Obama. Fox News and CNN are very biased against Obama, so what's wrong with him catching a little break on MSNBC?

- Elon

May 27, 2008 at 11:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Look, I am a Democrat. I watch Fox for the coverage. If Clinton were ahead of Obama, Clinton would be SCREAMING for Obama to quit...in fact, she would be demanding it and all coverage would be on her. Fair is fair. The man (Obama) has earned the spotlight and the coverage as the FRONT RUNNER candidate. I (along with my wife and our coffee clutch of democrat voters) have switched over and will be voting for McCain...WHY? Because Obama is a grumpy young man who has been part and parcel of the same old boy illinois and washington DC politics forever. It is time for a change.

- Chris

May 27, 2008 at 11:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hannity and O'Reilly bring us Rev, Wright because they are commentators, and commentators have a point of view. They don't profess to be news reporters. At least Fox has numerous programs where they present representatives from both sides. MSNBC seldom does. especially Olbermann. Even Hannity and O'Reilly give air time to the oposition.

- loco36

May 27, 2008 at 11:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Absolutely on target! Olbermann's ravings over the past few months have accomplished what I thought was utterly unachievable: They have turned me into a Fox watcher and made me feel that the oily O'Reilly is a relative paragon of objectivity.

- DanDan

May 27, 2008 at 11:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I could not have said it better myself.

- Anthony

May 27, 2008 at 11:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't listen to these idiots anymore. You don't have to be "college" educated to see the bias...it is so obvious, they might as well hang his poster on the wall.

- Debbie

May 27, 2008 at 11:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MSNOBAMA is as many have described the liberal FOX. I don't watch it any more and I urge others to do the same: CHANGE THE CHANNEL. It's the only way to send a message that anyone cares about. Keith O is not a news person; he's a comedian....

- rick

May 27, 2008 at 11:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How ridiculous. If the point of your article is to say "shush, Olbermann, don't tell it like it IS, because it might hurt Obama", then it is you, not him, that is the hypocrite here. If MSNBC is biased--and I don't agree that it is - there has been plenty of objectivity -- it is only because the Clintons - and I mean both the former President (whose legacy was to leave us with George W. Bush) and his wife have run a campaign rivalling that of perhaps only Ghengis Khan's. They do not care a whit about their party, the unification of this split, racist, sexist country or anything else except their own self-aggrandizement and power for its own sake. If it is bias to call a spade a spade, then give me more of it. If the truth is going to hurt Obama, then he might as well give up now and just hand the Presidency to Clinton. He is going to be telling Americans a lot more than what MSNBC has been saying. What, do you suppose a responsible network, cable or otherwise, is supposed to do about a candidate who uses the possibility of her opponent's assassination as a justification for staying in a race that she cannot, except by stealing it - a possibility, I suppose - win? Well? How do you suppose that story is supposed to be reported? By swallowing the talking points shoved down our disbelieving throats by her paid shills and repeating them? Do you deny people the right to have a brain? Get off your "objective" high horse and get your fingernails a little dirty.

- Randy

May 27, 2008 at 11:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sir-- You raise an interesting point. I find it very disturbing when the most sober, grounded coverage of the Democratic campaign can be found on Fox News.

- Matt

May 27, 2008 at 11:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In addition to watching all the debates, I used to watch MSNBC for updates. I made a point to tune in to Keith Olbermann's show. But that stopped months ago, even before Chris Matthews made his leg-tingling comment. An undecided Democrat, I could no longer bear the misogynistic comments from almost all the commentators. I turned to the internet to read voraciously and decide for myself.

- K

May 27, 2008 at 11:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chotiner, where was your analysis of MSNBC's slant when it along with Fox News, CNN, ABC and NBC and CBS were tracking daily the clips of one Jeremiah Wright. Neither Hillary or McCain have had this same level of 'white noise' attached to their associates or pastors this campaign season; although they both have troubling associations, as well. And, while Olbermann may have some affinity with Obama, you seem to ignore Olbermann's own explanation of why he can't handle her tactics in his last Special Comment. It is also no secret that CNN has a strong Hillary slant, and now it appears to be transferring it to McCain, as it sees no path for Hillary to the nomination. This weekend, for instance, Blitzer has a discussion on the election and has a McCain surrogate and a Clinton surrogate--no Obama surrogate available??--when most realize the Clintons are done. The bottomline is that most if not all of these networks carry a bias or curry favor towards their candidate, the only curious question is why you find it so objectionable when MSNBC does it, and not the rest? This fact would then nullify your faulty premise, as well as highlight your propensity to instigate a worthless spat.

- VinceinATL

May 27, 2008 at 11:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I've started boycotting GE products. We'll see how profitable this outrage really is. I expect many more to follow.

- Mr Pike

May 27, 2008 at 11:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well said.

- I agree

May 27, 2008 at 11:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was a bit curious about Matthews' coverage myself recently, and particularly his attitude toward McAuliffe and Clinton and other new Democrats. So I spent a little time the other night reading about his career and history in Washington. The guy has been around, a Goldwater Democrat, spent some time with the Capitol Police, veteran journalist, Carter speechwriter, inexplicably a Bush 43 supporter in 2000 and at the same time an opponent of both the Vietnam and second Iraq wars. The man is more sophisticated than his television personality suggests, and many of his attitudes would seem to have arisen from personal experience with the people he covers. Agreement with many of his statements doesn't make me any less wishful that he'd contain some of his glee when an old rival gets their comeuppance, or refrain from Obama boosterism from the news desk, even as an Obama supporter myself.

- David

May 27, 2008 at 11:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was faithful to MSNBC till last year, but due to their baised coverage on primary, I have become FOX viwer and I am going to vote McCain if Obama is a nominee. Thanks to MSNBC for their coverage. They changed this loyal democrat to Republican. MSNBC is shame on journalism.

- Jake

May 27, 2008 at 11:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I knew I'd had my fill of msnbc (watched for amusement only) when one night on the topic of torture of terrorists, Keith gasped w/ pity and sympathy for the poor victims. That was a perfect example of who they are at msnbc and why more people watch and relate to Fox. I daresay, there are many more O'reillys than Olbermans out there.

- Cindy Graham

May 27, 2008 at 11:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well done. I got many of my friends and family to watch MSNBC over the last two years. However, by November I was switching the station. It wasn't just Matthews calling Hillary "shrill" a "cackler" or Carlson saying "But there's just something about her that feels castrating" but the slanted use of the Olbermann "special comment" targeting Clinton for her affiliation with Geraldine Ferraro (notice - there was no Special Comment for Wright?) I'm back with CNN and PBS exclusively.

- Ben Murphy

May 27, 2008 at 11:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

CNN is same as MSNBC. very pro-Obama baised news. I am now regular FOX news viewer. I myself can not believe it. I found FOX more fair and balanced. BTW, I am a lifelong democrat , going to vote for McCain if Obama is a nominee. Thanks go to MSNBC and CNN

- Angel

May 27, 2008 at 11:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The best explanation for MSNBC's seemigly well-organized slant is corporate diktat. It appears the network suits want to use political means to target the demographics most prized by advertisers: the young (because they are forming lifelong branding habits) and the well-to-do (because they spend more). This profile dovetails perfectly with the demographic slant of Obama's white support. Thus, it is the execs at MSNBC who are doing the pimping, and Olbermann, Mathews, et. al. are merely their stock-in-trade.

- David Beiler

May 27, 2008 at 11:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What a moron Isaac is! You've complained about Fox News brazely pro-Republican/pro-McCain stance but you object to MSNBC? If you're not a moron, you're at least a hypcrite.

- KateLynn

May 27, 2008 at 11:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

R U serious, this articale is not about FoxNEWS, there have already been enough articles done on Fox's slanted News coverage. This article is about MSDNC not Fox, your like a little kid, well Johnny did it so I can too.

- Don

May 27, 2008 at 11:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am so offended and disgusted by Keith Olbermann's rants now that I have stopped watching him in particular, and MSNBC in general. He insults the memory of Murrow every night by distorting journalistic ethics and twisting Murrow's hallowed sign-off into a perverse mocking of Murrow's legacy. It's outrageous; it's offensive; it's the supreme hypocrisy: Spew propaganda, tarnish journalism with vacuous idiocies for an hour, and sign off with Murrow. MSNBC frankly stinks--both as a "liberal" network, and as a journalism enterprise and a source for credible political analysis. I don't watch it; I am not amused by it; and if I could do so, I'd have it deleted from my cable lineup altogether.

- bmc

May 27, 2008 at 11:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Okay so there is on TV news station that is slanted towards Obama; however, if you look at CNN or FOX news as well as many of the commentator shows, there are enough anti Obama news teams out there to counter react anything that MSNBC does. Lets be fair about our reporting and editorials okay. Take take a serious look at CNN Special Edition, who's main financial supporter is Mr Carvelle, who is also a heavy hitter Clinton supporter. A serious look into FOX would also reveal a very biased and at times hatefull approach towards Obama. So your case is mute.

- Chuck

May 27, 2008 at 11:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All networks are biased. Choose the one that is slanted in your candidate's favor and don't you change the channel!! CNN for Clintonites. FOX for the McCainnites. And for us Obama supporters, we stay glued to MSNBC. Let us stop pretending there is anything "fair and balanced" out there. Anyone claiming that there is is just lying or blind or deaf.

- lightfoot2000

May 27, 2008 at 11:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow! I guess the author wasn't watching coverage of Rev. Wright, bittergate, and Hillary being the presumptive nominee. Also, Obama not winning over working class whites and not closing the deal. The fact that any network is taking Hillary seriously at this point when it is obvious that SHE CAN'T WIN is what's ridiculous. Honestly if this was the other way around, we would have ushered Obama out telling him: "nice try, but come back in ten years." Clinton has blamed everyone who says anything positive of Obama as bias and traitorous. They accuse their surrogates who have switched, the DNC, the media, liberals, black people, etc, former opponents for why they are losing. That's a lot of people to blame for their mistakes and failure. The Clintons use to yell Right wing conspiracy, now they are yelling left wing conspiracy. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY HILLARY. When you were in the lead, talking about Bobby Kennedy's assassination everyone ignored you. You always get your way. You have no popular vote argument. There is no such thing, and you're not winning any popular vote--Obama is still in the lead. Like HIllary, this author is getting a lot of GOP comments. Go back to Faux news for your bias reporting. Leave Mathew and Olberman alone.

- Sam

May 27, 2008 at 11:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A surprisingly unbiased article. I'm an Obama supporter, but I agree with this 100%. The bias in his favor actually irritates me somewhat, as I don't think he needs it. I would also say, that alhough CNN international "try" not to be biased towards Obama, it's not hard to see they are. One point I've not seen mentioned before is the fact that Obama supporters represent the holy grail of demographics (educated, young and with a healthy disposable income) I think this is likely having some effect on the decision to lean his way. But hey, so long as Obama wins I don't care lol

- Dave he Slave

May 27, 2008 at 11:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I stopped watching Olberbmann a few months ago when it was clear that he loved Obama and hated Hillary.

- Jenkins

May 27, 2008 at 11:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I will not vote for a Democrat but I will admit that Hillary is the better candidate between the two. Her disipline and experience trump Obama easily.

- Mickey

May 27, 2008 at 11:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was stunned after the North Carolina/Indiana primaries when MSNBC jumped for just a few seconds to a live shot of former President Clinton giving a speech on energy, somewhere in Montana (I think). KO actually SNEERED when the camera came back to him and CM. Oh, the asburdity of a former president to actually discuss something serious! That is when I was over the top disgusted with KO--and I was one of his biggest fans just a few months ago. His transparent support and adulation of/for Obama is disheartening, in that it has taked so much away from his former professionalism. He is no longer professional; he is a shill.

- Dizie

May 27, 2008 at 11:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You're going to vote for the republicans thanks to MSNBC and CNN? lol Do me a favor, you can't be that stupid Angel. Here's a crazy thought, why don't you vote for the person you think will be in the best interests for the country. Or don't vote and do us all a favor.

- Dave the Slave

May 27, 2008 at 12:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Its a little late for this article! Don't forget constant references to 'shrill', 'cackle', 'foodtaster', every moderately positive story about Hillary followed with a 'but...'. I found it hillarious and sad last week when the subject finally turned towards electability and the fall electorial map and analyst after analyst started talking about how the electorial map is harder for Obama than for Hillary. As a Dem I'll go on our slow painful deathmarch to McCains victory - but when - oh when!? will the Dems on the far left realize we NEED the swing Dems to win the White House? But no, we continue to throw up the biggest lefty we can find. They don't vote with us - against thier interests - because they know we think/even say that they are stupid and ignorant! Change politics? The Right laughs.... We need to start by WINNING instead of bringing an indignant remark to a knife fight.

- AnthonyP

May 27, 2008 at 12:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You did not watch Matthews at the same time I did during PA primary. Generally, I thought he was right up Rendells, ummm, backside. Obama website/blog folks thought he was trying to run for Senate from PA and making up to the "machine" and he consistently said Obama could not win in the western area. I frequently think he is over the top and focuses on trivial stuff. All so-called pundits do. George S., Wolf B. are both Clintonistas, though they try to pretend otherwise. At least Olberman, (and Matthews, if you think he is anything except a gadfly,) came to it on their own and have not caved to Clinton intimidation.

- E. H.

May 27, 2008 at 12:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you!!!! I too used to love watching Olbermann and Matthews, Abrams and Joe S. and watched MSNBC exclusively, but, as a woman, somewhere this winter, after several AWFUL comments that I was stunned to hear (isn't there a female panel member who has the guts to say KNOCK IT OFF!) about Hillary Clinton, I switched to CNN and -- would you believe it? FOX NOISE? Never thought I'd see the night where I watched FOX news. MSNBC has NO CLASS. Check out the blog at HillaryClinton.com if you think people aren't furious about all of this. Joe Scarborough is the only one over there for whom I have any respect. I'm done with MSNBC -- and I watched KO all the time. Never Again!!

- Hilary in SC

May 27, 2008 at 12:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Look, Olbermann is a certifiable lunatic. If David Brinkley ever knew he shared the same camera with the likes of Tom Brokaw, he would never stop vomiting.

- Fisher

May 27, 2008 at 12:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think we are missing the BIG picture here, these are the news media outlets talking not the canidates. The comments on this article should be about the msm, not the candidates. The canidates are not calling up the news stations personally and asking them to be bias! Your vote should be on the issues not msm. Stop trying to figure out whoe the best canidate is based upon who msm appears to support or not support. If you don't like MSNBC just turn the d*** channel!!!

- Cheryl

May 27, 2008 at 12:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's true, MSNBC seems to favor Obama. But let's ask the next question... why shouldn't they?? Hillary has run a dirty, sleazy campaign, and is a dispicable person. Why shouldn't Chris Matthews et al, point this out to viewers?

- Rennie Bauer

May 27, 2008 at 12:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is a very informative video on Sexism and Mysogeny in the media. Eye-opening for everyone to see. http://youtube.com/watch?v=eseoMOEaFnM&feature=related Thanks Isaac!

- Rebecca

May 27, 2008 at 12:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MSNBC = Pathetic

- Jacob Ezekial

May 27, 2008 at 12:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Being registered Independent I try to hard to hear both sides and come to my own conclusions - watch MSNBC, listen to (some) conservative talk radio. At the beginning of this election season I was really impressed with Obama, he seemed like someone who would be able to push past the racial divide, he was young and energetic, and he had a nice wife and kids to boot. I did NOT like Hillary, at all. I was surprised, however, how much everyone on MSNBC did not like her either. Nary a good word was spoken about her. Obama, on the other hand, was a gift to America and it only got worse as the weeks went on. After the Obama's race speech Chris Matthews likened it to hearing "Jesus in the temple." (Speaking of Chris Matthews he DID like McCain, but after he fell in love with Obama, he fell out with McCain). There is no hiding their bias - they ARE the authority of all thing political so, therefore, they have the right to tell America who the best choice is. It's gotten so obnoxiously bad, that they have totally turned me off of Obama and made me sympathetic towards Hillary. Everyone knows that Fox News has a right-winged bias. However, MSNBC put themselves out there as the "real" news - without the partisan bias. During the last primary in Kentucky, Chris Matthews was appalled that 2/10 voters in the exit polls voted based on race and he felt that Hillary Clinton should speak out against it. I guess the 90+ percent of the Black vote going to Obama isn't racially motivated at all. Obama can do no wrong at this point. I have lost so much respect for both Chris Matthews and Tim Russet. But, I'm still watching MSNBC - just to make me made

- Rachel

May 27, 2008 at 12:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When a news program needs to advertise itself as 'fair and balanced', that tells me something about the network. Fox needs the big corporate interests kept alive this approves of Bush's/McCain's tax position. A good way to promote them is the use slander, spin and intimidation when the Fox network does have left-leaning 'guests'.

-

May 27, 2008 at 12:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

James - Hillary Clinton has received approximately the same number of votes in the Democratic primaries as Barack Obama. He received a substantial number of his votes before the Rev. Wright revelation. I'm willing to bet that a large number of those who voted for Obama prior to that would like to have their votes back. It has little to do with racism and everything to do with worldview. Voters want to believe that the candidate they support shares their worldview. Obama's 20+ years association with Wright and Trinity casts considerable doubt on that proposition. Barack Obama, his campaign and his supporters (“educated” and otherwise) do not understand the significant extent to which many Democrats define themselves within the context of their foundational religious beliefs and their views on the roles of faith and church in their daily lives. For instance, few, if any of them could remain members at a church where a “theological” worldview is preached that is profoundly and diametrically opposed to their own. Therefore, the only way by which these voters can rationalize Barack Obama’s decision to remain associated with Rev. Wright and Trinity is that he either agreed with the “theology” preached or that he wasn’t really as opposed to it as he has insisted. Either rationalization ultimately leads them to the opinion that his worldview is totally at odds with theirs. When such a disparity exists between the worldviews of a voter and a candidate, the only way to bridge that divide is to convince the voters that it doesn’t exist. Therefore, Barack Obama’s only hope of bringing these Democratic voters into his fold is to acknowledge and validate their views, explain why he did not leave Wright and Trinity many years ago and convince them that he does not share the radical “black liberation theology” worldview that permeated Trinity’s foundation and on-going existence. If, in clear conscience, he cannot do this, he will be unable to attract the majority of those Democratic voters who did not vote for him in the primaries, nor will he be able to win the General Election in November.

- jdin2003

May 27, 2008 at 12:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Like the Pigs in "Animal Farm", Olbermann and Matthews have become what they once despised.

- Tim Seikel

May 27, 2008 at 12:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

People we should be very care ful about what we write. What I've noted throughout this coverage is that the Clinton suporters never want the MSM to talk about the MATH which is waht this process is all about. Hilary was strong going into the Primaries, but she just cannot catch Obama in delegates which is the main metric for this series of contests. I disagree with this artiocle, remeber Hilary was the one saying "if you cannot stand the heat get out" when Obama was complaining about the media bias. You just cannot have it both ways!

- Sue

May 27, 2008 at 12:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

2 WORDS HANNITY & O'REILY,DOBBS & BLITZER, PRO BUSH,PRO MCCAIN,PRO CLINTON..HELLO!!!

- RUSS

May 27, 2008 at 12:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I tried watching Olberman a couple times but my blood pressue couldn't handle it. I haven't heard OReilly bash Obamma other to say he was trying to get Obamma to come on the show like Hillary and McCain has. Since Obamma has said its Fox fault because he didn't win KY maybe they have given up on him. I don't think CNN is the Clinton network any more. At least the posters on CNN are mostly bashing her and gushing over OB. I thought Mathews and Olberman were going to cry the night Hillary won PA. ha. The people pushing for Hillary to get out must be afraid of something.

- Jane

May 27, 2008 at 12:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So what's the difference between Matthews and Olbermann on the left hand and Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh on the right? Just tune in to both and you get a balanced presentation of both sides. Also, in the article the author forgot to mention the pro-Hillary spin provided by Pat Buchanan on MSNBC. I personally find his rhetoric annoying but it does add a little bit of balance.

- wvguy

May 27, 2008 at 12:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nice to see TNR step up to address the joke that is MSNBC...Olbermann's adoration of Edward R. Murrow is hysterically funny. If he were still alive, Murrow wouldn't give the fawning, obsequious bootlicker Olbermann the time of day...

- Raconteur

May 27, 2008 at 12:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The irony of the Clintons whining about biased coverage is delicious. Welcome to the world that ALL conservatives face with EVERY SINGLE news network EXCEPT Fox!!! Being almost wholly (90+%) populated by liberals themselves, all of the networks are biased to the most liberal candidate in ANY race. Since Obama is, by any measure, much more liberal than Hillary, OF COURSE these networks are going to slant, spin and sometimes lie on behlaf of Obama. Wait until the the general election begins and see how fast these networks paint former "maverick" media darling John McCain as a right wing zealot. Double standards, start your engines! MSNBC is so clearly in the tank for Obama that it is no longer a legitimate news network (if it ever was) but more like a branch of the Obama campaign machine. Obama should just put these guys on the payroll so he can avoid having to declare the value of MSNBC's coverage to the FEC later. Matthews' and Olberman's open man crushes on Obama are so sweet. Mr. Chotiner's comment that he "enjoys" watching MSNBC's election coverage tells the world that he is just another head nodding liberal drinking the same Kool Aid as everyone else. This will be the last article by him that I ever read. Nothing new here, folks, move along.

- Veritas

May 27, 2008 at 12:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Matthews lost me when he said, "If you don't cry when this man (Obama) speaks, you're not an American." CHRIS MATTHEWS = ZERO CREDIBILITY

- Tahoe Editor

May 27, 2008 at 12:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You mentioned at the end of your article "that it's time to change the channel". While I agree with your assessment, What channel will you turn to? CNN;pro Clinton; FOX; pro Bush/McCain; Personally, I'm sticking with MSNBC for all the reasons written.

- cal joyner

May 27, 2008 at 12:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

let's put it this way. msnbc used to be my computer home page. it's been retired. i used to turn on chris matthews daily. now, i consider even fox more reliable, fair, and balanced than the matthews/olberman consortium of anti-hillary bashing, so i don't watch them at all anymore. i don't need keith olberman, a sportscaster, censoring my news for me and telling me what's important and what's not or trying to determine when a candidate (hillary) who may well win the popular vote against obama outright (i.e. not counting michigan or florida) when she ought to leave the race. i must note that i was far ahead on the curve on noting matthews's pompous prejudices. i didn't blame gore's loss on ralph nader or pat buchanan or hanging chads. i blamed him at the time. matthews hammered and hammered and hammered at bill clinton the same way he does hillary. matthews/olberman have driven many others from their network, i'm sure, and come november they may find also from their party. keevan d. morgan, chicago

- Keevan D. Morgan

May 27, 2008 at 12:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

CNN = Clinton News Network Fox = GOP MSNBC = Obama Something for everyone.

- Marie

May 27, 2008 at 12:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hilary supporters just cannot handle the truth, and just cannot believe their candidate just does not have the numbers. And those Hilary supporters who find hate mongering FOX news as fair and balanced, I doubt if they are DEMs to start with. Any logical person with a brain know FOXs news for what they are - liars and Hate MONGERS and have thgeir war monger in cheif McSame leading them. Bomb, bomb bomb IRAN!

- Sue

May 27, 2008 at 12:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The democrats can blame MSNBC when they lose the election in November. They act like Obama is able to win without the superdelegates. The superdelegates should vote for who best would beat McCain and in every reputable poll that puts Clinton winning the electoral college. But from January on MSNBC has told the DNC that they could not deny Obama because he is black. Most will not vote for him because he has NO experience and has not even served a term in national politics. I turned off MSNBC for good because Keith and Chris have obvious bias and are insane. It is sad that some are buying into MSNBC Obama propaganda just like they did Bush propaganda on FOX. Fox at least makes an effort to have opposing views. Too bad MSNBC will never get FOX ratings and will only lose credibility. Over half the dems voted for Hillary and are so turned off by MSNBC that some including myself are deleting the channel from my cable box.

- Jamie

May 27, 2008 at 12:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have stopped watching those idiots. They (MSNBC) have forced me to watch Fox religiously. The pro Obama list are Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, David Schuster, Keith Olbermann, Mika&^*%$#, Andrea Mitchell, O'Donnel, and Brian Williams. What a joke. Could someone tell me their ratings?.

- Cody

May 27, 2008 at 12:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't think it's completely fair to compare MSNBC to Fox News. When I watch programs like Hardball or Countdown, I know I'm watching an editorialization of the days events. But at least these editorials are grounded in a certain degree of reality and bound by facts - something Fox News cannot claim.

- Steve

May 27, 2008 at 12:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I quit watching, surely they know that women are in their audience and will quit watching d/t the misogyny they are only too proud to display? My oldest son says men like that have little err.. parts.

- Susan Powers

May 27, 2008 at 12:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your article hits the mark. Unfortunately, Mathews and Olberman have turned Obama into a cult figure. This, unfortunately, is not good for either Obama or the Secret Service who are charged with his protection. MSNBC should lighten up and let him be run by his campaign. After all, they've done an outstanding job thus far.

- Rubin James

May 27, 2008 at 12:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I used to watch MSNBC especially Keith Olberman's countdown but no more. Ever since he started campaigning for Obama I no longer what MSNBC. I now what FOX NEWS FAIR AND BALANCED.

- GoldenChica@yahoo.com

May 27, 2008 at 12:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Keith O. is a shill for Obama and a Clinton hater, a misogynist and an angry loser. He should have remained at FOX-NOISE as a sportscaster. He has crossed the line in his coverage of the Democratic primaries. Last week his comment on Hillary Clinton and RFK was OUTRAGEOUS! A real journalist, doesn't pretend to read minds, a real journalist covers the news straight up. He should have waited for RFK JR's comments. He was so full of glee to attack HIllary on her comment. I find that more distasteful then everything he has ever done at MSNBC. He is the one that used the assassination of RFK as a political rabid attack against HIllary Clinton. He used that tragic event to satisfy his own hatred for Clinton and his oversized ego. His signature sign off is a joke; "Good Night and Good Luck". He is a mental midget & demagogue compared to the great Edward R. Murrow. Only an out of control egotist would think of he had that much talent.

- Joe S.

May 27, 2008 at 12:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Folks this is the nature of the beast. The tv news punditry is part of the game now and if you watch any given show on CNN, MSNBC you are bound to hear things you like and things you dont like depending on who you support. But it is illogical to argue that MSNBC or CNN have been on the whole positive to one candidate and negative to another. Unless were talking about fox, they have decided that it is their mission to continually bash whoever the democratic front runner is, that is why Hillary perfers their coverage. But even they have decided that it is in their interests to from time to time bring Obama or Hillary on because of the ratings such interviews generate. You can single out MSNBC if you want but you are likely to get more or less the same type of coverage elsewhere.

- Derek

May 27, 2008 at 12:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When has Keith Olberman ever been "right" about anything? The next time will be the first. He is just another impotent, far left nutcase who makes all sorts of claims but never backs anything up with facts or logic. When he is called on it, he always hides behind the "it's just opinion" canard. I used to kind of like the guy when he was sticking to being funny but at some point, he decided to become "serious" and his intellectual inadequacy for this role became painfully apparent. Circular reasoning, flawed analogies, and ad hominem attacks are this guy's stock in trade, not facts or reasoned arguments. If you enjoy listening to him, you should also enjoy the Kool Aid you are drinking. Bottoms up! ;-)The only reason that Olberman "stuck up" for Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal was becase he wanted to protect a liberal President. It sure as heck wasn't principles!! Olberman would crucify a Republican President who did the exact same thing for which he "defended" Clinton. Now that Keith has a MORE liberal candidate to support, adios Clintons!

- Veritas

May 27, 2008 at 12:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If MSNBC is, in fact, trying to become the "liberal Fox" they are missing the point entirely. As evidenced by many liberal posters on this blog, if you actually watch Fox instead of forming an opinion based on hearsay, you would know that it is the most balanced of the networks. Bill O'Reilly makes both liberals and conservatives equally mad, and contrary to popular belief, it is not the Hannity show, it is Hannity and Colmes and Colmes is a die hard liberal. As for their other prime time show, Greta Van Susteren, it is a legal show and her personal political beliefs are not revealed, though b/c of her past at CNN, I gather she is left of center. MSNBC needs to realize that in order to make informed decisions, people need to hear all sides of an issue, and here's a news flash, most of us actually want to hear all sides.

- Caroline 2525

May 27, 2008 at 12:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I refer to Keith as Olberbuffoon. As a lifelong Democrat and not a supporter of anyone at the beginning of this campaign, I have finally reached the conclusion that if nothing else is accomplished I will no longer watch Olberbuffon and his overthe top Special Comments. Anti Hillary, suck up to Obama and make Fox News look better (certainly not good.) Frankly all of the cable news networks and the press are failing.

- J Means

May 27, 2008 at 1:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There are definitely places where MSNBC has shown bias toward Obama. But there are also places where MSNBC has been pretty hard on Obama. Chris Matthews might get chills up his legs, but he's the one who goes on and on about Obama's effete bowling style and his problem with working class whites. Someone should do an analysis of the media oxygen devoted to bittergate as compared to Hillary's remarks on Friday. And not just raw words, but also number of articles put out to situate or contextualize the respective gaffes. Also, it is not bias to point out that Hillary's talking points frequently assault basic human reason. That most of the media has refrained (with the exception of the gas tax) from clearly pointing out the way her 'logic' shifts with the winds should be noted. That said, you are right that it's all a double-edged sword. When Olbermann goes over the top (as on Friday night); when he conducts his "interviews" as a way of transparently leading his guests through his own talking points, he becomes a poster boy for pro-Obama bias. That allows the Clinton's to make the case that it's a pervasive phenomenon -- when in fact the media as a whole (including MSNBC) have been a mixed bag for both candidates all the way through.

- Maggie

May 27, 2008 at 1:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am indeed surprised more by these biased comments than that anyone thinks that MSNBC is biased towards Obama. Neither Mathews nor Olbermann are "news anchors" reporting the news but in fact political commentators. And perhaps you are forgetting the contributions of Joe Scarborough and Patrick Buchannan, regular conservative political commentators to the very station that you all decry. Or that of Chuck Todd, political director, who always reports the facts and numbers. If you want to hear the unbiased news then listen to newscasts, or read the newspapers. If you wish to listen to political commentary then turn on Matthews, or Olbermann, or Scarborough, but realize that you may disagree with their opinions. Otherwise you are simply "whining" (if you will please excuse the use of that over-used word in politics!) because they don't agree with you!

- Laura

May 27, 2008 at 1:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

CNN and others (youtube too) wont even let their audience post comments that arent anti Hillary/pro Obama. Its scarey that the dialogue has been subverted. So much for Obama democracy!

- kali

May 27, 2008 at 1:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I also liked MSNBC's emphasis on politics. However, I became discouraged when they too followed Clinton's talking points, that is pretending that there was still a race ongoing, even after it became clear to everyone that she had lost. Still, MSNBC was a bit more honest than other outlets about Clinton's slim prospects. And besides presenting Carville on Meet The Press as an objective "expert" and not an attack dog for Clinton they were quite fair. Recycling Mathew’s way-too-much-reported-on “chill” comments from back in January is hardly an analysis on MSNBC’s alleged allegiances.

- Yoelish

May 27, 2008 at 1:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Im glad that so many other people see what I see, including the articles author. At the beginning of the 08 election cycle I was quite happy and pleased to have a new top notch news channel to watch side by side with fox and cnn, msnbc had never been in the top tier before this election and as they started to cover it day after day I began to watch msnbc more and more. But almost to a moment when Chris matthews said he had a "tickle" up his leg thinking about Obama, pretty much from the moment that Obamas 450 votes in IOWA were considered such a profound win to HIllarys 425 votes in the Iowa caucuses. The Bottom Line is that I used to think FOX was right wing biased and CNN was left wing biased. CNN has greatly improved its objectivity this election cycle, and I now view CNN as the middle ground network and MSNBC as even worse in terms of bias for the Left to Fox's bias towards the right. Olberman , Matthews, Howard Dean, and Harry Reid, the biggest scumbags on earth, and trying despite all knowledge and evidence to the contrary to drag a war hero's name through the mud in the vain hope that people will chose "chnage" over "experience".

- crazy keith

May 27, 2008 at 1:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Right on. The Olberman show is a circle-jerk, endless, repetetive appearances by Maddow, Alter, Wolfe, Milbank, credit to Howard Fineman, though, who actually appears embarrassed at times by the childish conceits framed within the leading questions Olberman tosses like valentines to his fellow travellers. Don't watch it anymore. Like a caller on C-Span said Friday morning, George Bush could invade Cuba tomorrow and all Chris Matthews would talk about is when's Hillary dropping out.

- Tom C.

May 27, 2008 at 1:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ATTENTION MSNBC. As a moderate Democrat I use to be an avid watcher of MSNBC. No more. Both Countdown and Hardball are deleted from my DVR. More than a dozen of my Democratic friends and family over the past few months have done the same. For a cable news channel forever trailing 3rd in the ratings I find it curious that the network's executives would choose to cut off half of it's viewer ship, by taking sides during this primary season. For MSNBC to choose to be Democratic leaning is one thing, but to take on an extreme leftist position will isolate MSNBC from the rest of the country. Good luck in the Nielsens.

- Brian

May 27, 2008 at 1:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama is held to the highest of standards...he NEEDS TO BE and he needs to be vetted....did you hear his Memorial Day speech? Dear God, this man does not even know what Memorial Day stands for!! he said, "As we honor the unbroken line of fallen heros & I see many of them standing here today" What the hell is this...someone should explain the difference between Veteran's Day and Memorial Day...we honor those who have given the ultimate for their country,Obama, THEIR LIVES...is he f***ing seeing ghosts now??? Where is the media on this; same place as with the 57 states remark (there are 57 Islam mistakes; think he got confused) his remarks during his speech in Sunrise, Florida, where he continually stated,"I am so glad to be here in Sunshine, FL" "Sunshine, Fl, over and over and over....remarks that Arkansas borders Kentucky...his uncle having fought for the Jews, what uncle?..his wife was an only child...maybe an uncle in Kenya...what is the matter with you people? Listen to what he is saying and you will know he does not have a clue.... Former Obama supporter

- Mika

May 27, 2008 at 1:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am a Progressive and I dissagree with the idea that the MSNBC political coverage is biased in favor of Barack Obama. On the contrary, I feel that the political coverage is pro Hillary Clinton most of the time, especially where her negatives made the news cycle. They were covered for a day or two and then dropped, whereas, if an Obama negative made the news cycle, it was hammered for weeks on end. I find that there are so many Clinton negatives that should have made the news cycle that did not, due to the extreme bias in favor of Hillary and Bill Clinton. Open-minded voters can see who the mainstream media is really biased for and against, no matter what articles like this one are trying to suggest. Where is your outrage regarding the over the top biased reporting done by FOX News against Obama? It appears that if the news stations aren't slamming Barack Obama for one thing or another, somehow they are biased in his favor. What ever happened to just plain reporting?

- Lorraine

May 27, 2008 at 1:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree completely. I can not longer watch Keith Olbermann and I really liked him before. He just drips with hatred of Hillary Clinton and uses every chance he gets to personally attack her. That's what's curious about the Obama campaign, how it's so personal in its attacks against HIllary so that anything she says is construed as personal against him, when she's trying to talk about policy. Also, Hillary supporters are attacked as racist. But Obama has no meaningful experience and is opposed to the most important domestic issue that I support: universal health care. I don't support Obama because I want universal health care and he has denigrated it. So he's going to be shoved down our throats and as a democrat, for the first time in my life, I will not vote for the party standard bearer.

- MaryAnne

May 27, 2008 at 1:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with this post. I had the same problem with Air America. It was a mirror image of Rush's show, parroting the left's talking points without much analysis. But I would say that CNN and Fox rival MSNBC and I watch the latter because ALL of the cable news stations are so bad. It makes me long for the days of Walter Cronkite or, at the very least, some semblance of objectivity when discussing the national news and politics. By the Way, I'm an Obama supporter big time, but I would prefer to hear the truth rather than exactly what I want to hear.

- Katie St. Paul

May 27, 2008 at 1:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Excellent piece, and I say this as a strong Obama supporter. MSNBC's behavior during this primary should be unsettling to anyone with a hunger for good, legitimate news coverage...like Tom Brokaw, for instance, who hasn't been able to hide his embarrassment over how the peacock network has been taken over by a bunch of noisy, preening, dirty birds.

- Asinistra

May 27, 2008 at 1:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The difference in Fox and MSNBC is that Fox does not have Hannity and O'Reilly hosting elections returns for 6 hours in a news forum where they're supposed to be unbiased. It's a joke to watch Matthews and Olberman trash Clinton and praise Obama in what is supposed to be a program that is reporting the news. They're an embarrassment to true journalism and the worst part is that they can't believe they are criticized for their bias.

- Eric R.

May 27, 2008 at 1:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I never thoght I could find myself actually take to getting my news from FOX. I too was a MSNBC fan until they started taking side in the democratic primary. It made me sick to my stomach. I could not believe that FOX was actually more fair and balanced in their coverage of the primaries than MSNBC, CNN, NPR, yes NPR with Michelle Norris. What is going on? This is affirmative action gone amuck. Shame on MSM for what they did to Hillary. Can you believe it that these morons actually try to force Hillary out after one contest - Iowa?

- Sam

May 27, 2008 at 1:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, I watched MSNBC when they covered "Bittergate" and Rev Wright. To the writer's main point, they covered those issues with a "Why is Hillary stoking this" message. They never asked the tough questions or minced his ever evolving explanations for his comments. Example: Obama said he wasn't putting working class whites down for Clinging to their guns and religion. He said, "In times of trouble, people cling to what's good." In that answer, he omitted "Antipathy towards people not like them." His first quote was "cling to guns and religion and antipathy for people not like them." Where is the follow up question: What is so good about antipathy for people not like yourself? Instead, MSNBC took his explanation and used it to blast away at Hillary! Shame. Hillary didn't make Obama go behind closed doors and talk about working class America. Hillary didn't make Obama sit in the pews listening to Wright for 20 years.

- Steve

May 27, 2008 at 1:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When Fox News was the only network that was the only network pushing for one party over the other that's when cable news was out of balance. Since MSNBC has had a progressive bias there is finally some balance in the media. If Senator Clinton did not act so much like a Republican she would not now be cheered on Fox News and downplayed on MSNBC. Open your eyes to the the reality that Clinton is a Democrat in name only.

- KQuark

May 27, 2008 at 1:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So even before Clinton's official exit from the race, the history writing on her behalf has already begun: She lost because of the media! Ye, right.

- Yoelish

May 27, 2008 at 2:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I watch them because I like what I hear. Here is the way I see it. Fox does not hide it. MSNBC does not hide it. The rest of them are pretending. FOX and MSNBC are the honest,real journalist who 'came out of the closet'. CNN and the rest of them are still pretending something they are not. There is no unbiased reporting on cable, period. There is no such on other netwoks either. The only thing in other networks is that they alternate the bias. Know their bias, watch, and enjoy. It's just entertainment, not journalism.

- Alan

May 27, 2008 at 2:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hillary, (and bill), please---please---, pleasepleaseplease,---pleeeeease, go away.

- fred

May 27, 2008 at 2:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What should be noted the most is that "The New Republic" has become a spin machine for Hillary. Right now Clinton has two networks shilling for her Fox News and CNN. Obama has one network with only one show with a clear pro-Obama bias and you pick on MSNBC. Now where is the real bias?

- KQuark

May 27, 2008 at 2:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Make all the pronouncements you want about MSNBC's audience performance - they're still in last place in the Nielsen's, and they always will be. Once this election is over, they will be banished to the well-deserved obscurity they've enjoyed the last few years. Matthews and Oldermanm are Obama sychophants who's credibility wanes with each passing day. I only wish that former Marine Zell Miller had had a chance to kick Chris' butt up and down the street as he once expressed the desire to do. As to Oldermann, he's nothing but an attack dog, foaming-at-the-mouth hack who's too ignorant to realize that GEORGE BUSH IS NOT RUNNING. He should go back to doing play by play at sporting events and leave the real journalism to guys, who unlike himself, have never suffered a head injury.

- Geechee

May 27, 2008 at 2:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

why do people call fox "news", and; why don't people recognize that scarboro is pro clinton and oberman favors obama

- fred

May 27, 2008 at 2:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K Olberman should just start wearing a tight pink t-shirt with the words OBAMA GIRL written over the front - he's absolutely ridiculous with the feigned righteous indignation every time he mentions HRC.

- jwright

May 27, 2008 at 2:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I use to watch MSNBC ALL the time. I thought for the most part, it was attempting to stay neutral. But about 8 months ago or so, when Mr. Shuster made that incredible remark about the daughter of a living president, I observed how Keith suddenly became a zealot about attacking Hillary. I sent a few emails, but of course, they didn't matter. Mr. Olberman is not a journalist or reporter anymore. He has crossed way over the line of professionalism and several months ago I simply stopped watching all shows on MSNBC. About that time, as channel flipping goes, I started watching Fox and was amazed that they were actually reporting more down the middle/more neutral than ever before. Miracles still happen! Unfortunately, as I was watching more and more of CNN, I observed how it was following suit with MSNBC and the unprofessional, biased, hatefilled commentators, guests, etc. made me swear off CNN also. Times have changed for me and the shows I watch on cable. In fact, I'm starting to watch more of the non-cable shows now. It's a breath of freash, non-biased, professional air that this consumer expects and wants to watch.

- Kim in Texas

May 27, 2008 at 2:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I will admit that I have not read the 174 comments above, so I may be repeating something someone else reaised. At the start of the voting (or caucusing), Olbermann was not anti-Hillary/pro-Obama. In fact, on the night of the Iowa caucuses, he kept stressing that Hillary had "won" the causcuses among Democrats and Obama only prevailed because of independent voters. It was during the following week that his position changed. While this does not undermine the thesis of this piece, it is worth pointing out that Olbermann was not reflexively anti-Hillary, but only became so during ths campaign. I would be curious to see if there was a triggering event.

- gchernack

May 27, 2008 at 2:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

More New Important New News: FOX NEWS is now the RWNN = Rev. Wright News Network. I cannot wait for tonight’s sermons; maybe we can start sending in our donations. Fox can become a tax Free Church, it seems like every night that’s all they do is sermons from Rev. Wright and other Black Churches. They have secret Cameras and everything. They even have other black people pretending like they are there for spiritual reason. To spy on the churches to report on the black secret agenda to take over the country. Red Alert, Red Alert, Red Alert, Red Alert, Beware of black people they are going try to put White people in Slavery and give the country to Osama. Don't vote for Obama vote for Hillary, a least we know she looks like we do, and we have a chance to beat her. Be scared America be scared be scared of the Black Boogie Man. FOX NEWS, opps, I mean RWNN = Rev. Wright News Network. FOX NEWS THE NEW ANTI-AMERICAN TERROIST OF THE CABLE NEWS!

- Capt. Smash

May 27, 2008 at 2:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You guys have to stop whining about Fox....it is 10 times more fair and balance than MSNBC with those clowns Matthews and Oldermann. In Philly we would say to our hometown Chris Matthews "whose boy are you?" because he would never hang out with us. And Oldermann needs to take a chill pill and smile every once in awhile even though he continually gets crushed by O'Reilly.

- jerry berger

May 27, 2008 at 2:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Any one who has watched MSNBC knows that the Obama bias is beyond arguable. It is blatant and unrepentant. The funny thing is how these commentators simultaneously blast FOX for being biased. How can one explain it? Do they not realize their bias? Do they think their bias is correct so it isn't really bias, it is truth. It is so sad.

- Steven Resnick

May 27, 2008 at 2:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MSNBC is still around?

- R.C.

May 27, 2008 at 2:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Great article. GOLD! I use to watch MSNBC, now I watch CNN (except Jack Cafferty in "Situation Room") or Fox. It is unfortunate that MSNBC bash Clinton all the time and praise Obama. But I promise you it will fire back.

- Maryam

May 27, 2008 at 2:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Kquark, please provide some specific examples of when anyone on Fox News has said that George Bush or John McCain "sent a shiver down their legs" when speaking? If you cannot do that, then give us all some specific examples of how Fox News "pushes" for the Republicans. Or perhaps it is like the Emperors New Clothes? If you can't see them, you must not be really hip??? ;-) To compare MSNBC to Fox News is a joke. To think that the other networks are somehow "balanced" is representative of the liberal delusion that a network has to be far to the left of a liberal's own views to be acknowledged as being liberal. Fortunately, MSNBC is so far to the left these days that even mainstream liberals can see it. ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN are ALL biased to the liberal side of the political aisle. The way their bias comes out is what the choose to report and what they do not report at all, so it is a little more insidious. Example, the very same week that the Matthew Shepherd story was all over the mainstream news networks, a 10 year old boy was kidnapped by two gay men in Colorado, repeatedly sodomized over 7 days, and ultimately murdered. Not ONE of the above networks nor the New York Times, Boston Globe, LA Times, or Washington Post carried a SINGLE story about this the crimes against this little boy. However, everyone in the country knew about the Matthew Shepherd case. Why is that, do you think? Because ONLY those stories which support the liberal agenda of these networks and newspapers are deemed worthy of reporting. Those that would harm this agenda are buried, without mention. Just like the 10 year old boy in Colorado.

- Veritas

May 27, 2008 at 2:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you so much, Isaac Chotiner! I have been boycotting MSNBC since before Olbermann's first tirade against Senator Clinton re Ms. Ferraro and Matthews constant remarks re "the cackle." I could no longer watch individuals whose opinions I once found interesting like Alton, Robinson, Fineman, Wolfe, L. O'Donnell make fools of themselves. They reminded me of watching Armstrong Jones shill for President Bush's education programs and later finding out he was being paid for it. MSNBC has seriously crossed the line in their partisanship, particularly with their incestuous relationshop with Newsweek. Strangely, I do miss Pat Buchanan's commentary, maybe because it appears genuine and fair.

- PNolan

May 27, 2008 at 2:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wondered when ANY report would come out about the obvious bias by msnbc towards obama. Yes, me and my family stopped watching a few weeks ago. Poor widdle keitho, he can only have someone on his little panel desk that completely agrees with him - and they can pat each other on the back. What a wimp he is,going after and attacking the woman, that's what a bully really is, inside.

- allen

May 27, 2008 at 2:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My attitude towards MSNBC has moved from positive to negative over the past two months for the many reasons you cited. I was especially taken back during the Friday night tirade by Mr. Olberman. He is critical of Clinton's Kennedy comment but proceeds to echo the comment over and over. He said it so many times I lost track. Is he hoping it will come true now to give himself credibility and bolster his ratings?

- Todd

May 27, 2008 at 2:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey, don't all you folks remember when Matthews was fun to watch because he was so critical of Bill Clinton's infidelities? I don't like Matthew's or Olbermann's politics (especially Olbermann's because he is such a mean spirited name caller) but I admit their right to their opinions because they are commentators as are O'Reilly and Hannity also commentators. The difference is that Fox features both sides of the politics far more then MSNBC. Even the Clinton's have remarked that Fox has been more fair and balanced then any other network. My quarrel is with NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN who masquerade as impartial but are biased. That is why Fox has grown so rapidly because here-to-fore so called news was always so one sided.

- Loco36

May 27, 2008 at 3:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article does not tell the good calls MSNBC was making. Back on Feb. 19th Chuck Todd and others mentioned the race was essentially over as Hillary had to win something like 60% of the delegates from then on. I just counted what she won since then. Out of the 895 delegates in the states that had contests since then she won 456 and Obama won 439. That is 2%!. This race was never close and was over on Feb. 19th. MSNBC called it right. I would say Hillary won Ohio, PA etc. only because Obama being the front runner could not 'vet' here i.e. go after her at full force.

- ckuckk

May 27, 2008 at 3:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sniff for flatus, David, I think I love you

- lynn

May 27, 2008 at 3:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am sooo glad to know that CNN is pro-hillary If I had known that a few months ago I would have switched over to CNN. The only times I have tuned in I hadnt noticed a bias. I may have confused the news station with the web site because if you have ever read a blog on their site its not Clinton that people are cheering for.

- Chicago Joe

May 27, 2008 at 3:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have watched Matthew's & Keith for yrs, but i became so disgusted with their pro-Obama i stopped watching MSNBC. I mean, I watched them "every night". I will vote McCain if need be. I am sick & tired of all the pundits saying we will allcome around to Obama in NOV. Wake up democratic party. We will not! I now watch O'Reilly & I firmly believe he is more "fair & balanced" than MSNBC. CNN with Cafferty, Martin & the rest of them are as bad as MSNBC. Dobbs is impartial & actually asks them all (Obama,Clinton,McCain) to discuss issues.

- Bob

May 27, 2008 at 3:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I believe I saw George S. on This Week mention to David Axelrod something about his campaign sending out copies to the media of Olbermann's tirade against Senator Clinton's unfortunate remarks re RFK still being in the race in June. So now Olbermann is the expert the Obama campaign is referencing to continue to fan the flames of the RFK controversary?

- PNolan

May 27, 2008 at 3:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Olbermann's show: Segment 1: Olbermann gives opinion. Richard Wolffe agrees. Segment 2: Olbermann gives opinion. Eugene Robinson agrees. Segement 3: Olbermann gives opinion. Jonathan Alter agrees. Segment 4: Olbermann gives opinion. Howard Fineman agrees. And so it goes... Did I miss anything?

- len09

May 27, 2008 at 3:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes! I agree on Tim Russert--he went way overboard very early on, but no one seemed to pay attention--I did and so did many women voters. This is the reason I think Hillary has stayed in all the way to the end as WE WOMEN wanted her to!!!!!! God Bless PBS!!!! for their FAIR news all the time!

- Lena

May 27, 2008 at 3:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For God's Sake! If you don't like it, change the bloody channel! You people have waaaay too much time on your hands, if this is all it takes to get you upset! It is called the Keith Olbermann Show, not MSNBC News or any other news program. I watch MSNBC ALL the time and there as many people for Obama as against him! Pat Buchanan and Lanny the Loon just to name two! Just like all of you, Keith has a right to his own opinon. After all, that is what they pay him for, not to report the news! Besides, he has NEVER harped on or dissed Clinton the way Sean Hannity has harped on and dissed Obama. Hell, if you cut out everything that had to do with Obama from Hannity and Colmes, the show would be about 5 minutes long! Some of you need JESUS!

- Angela Frazier

May 27, 2008 at 3:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't watch MSNBC but I do watch CNN. There has been flagrant pro-Obama favoritism in the commentary on CNN also. Journalistic work ethics are in the toilet! John Stewart may in fact be both a better entertainer AND a better journalist than some of these so-called journalists. To your point, as a Democrat, voting for Obama should be a no-brainer if and when he is the nominee. But as a Hillary supporter, I am outraged by the predominant pro-Obama narrative in the media for months on end and the raw treatment Hillary has received. It is amazing that - no matter what method of counting is used - she is almost equal in the popular vote; a fact most people may entierely ignore since journalists have decided that it is of no importance. Hillary's competiveness despite the bias makes me truly think that the media has swung the election. Another reason for resentment is that Obama supporters had during the same time been trashing Hillary in blogs - very much in contradiction with the pretention of transcending political pettiness - before more recently becoming patronizing once the polls showed we might not all docily come back to the fold... There is definitely a backlash for Obama from all the excess spin. I would like nothing more than to see the pundits and the more arrogant Obama supporters eat their hats. And yet, allthough I prefer a more experienced candidate, I really believe that without the crass exposure to these Obama cheerleaders I would glady have voted for Obama! He is likeable, articulate and will surely run circles around McCain in debates.

- cserre

May 27, 2008 at 3:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I commend the author of this article! It was about time someone reported about MSNBC's blatant pro-Obama bias and favoritism, as well as the unrestrained Hillary-bashing by KO and CM and other partisan guests. I stopped watching their shows right after the Iowa caucuses. I must also say I lost the high respect I had for Tim Russert. I no longer trust his interviews because it is now evidently clear he is pushing his own very partisan (pro-Obama) agenda. Ironically, FOX has become the more balanced reporting cable station on the Democratic race - and, that is because at least they attack both Hillary and Obama equally.

- Ernie Laredo

May 27, 2008 at 3:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is pathetic and hilarious. Almost all of these two hundred comments argue that "MSNBC is the new Fox" because MSNBC shows a bias towards Obama over Hillary in the Democratic primary. Don't you guys get it? Even a little? THERE IS NO REPUBLICAN IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY. HILLARY CLINTON IS NOT BELOVED OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. SUPPORTING OBAMA OVER HILLARY IS NOT DEMOCRATIC PARTISANSHIP. It is bad news, but it is not Democratic partisanship, MSNBC is not Fox, and Hillary is not John McCain's running mate. M'kay? Yes, MSNBC offers humiliatingly bad news these days. ALL the major networks do. But is MSNBC "a mirror image of Fox?" Is MSNBC now a relentlessly partisan Democratic "party news network?" NO. This is STUPID. The comments to this article are so "eager" because there is NOTHING the right wing loves more than to scream about a Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy which doesn't exist. It's a great way to scare a network into even more right-wing pandering... and guess what, the right-wing pandering at MSNBC has never stopped, any more than it has stopped at any other news network. (Play me that clip of Jeremiah Wright again? Tell me more about Obama's White Voter Problem? Pleeeease?) MSNBC picked a horse in the Democratic primary because bias is sexy these days. The news is a mud-wrestling pit, and people want provocation and outrageousness. But anyone who thinks that MSNBC is "in the tank" for Obama in the general election is BARKING MAD! When internecine Democratic warfare is not the only show in town, guess whose honeymoon is over? (As for Olbermann -- yes, he's a liberal, but he's honest and forthright. The reason he hasn't had anything good to say about Hillary Clinton is, "What the hell would you say?" Seriously -- she's a horror show for the Democratic Party. But she's NOT A REPUBLICAN. Being sick of Hillary is not partisanship. She's a DEMOCRAT. She reflects badly on DEMOCRATS. Can you people not even think in terms besides "Democrat" and "Republican" any longer? Do you really think Hillary is the REPUBLICAN candidate for the DEMOCRATIC primary?) Please. I don't think I can make it through the rest of this election alive if Hillary is going to be named an Honorary Republican, just so the pundits can invent a Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy against her. It's too ridiculous. It's too ignorant. Isaac, you see from these comments what kind of bait you're dangling in the water, right? You wrote "bad news is bad news," but what everyone read was, "MSNBC is Fox News for Democrats." This is worth thinking about.

- bdgreen

May 27, 2008 at 3:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...who, after all, does not enjoy watching someone exclaim that seeing Obama speak gives him a 'thrill going up my leg'..." I, for one. Keep that sort of stuff to yourself.

-

May 27, 2008 at 3:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, actually, nobody I know is even watching MSNBC anymore, and haven't for months. They're like the tree that fell in the forest. And many of the refuse-to-vote for Obama people I know here in Texas are doing so, not only because Obama lacks experience, but because they HATE the way MSNBC has tried to manipulate them. Most of them remember the way MSNBC trashed Al Gore, too, and gave us 8 years of George W. Bush. For most of my Dem friends, MSNBC doesn't even exist anymore.

- Mary

May 27, 2008 at 3:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow - you are so right on!!!! I will not even watch MSNBC anymore!!! I have a lot of trouble believing that I watch FOX!!!! I mean I used to have EVERY TV in the house set to MSNBC when I came home from work - I did not want to miss one thing - not now!!!! I can't stand to listen to any of them and especially Tim Russert - can you believe him. He was the one that everyone trusted and listened to - you could not even figure out who he was for. Not anymore - he is more biased than the rest of them. I have watched the very last show of his. I am sick of that smiley smirk he wears on his face when there is something negative said about Hillary - just makes me sick!!!! Great article!

- Lynn

May 27, 2008 at 4:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Capt. Smash - I understand that you do not believe the Rev. Wright/Trinity issue is important. But wishing will not make it go away. Hillary Clinton has received approximately the same number of votes in the Democratic primaries as Barack Obama. He received a substantial number of his votes before the Rev. Wright revelation. There are a large number of those who voted for Obama prior to that who would like to have their votes back. It has little to do with racism and everything to do with worldview. Voters want to believe that the candidate they support shares their worldview. Obama's 20+ years association with Wright and Trinity casts considerable doubt on that proposition. Barack Obama, his campaign and his supporters (“educated” and otherwise) do not understand the significant extent to which many Democrats define themselves within the context of their foundational religious beliefs and their views on the roles of faith and church in their daily lives. For instance, few, if any of them could remain members at a church where a “theological” worldview is preached that is profoundly and diametrically opposed to their own. Therefore, the only way by which these voters can rationalize Barack Obama’s decision to remain associated with Rev. Wright and Trinity is that he either agreed with the “theology” preached or that he wasn’t really as opposed to it as he has insisted. Either rationalization ultimately leads them to the opinion that his worldview is totally at odds with theirs. When such a disparity exists between the worldviews of a voter and a candidate, the only way to bridge that divide is to convince the voter that it doesn’t exist. Therefore, Barack Obama’s only hope of bringing these Democratic voters into his fold is to acknowledge and validate their views, explain why he did not leave Wright and Trinity many years ago and convince them that he does not share the radical “black liberation theology” worldview that permeated Trinity’s foundation and on-going existence. If, in clear conscience, he cannot do this, he will be unable to attract the majority of those Democratic voters who did not vote for him in the primaries, nor will he be able to win the General Election in November.

- jdin2003

May 27, 2008 at 4:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are absolutely right. Both Matthews and Olbermann have become obsessed with Barak. I love that Matthews gets a "thrill up my leg" when he talks about Obama. Olbermann's reputation as a political commentator rebutting the Bush's spinning machine has suffered imensely. Indeed, Clinton's chances were doomed when Obama got 940 votes in Iowa, winning the Caucus, and every 'progressive' talk show on Air America, from Schultz, Miller, Rhodes, etc., joined the bandwagen against her. Strange way of showing the democratic ideals.

- Tony C

May 27, 2008 at 4:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All I can say is: Don't let US become an Obami-nation Nov 2008!!!

- nobama08

May 27, 2008 at 4:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All journalists are biased despite their incessant claims to "objectivity." The media and politics are two sides of the same coin, and people move back and forth between the two when it suits them (how many current talking heads worked for a politician or administration at some point in the past?). There should be an "ethics in media" requirement wherein any on the air should have a ticker tape the constantly flows at the bottom of the screen that states how the person has voted in past presidential and congressional elections. That's the only way to ascertain the true perspective of each commentator.

- Stu in SDGO

May 27, 2008 at 4:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I guess none of you actually watch FOX because you all seem to thik FOX is pro McCain. That is not the case, those grumpy ones are usually bashing Johnny Mac because he doesn't fall in line with the Repubs like a good boy... Seems MSN isn't the only ones with their eyes closed.

- erickteach

May 27, 2008 at 4:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

By pro-Obama, do you perhaps mean accurately reporting the dishonesty, pandering, race-baiting, and assassination-baiting of the horrid, phony Clintons? Perhaps they are among the few daring to tell the truth about the crumbling old guard. More power to them and may there be more like them.

- Walden Greenwood

May 27, 2008 at 4:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I LOVE MSNBC and do not care if they slant towards Obama - they have PLENTY of Guest talking heads and regular racists (Buchanan & Sweet come to mind) to balance out any perception of the station being in the tank for Obama. I find CNN (Clinton News Network) as distasteful as FOX.

- Doreen

May 27, 2008 at 4:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am tired of people who keep referencing obama's supporters as reason not to support obama, so you are not basing your vote on the policies on obama which are very similar to clinton, you are not basing your vote on the candidate, instead you are basing your vote on about 10 "supporters" of obama out of the 17 million that have voted for him ... That is a smart judgment, please think for yourself instead of letting some so called "supporters" influence your decision. If you are not going to vote for obama, that is fine, but is its because 10 out of 17 million supporters are spewing vermin, then I can't help but question your intelligence.

- Tired

May 27, 2008 at 4:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From reading the postings, it's apparent that the right-wing spammers have been dispatched to this article. If the postings were representative of the general public's attitude, MSNBC's Nielsen ratings wouldn't be increasing.

- Elon

May 27, 2008 at 4:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hillary is such a flawed and horrible candidate that anything close to an objective reporting of her is going to appear biased against her.

- JIm Nickel

May 27, 2008 at 4:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wish you Clintonistas would put the blame where it belongs...On the Clintons...She was supposed to be the most experienced, vetted candidate and look how many mistakes she made. She alone doubled her baggage with her stupid and arrogant comments....all MSNBC did was accurately report on the stupid things she did. PS Everyone knows that CNN = Clinton News Network and ABC is All Bout Clinton...I think its ironic that they are using this arguement when Bill's Telecommunications Act of 1996 INVENTED the corporate media!!!!

- Beka

May 27, 2008 at 4:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How would you know Mika was in love with Obama? Joe Scarborough won't let her string more than three words together when he's on one of his Operation Chaos, Hillary lovefests.

- CTLIB

May 27, 2008 at 4:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was stunned after the North Carolina/Indiana primaries when MSNBC jumped for just a few seconds to a live shot of former President Clinton giving a speech on energy, somewhere in Montana (I think). KO actually SNEERED when the camera came back to him and CM. Oh, the asburdity of a former president to actually discuss something serious! That is when I was over the top disgusted with KO--and I was one of his biggest fans just a few months ago. His transparent support and adulation of/for Obama is disheartening, in that it has taked so much away from his former professionalism. He is no longer professional; he is a shill.

- Dizie

May 27, 2008 at 4:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I might remind everybody that it was MSNBC---and in particular, Eugene Robinson----who started the meme after Hillary kicked Obama's a** in New Hampshire that the only reason she won was because of the "Bradley Effect," implying that people who voted for Hillary were all racists. That was Obama-supporter Eugene Robinson who started that rumor, on the Chris Matthews show, with Matthews drooling and nodding his head in agreement. And he's been willfully trashing Clinton ever since, on MSNBC and in the Washington Post, our Mr. Robinson. Rabidly. Irrationally. And THAT, my friends is where the "racist" crap began.....and carried on to SCarolina, and still lingers, falsely. NONE of it was true. But Mr. Robinson pushed it, every opportunity he could, so the Clintons and their supporters could be falsely accused of being "racists." Much of the Anybody-but-Obama vote is BECAUSE of Eugene Robinson and his MSNBC friends, actually. It was just what Eugene Robinson chose to exploit to make excuses for Obama's loss. Ame

- Mary

May 27, 2008 at 4:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MSNBC makes me sick. It is a clique that daily, nightly, hourly, tries to destroy Hillary. Why those horrid men have such a crush on Obama beats me. As a woman I am offended. Why not just name the MSNBC network as "Misogynists Support Now Barack Completely."

- thecandypoem

May 27, 2008 at 4:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Biased news is good for ratings. FOX news is to the right and actively supports the GOP, MSNBC is to the left. CNN is getting left behind. Since I support a democratic candidate for the Whitehouse in November, I'll watch MSNBC over CNN any day of the week. In fact, MSNBCs ratings are so competitive with CNNs and certainly licking the heals of ratings front runner FOX news that MSNBC owners General Electric are not going to do a thing to stop it.

- Shawn

May 27, 2008 at 4:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Being an Obama supportor I still think that this is a good piece. However I think that a crucial point is left out. That point being that most turned on Clinton became a "Fox News" type of Campaign. Just as most whether liberal or conservative see the other side...she painted herself as the other side with vicious attacks, thus making certain broadcasters see a clear divide between...dare I say it good and evil. I think that is the way that all journalist as objective as they claim to be justify a lean either way. I myself want to hear about Both...rather all sides of an issue. I want to hear when Candidates do right and wrong so that I can make my own choice. but to each his own.

- Heart

May 27, 2008 at 4:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Aaaa ha ha ha ha!!! Aaahhhh ha ha ha ha !!! Hah ha ha ha ha ha!!! For the last time, it is the republic for God's sake!!!

- Denis

May 27, 2008 at 4:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Only when one has constantly heard the spinning of the Clintons could one even begin to think that she had a chance after the 11-straight losses. They were right to call it, only when you are the ONLY network to stand up and tell what everyone "knows" and it is against the Clinton's spin, you look like you are "pro-anything-but-Clinton." Personally, I would like to thank msnbc for calling out - only a fraction of the time, mind you - the Clinton spin which so borders insanity that the line is blurrier than a bigfoot photo.

- Brady

May 27, 2008 at 4:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I can't agree more. What was really disappointing was the intellectual dishonesty exhibited by Olbermann. I have watched him for years and have always admired his opinions and forthright manner but when he started covering the primaries he coverage became twisted and mean spirited. I can't for the life of me understand his antipathy towards the Clintons but it is manifest in all his coverage.

- Bryan

May 27, 2008 at 4:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And CNN is the cable media supporter of Hillary Clinton. Not all of MSNBC support Obama. Better stare at the tube some more and get all that magic truth.

- hokulele

May 27, 2008 at 4:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And CNN is the cable media supporter of Hillary Clinton. Not all of MSNBC support Obama. Better stare at the tube some more and get all that magic truth.

- hokulele

May 27, 2008 at 4:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And CNN is the cable media supporter of Hillary Clinton. Not all of MSNBC support Obama. Better stare at the tube some more and get all that magic truth.

- hokulele

May 27, 2008 at 4:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not sure what the author changes the channel to? That's the problem, all the channels seem to leave some things out and hype others. I started watching MSNBC because its Katrina coverage was by far the best. The thing that disturbs me about cable providers is that surrogates come on and say anything they want and it goes unchallenged. It makes the viewer rely more on the internet for information. At least Keith Olbermann does his homework. I guess tired of commentators pretending not to notice or know anything and instead just relay what surrogates say.

- karen

May 27, 2008 at 5:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

i'm not and avid political junkie but do watch MSNBC, and there is no doubt that their coverage hows Obama bias, which is fine but they should declare that. Olbermann is just plain bitter and would never say what he says about a Dem, ANY Dem. He is very juvenile and ignorant with his idiotic comments

- wen

May 27, 2008 at 5:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mary, Earlier in the year I might have agreed that a powerful woman might be threatening to men. I might have even agreed that Hillary would be that woman. But at this point, I must argue that it is Hillary and Hillary alone who has inspired what you and the author of this article haved deemed as bias. As a matter of fact, until recently, I didn't notice any behavior by the pundits on MSNBC that I would consider as biased and the network, for me, has done a marvelous job of mixing and matching divergent perspectives and opinions. Joe Scarborough, until a Clinton win was clearly inconceivable, for some time called her his "girlfriend" and was constantly on Obama's case. As far as the network news, even though there's not much personal interjection in the commentary, what and how they report things does often indicate the bias of the network. As a woman myself, I would love to see a woman who was truly threatening to powerful men but because of her integrity and authenticity and ability to inspire people to be better people. Now, that's true power. Isn't the other, nastier way more like "boy" stuff anyway?

- Katrina

May 27, 2008 at 5:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Isaac Chotiner: The problem isn't the coverage of the "horse race". The problem is the lack of coverage of "Obama's actual history unifying across party lines and making change happen". Don't you think we need to know whether Obama has the will, knowledge and work ethic to actually do the job? It seems obvious to me that the best way to judge whether he has the necessary leadership qualities is to see what he did in the past to "unify" and "change". Why don't you cover that? By the way, bring up Monica as a way to bash Hillary...comeon!!! That is old news and voters could care less. Give us the beef!! Can and will this guy deliver?

- Truth Seeker

May 27, 2008 at 5:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The American People out there are killing me on this. Instead of attacking MSNBC don't you all think there is no network more bias than Fox News. Last week Fox did not do any campaing coverage because McCain had a bad week and Obama was getting the best of him. If anything Fixed News is the most biased news organization around.

- Mose

May 27, 2008 at 5:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh Isaac Chotiner: Obama didn't win 11 straight Primaries. Most of those wins were caucuses.. Please be accurate.

- Truth Seeker

May 27, 2008 at 5:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Another way this hurts the democrats is that it has infuriated Clinton supporters. If Obama gets the nomination, I am voting McCain. The media's interference has made an Obama win illegitimate, and I will have to vote McCain to teach them to stop abusing their power to influence. There are millions more like me.

- If not Hillary in 08 then McCain

May 27, 2008 at 5:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Steve, I think we can all agree that when campaigning for months on end, speaking millions of words to various groups of people, there may be a misspoken word here and there. Regarding Obama, check out what he said hours before the "bitter" remarks. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/13/before-bitter-gate-what-o_n_101493.html We all, honestly, are biased towards the candidate we have chosen. Why else would you not even mention gaffes by Hillary like "hard working, white people", being "under sniper fire" and the latest, "RFK was assassinated in June", in response the question of her continuing her now futile campaign.

- Katrina

May 27, 2008 at 5:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article should be posted in bold print on the cover of every magazine and newspaper in the world. As an NBC Universal staff member I have been disgusted at the deplorable bias MSNBC has shown for Obama and the vile hatred Oberman, Matthews and Russert have displayed towards Clinton. I am ashamed to tell anyone where I work after the last 17 months of reporting during this election year. Since when do we as Americans need to turn to FOX News for a "fair and balanced" report on the candidates who may be President?? I applaud FOX News for their efforts and selfless gift to all Americans of giving us a raw, fair & balanced presentation of the capaign, candidates, and their results. I have personally written Chris Matthews and Tim Russert and in detail explained to them how they have embarrassed and tarnished our network and brand by their unfair, unbalanced and outright deplorable coverage and bias this campaign season. The pundits cant be the only ones held responsible though. I previously ADORED Andrea Mitchell but it seems she's a pea in the pod with the pundits. She has been on the campaign trail reporting from the Clinton camp and I cringed each time she opened her mouth as it always seems she was reporting a devastating tragic car wreck or state funeral. Her husband (Alan Greenspan) has publicly come out and on the record as a staunch Obama supporter- so it only leaves to the imagination what his wife's agenda is by being on the Clinton campaign trail and reporting with such misery even in the face of victorious Clinton primary nights. Nora Odonnell is quick to point out exit polls that reflect unfavorably for Clinton and beam with sunshine and give prolonged analysis when reporting Obama metrics from the same polls. When Clinton won the Southern states such as Kentucky or Indiana why did my colleagues slime the airwaves and chalk it up to just "a bunch of dumb white po' folk rednecks" who dont really matter but when Obama won similar states in the same region it was "America's heartland voices being heard". Why not just say those wins were from "a bunch of dumb po' black folk" who dont really matter??? I no longer watch the network that I once was so proud to be a part of. Matthews and Russert have acted out in a way that goes against all that our company stands for and expects from each and every employee(integrity, character, respect, etc.). I walk down the hall at work and see the big Peacock in brass on the wall and it certainly looks a bit more tarnished and I just shake my head and keep walking.

- From an NBC Team Member

May 27, 2008 at 5:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ben Murphy, why would there be a special comment by Olbermann on Rev. Wright? He's not running for office.

- Katrina

May 27, 2008 at 5:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

FOX NEWS is the ONLY biased reporting 'news' station. For them to allow a guest to wish Obama was assassinated along with Osama is outrageous and she and FOX NEWS should be dealt with in the harshest way possible. Google Liz Trotta and see what a great news channel FOX is. I can bet you won't because you're all to closed minded and prejudiced against a qualified candidate to be president of the U.S. So please!! Tell it to somebody who gives a crap.

- Anne Heiser Busch

May 27, 2008 at 5:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This claim of media bias for Obama is absolutely ridiculous for the following reasons: 1. For six to nine months (prior to Iowa), Hillary was inevitable by MSNBC and the rest of the media and Obama was an empty suit. 2. MSNBC and others just accepted the Clinton's "Inexperience narrative" without questioning it at all: After all, Obama has more experience working with and helping real people - as a social organizer, educator, civil rights attorney, and all of his legislative record helps the average person - from racial profiling, to transparency in government, to ethics rules, to national security - nuclear weapons proliferation. Whereas the Clinton "experience" is nearly all corporate experience against the average person - corporate lawyer against regular people, Wal-Mart board member throughout their worst ethics period, and her legislative experience has been horrid - War on Iraq, Iran Vote, Bankruptcy Bill, etc. Obama has been getting the shaft with the media from the very beginning on the "inexperience narrative". 3. Florida Vote - Commentators on MSNBC and other stations say that the Mich vote is ridiculous to count, but there is an argument for Florida and nobody ever questions this! It is completely ridiculous because many Obama supporters did not vote because they were told the election would not count - including numerous friends of mine and Tiki Barber said the same on morning Joe recently. At the same time, many of Clinton's supporters there were telling them to go to the polls (including members of Congress), that it would count. So it is ridiculous to count Florida's votes - and ridiculous more often than not that most commentators on MSNBC suggest that it should. 4. ABC Debate: George Stephanopolous (A former Clinton Appointee) should have recused himself from this debate - the result, an hour of trivial flag pin questions directed at Obama. It is not a matter of what is fair to Obama, it is a matter of what is fair to the American people - Issues, issues, issues... 5. Morning Joe and Jeremiah Wright: For nearly 2 weeks "Morning Joe" and other MSNBC shows played the Sean Hannity edited clips of Jeremiah Wright for a majority of their shows as some kind of obscene spectacle. Even Fox News (who I am not advocating for in any way) got experts on Black liberation theology in order to attempt to explain what Wright was doing. MSNBC's answer to this: Get an African American Pastor from a completely different denomination and style of Church (which I call the get a black person to speak for all black people strategy) to attack Wright and have absolutely no advocates for him - purely using it for spectacle. By contrast, Hagee and Parsely's more controversial statement have gotten very minimal play. 5. Losing 12 Straight Contests:If Obama lost 12 in a row, he would have been rushed out the door a long time ago. Yet, despite not being ahead in delegates a single day - Clinton has been deemed as nearly tied almost the entire time by nearly every moment. This to me is not accurate reporting or honest commentating. Fair commentating is not giving each campaigns' spin, it is accurately assessing the campaign, which Obama has had nearly mathematically clinched for well over a month. 6. The Case of Nevada and Texas: The MSM has put Texas and Nevada in the Clinton Column, when Obama clearly won delegates, which is how everyone: Obama, Clinton, and MSM had previously designated the winner to be the person who won delegates! At the same time, New Hampshire was a tie! 7. CNN Debates: For almost an entire year Hillary was deemed winner of every debate by people advising her campaign!! Nearly every debate on CNN was called for Hillary by Begalia, Brazille, and Carville (ex-Clinton appointees) - Gee, i wonder who they are going to call it for? Then, the rest of the media followed along like sheep! 8. The "not-vetted" narrative: For about two months or more, the media had fallen like sheep behind the Clinton narrative that Obama has not been vetted, yet nearly every Clinton scandal has been deemed taboo to even mention. I cannot remember the last time I have heard the words Monica, Whitewater, or any other Clinton scandal, yet for months we heard about Rezko and then months on Jeremiah Wright. Then, the media began reporting on an extremely indirect relationship with Bill Ayers, yet Clinton's pardons of the other Weather Underground never make the narrative. 9. Mini- Super Tuesday - the most hyped election night past Super Tuesday was the one that Hillary had long been expected to win. She had been up in Texas, Ohio, and RI by double digits for the previous year. Yet, at the end of the day there had been more of a delegate swing when Obama won Virginia, Maryland, Wisconsin, and D.C. Why was that not Super Tuesday 2? Because Obama was favored. 10. Clinton's taking money from lobbyists has been nowhere on the media radar. 11. We need to really think about what fair commenting means - if Obama gives a spine tingling speech and Matthews makes a comment like "running up my leg" that is not biased reporting - it is an accurate account of an impressive speech - after all, is he now supposed to say the same of a Hillary speech, which I think no one would agree is at that level? 12. Finally, the biggest problem is that for both candidates and coverage is that we have to deal with sensationalism rather than analysis and commentary. We could watch any one of these stations for a month and not hear anything about: their differences in health care, education, foreign policy, or other issues... Not to mention how the states elections work, how the campaigns work, etc. Instead we get spin, spin, spin and sensationalism. Until enough of us stand up, write letters, and boycott, none of this will change. 13. The above comment is why the average American is sick of politics and something that we truly need to naval gaze about...

- Jeff from Indiana, PA

May 27, 2008 at 5:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hillary rising above the muck is hilarious! Why can't we all see that all the news channels introduce opinions that piss us all off? I think all the channels have an air of ridiculous...can't we all see that and let it go??? Hillary, Obama...what is the real difference here. Woman, man, black and white. We love to bash that which doesn't match our opinion. The fact is, it's just opinion...Grow up folks!

- Sick Patriot

May 27, 2008 at 5:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article should be posted in bold print on the cover of every magazine and newspaper in the world. As an NBC Universal staff member I have been disgusted at the deplorable bias MSNBC has shown for Obama and the vile hatred Oberman, Matthews and Russert have displayed towards Clinton. I am ashamed to tell anyone where I work after the last 17 months of reporting during this election year. Since when do we as Americans need to turn to FOX News for a "fair and balanced" report on the candidates who may be President?? I applaud FOX News for their efforts and selfless gift to all Americans of giving us a raw, fair & balanced presentation of the capaign, candidates, and their results. I have personally written Chris Matthews and Tim Russert and in detail explained to them how they have embarrassed and tarnished our network and brand by their unfair, unbalanced and outright deplorable coverage and bias this campaign season. The pundits cant be the only ones held responsible though. I previously ADORED Andrea Mitchell but it seems she's a pea in the pod with the pundits. She has been on the campaign trail reporting from the Clinton camp and I cringed each time she opened her mouth as it always seems she was reporting a devastating tragic car wreck or state funeral. Her husband (Alan Greenspan) has publicly come out and on the record as a staunch Obama supporter- so it only leaves to the imagination what his wife's agenda is by being on the Clinton campaign trail and reporting with such misery even in the face of victorious Clinton primary nights. Nora Odonnell is quick to point out exit polls that reflect unfavorably for Clinton and beam with sunshine and give prolonged analysis when reporting Obama metrics from the same polls. When Clinton won the Southern states such as Kentucky or Indiana why did my colleagues slime the airwaves and chalk it up to just "a bunch of dumb white po' folk rednecks" who dont really matter but when Obama won similar states in the same region it was "America's heartland voices being heard". Why not just say those wins were from "a bunch of dumb po' black folk" who dont really matter??? I no longer watch the network that I once was so proud to be a part of. Matthews and Russert have acted out in a way that goes against all that our company stands for and expects from each and every employee(integrity, character, respect, etc.). I walk down the hall at work and see the big Peacock in brass on the wall and it certainly looks a bit more tarnished and I just shake my head and keep walking.

- Ashamed at NBC

May 27, 2008 at 5:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The causas in Texas was laughable. People were locked out and couldn't get in to vote. At one location someone stole the vote box and took off with it while being chased by Clinton supporters. They could not count all the votes so they just guessed at it and gave it to Obama. Voters are so upset and mad because of the coverage that Obama will lose, big time in the general election. Every time Clinton wins a state MSNBC reports another superdelegate switches to Obama. Republicans are celebrating an Obama win in the primary because they know they will beat him. Sad for the democratic party. I wanted to vote democratic this election year, but with all the hate MSNBC, CNN and all the other news stations have created, I will vote republican; many, many people will also vote republican. We can all see the bias shown to Clinton by the media and the elected officials. Clinton won Mass. where the superdelegate, Kennedy, Kerry went for Obama. Clinton won W Virginia where Senator Byrd came out for Obama. If this were Obama wins and the superdelegates went for Clinton, the media would never get over it. If you cannot see the bias toward Clinton, then you are wearing blinders.

- SHOGUN

May 27, 2008 at 5:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, you people are such whiners. Essentially, what you're saying is that since MSNBC "appears" not to support your candidate, you cease to watch. However, if their broadcast were more favorable to Clinton, then you'd watch. So, what is comes down to is that you're just as biased at MSNBC. Face it, Clinton ran a horrible campagin, and she got beat by a better candidate! Have you ever looked at the ratings for these shows on MSNBC? They're lucky to pull in 3 million viewers at one time, and you're complaining? Give it a rest! Your candidate lost because she THOUGHT that she was the inevitable candidate; however, the voters had something better in mind.

- Dewtrell

May 27, 2008 at 5:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

YAWN

- Rhondapurple

May 27, 2008 at 5:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am from the original group of about 7 and half people who used to watch MSNBC religiously. I am so pissed at them that I don’t want to accidentally click MSNBS fearing their TRP would increase.( the only good guy on that channel is Chuck Todd), earlier I had one minute tolerance level for FOX, but surprisingly I am plenty patient with fox and CNN now. I cannot understand how is that Keith OlberWoman does not have one positive thing to say about Hillary,( I challenge everybody to state ONE positive thing Keith said in last four months which has not been followed by a Negative and biased statement by him) Same with Chris (I used to admire this guy . But he has been shamelessly putting all journalism aside and putting forward his agenda) .Then there is another guy on CNN Carl Bernstein he is in the same league as Dick Morison who is making a living by criticizing Clinton.

- Arya Lyall

May 27, 2008 at 5:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MSNBC is hardly propaganda or comparable to Fox News. Fox set the bar for what cable news now offers. Unfortunately, Fox capitalizes on gullibility and ignorance to shape public opinion. It uses bigotry, stereotypes, and falsehoods to scapegoat and deflect from the reality of horrendous economic policies that keep Fox News watchers poor and uninsured. Fox is a grave disservice to Americans and our democracy. It forced other cable news channels to employ the same format in order to compete and boost ratings which ultimately resulted in a mass media that fails to guard democracy. MSNBC, as far as I am concerned, is a much needed counter balance to Fox in an age of profit driven opinion based news. If this is the direction of cable news, then I welcome a move away from right wing fanaticism. At least MSNBC isn't in the tank for the failed Bush administration; it doesn't promote racism and assassinations, or air corporate PR promotions as news. MSNBC may be another biased network, but at least it isn't another neo-conservative channel that reports inaccurate and false information to dull the masses. CNN's Lou Dobbs is right there with O'Reilly. Dobb's is another one who confuses people with false information and fans racial discord. Frankly, it seems like the only people complaining about MSNBC is the president and Hillary Clinton.

- Deborah

May 27, 2008 at 5:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Countdown is the only pro-Obama show, and only became so after Clinton went negative. Are you forgetting Morning Joe, which regularly mocks liberals, and David Gregory, who doesn't seem to care for them either? Abrams hasn't played favorites, and Mathews really likes Hilary, or used to. Countdown is not afraid of either silliness or liberal passion. It bothers me when Olbermann tries to put words in his guests mouths, but for the most part they don't let him. I lack optimism, and if he inspires too much of it, good for him.

- Ann

May 27, 2008 at 5:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article should be posted in bold print on the cover of every magazine and newspaper in the world. As an NBC Universal staff member I have been disgusted at the deplorable bias MSNBC has shown for Obama and the vile hatred Oberman, Matthews and Russert have displayed towards Clinton. I am ashamed to tell anyone where I work after the last 17 months of reporting during this election year. Since when do we as Americans need to turn to FOX News for a "fair and balanced" report on the candidates who may be President?? I applaud FOX News for their efforts and selfless gift to all Americans of giving us a raw, fair & balanced presentation of the capaign, candidates, and their results. I have personally written Chris Matthews and Tim Russert and in detail explained to them how they have embarrassed and tarnished our network and brand by their unfair, unbalanced and outright deplorable coverage and bias this campaign season. The pundits cant be the only ones held responsible though. I previously ADORED Andrea Mitchell but it seems she's a pea in the pod with the pundits. She has been on the campaign trail reporting from the Clinton camp and I cringed each time she opened her mouth as it always seems she was reporting a devastating tragic car wreck or state funeral. Her husband (Alan Greenspan) has publicly come out and on the record as a staunch Obama supporter- so it only leaves to the imagination what his wife's agenda is by being on the Clinton campaign trail and reporting with such misery even in the face of victorious Clinton primary nights. Nora Odonnell is quick to point out exit polls that reflect unfavorably for Clinton and beam with sunshine and give prolonged analysis when reporting Obama metrics from the same polls. When Clinton won the Southern states such as Kentucky or Indiana why did my colleagues slime the airwaves and chalk it up to just "a bunch of dumb white po' folk rednecks" who dont really matter but when Obama won similar states in the same region it was "America's heartland voices being heard". Why not just say those wins were from "a bunch of dumb po' black folk" who dont really matter??? I no longer watch the network that I once was so proud to be a part of. Matthews and Russert have acted out in a way that goes against all that our company stands for and expects from each and every employee(integrity, character, respect, etc.). I walk down the hall at work and see the big Peacock in brass on the wall and it certainly looks a bit more tarnished and I just shake my head and keep walking.

- afriend

May 27, 2008 at 5:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But she isn't winning the popular vote. When is that going to sink in????????????????????? As far as sexism in MSN--- I think it has NOTHING to do with sexism but EVERYTHING to do with personality. Sorry, but the Clintons turn a lot of people off with their personality. I agree that MSN is biased towards Obama -- now, that is. Prior, nope, they weren't --- they time and time and time and time and time again reran the Wright story, the bitter-gate story until you wondered if there was any other news there. Whereas Clinton's sniper story or the NAFTA story were hardly mentioned.

- Mary

May 27, 2008 at 5:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow! An article on subjectivity in the media? Groundbreaking.

- Stephannie

May 27, 2008 at 5:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your comment wasn't funny the first time.

- dri55y

May 27, 2008 at 5:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And if you are letting your vote turned away by a media outlet then you are not very intelligent. Switch around and watch all the stations and then get your own viewpoint. Senator Obama does not have any responsibility for the way MSNBC, CNN, or FOX broadcasts. Senator McCain bears no responsibility for those medias. Senator Clinton bears no responsibility for those medias. The medias are in it to MAKE MONEY. So to say "thanks to MSNBC and CNN I'll be voting McCain" is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

- Mary

May 27, 2008 at 6:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is actually not completely true. Keith Oberman has announced on the air that he supported Hillary Clinton - this happened when he was covering the story that news casters that want her to drop out in dignity didn't support her to begin with. This is the kind of thing that makes me crazy. If you are going to complain that 'everyone on the air is for so and so' you should get your facts right.

- KLV from SLC

May 27, 2008 at 6:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am from the original group of about 7 and half people who used to watch MSNBC religiously. I am so pissed at them that I don’t want to accidentally click MSNBS fearing their TRP would increase.( the only good guy on that channel is Chuck Todd), earlier I had one minute tolerance level for FOX, but surprisingly I am plenty patient with fox and CNN now. I cannot understand how is that Keith OlberWoman does not have one positive thing to say about Hillary,( I challenge everybody to state ONE positive thing Keith said in last four months which has not been followed by a Negative and biased statement by him) Same with Chris (I used to admire this guy . But he has been shamelessly putting all journalism aside and putting forward his agenda) .Then there is another guy on CNN Carl Bernstein he is in the same league as Dick Morison who is making a living by criticizing Clinton.

- Arya Lyall

May 27, 2008 at 6:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What a fantastic article. I used to watch MSNBC religiously. Countdown was my favorite show, followed by Hardball. And then Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, as well as second stringers like Rachel Maddow, David Schuster and Mike Barnicle, turned their fire on Hillary (and Bill) Clinton. When MSNBC so blatantly picked sides in the Democratic primary race, I switched channels. And MSNBC's incredible bias against Hillary Clinton has spilled over to NBC, including Meet the Press and even The Today Show where I've noticed Matt Lauer and even Meredith Viera take an adversarial, bordering on hostile, stance toward Hillary Clinton. I supported John Edwards in 2004 and 2008, but I've become a loyal Hillary Clinton supporter, and I have developed a very unfavorable opinion of Barack Obama (and race has nothing to do with it), in no small part to MSNBC's blatantly biased coverage.

- Richard

May 27, 2008 at 6:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am from the original group of about 7 and half people who used to watch MSNBC religiously. I am so pissed at them that I don’t want to accidentally click MSNBS fearing their TRP would increase.( the only good guy on that channel is Chuck Todd), earlier I had one minute tolerance level for FOX, but surprisingly I am plenty patient with fox and CNN now. I cannot understand how is that Keith OlberWoman does not have one positive thing to say about Hillary,( I challenge everybody to state ONE positive thing Keith said in last four months which has not been followed by a Negative and biased statement by him) Same with Chris (I used to admire this guy . But he has been shamelessly putting all journalism aside and putting forward his agenda) .Then there is another guy on CNN Carl Bernstein he is in the same league as Dick Morison who is making a living by criticizing Clinton.

- Arya Lyall

May 27, 2008 at 6:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Its not sexism,. she is a candiate that can not win and she is reunioning the party...So i guess my mother and grandmother are sexist also for saying that Clinton as lost her mind and she needs to drop out...Oh wait, I forgot, Hiliary only have the uneducated votes...My mother and grandmother are Educated...

- Dane

May 27, 2008 at 6:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why don't people complain about CNN.... Clinton News Network. Oh yea, because all the Clinton do is WHINE! This thing was over in feb. But instead its been dragged on past the point of exhaustion.

- JJ

May 27, 2008 at 6:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MSNBC is not news...it is purely "entertainment" and it is entertainment which I have stopped viewing. Matthews, Olberman, Todd, Russert...the whole bunch of them -- should simply wear their "OBAMA" pins on their lapels and be done with it. I believe there will be a backlash by women voters in November, myself included, and I'm not even a diehard feminist. The treatment of Hillary by MSM has been a disgrace to the tenets of journalism, and unfair to the Clinton campaign. Let's hear those blowhards is November trying to explain to their viewers that Obama, contary to their belief, cannot walk on water.

-

May 27, 2008 at 6:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"How often does one hear a news anchor rant against the corruption of Bush's Washington, after all?" Amen. I see Olbermann as the first journalist who sought the truth about the egregious activities of the Bush administration, and wasn't so intimidated by their "you're not a patriot" threats that he wouldn't publicly present the facts front and center, day after day. I see Olbermann as a man who calls it like he sees it. Senator Clinton tried some controversial campaign tactics and Obama supporters saw them for what they were. They didn't need Olbermann to explain it to them. This is exactly why the Obama supporters are so adamant . . . they're sick of the same old political tactics . . . as in 'do or say whatever to get elected.' They also are tired of the old political ways . . . ties to lobbyists, etc. They aren't inclined to give Clinton any breaks. She's old school. If they wanted the old Clinton ways, SHE would be the candidate leading the delegate count and the one at the top of all the news cycles. And regarding the latest Clinton uproar, while making no judgments either way . . . I don't see how anyone could say this seasoned politician would repeat a point several times during a campaign and not be doing it for perceived political gain. Olbermann clearly distinguishes between his news bits and his special comments. One does not have to agree with him. But to say he's biased is unfair. We certainly don't say he's biased when he rants against the Bush crap. He's spot on.

- madfeline

May 27, 2008 at 6:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jim Feher's comment "I (along with my wife and our coffee cluth of republican voters) have switched over and will be voting for Obama..." is delusional exercise in mendacious. Jim, no one believes you except Democrats because you are a Democrat. Republicans are Republicans because they believe in specific policy positions; Democrats are Democrats because they believe in social engineering. Neither votes for the other's candidate.

- mk

May 27, 2008 at 6:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

msnbc's coverage hasn't hurt Obama as much now as it will in November. Clinton people are furious at the malicious treatment she has received from them and other pundits but especially them and it's not just the women. They have bashed her unfairly from the beginning. if they had played it fairly I would of easily voted for Obama, but not now. They can suffer like us come November when their malicious bias comes back to haunt them. I lived through 8 years of Bush, whom Matthews and all his brilliance voted for, I can handle 4 years of McCain. They want to screw Clinton, well screw them. msnbc can go to hell and ride the McCain express to get there.

- michael

May 27, 2008 at 6:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Give me a break there is as much Obama opinion anchors as Republican/Clinton. The difference is that more people prefered Obama. So it its oka ti have an positive opinion about Obama. There have the same opnion as their peers Obama's coalition o fvoters across the country. The keep is to have the other side to balance it out. Which they do on all shows (Tucker Carlson, Pat Buchannan, Joe Scarbourgh and others). The jounalists along with 59% of democracts are unfavorable toward Hiliary Clinton. These are opinion shows...that is what they do have an opinion. if you want more people to have a more favorable opinion of Hillary Clinton she should bemore likable.

- Cassandra

May 27, 2008 at 6:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am from the original group of about 7 and half people who used to watch MSNBC religiously. I am so pissed at them that I don’t want to accidentally click MSNBS fearing their TRP would increase.( the only good guy on that channel is Chuck Todd), earlier I had one minute tolerance level for FOX, but surprisingly I am plenty patient with fox and CNN now. I cannot understand how is that Keith OlberWoman does not have one positive thing to say about Hillary,( I challenge everybody to state ONE positive thing Keith said in last four months which has not been followed by a Negative and biased statement by him) Same with Chris (I used to admire this guy . But he has been shamelessly putting all journalism aside and putting forward his agenda) .Then there is another guy on CNN Carl Bernstein he is in the same league as Dick Morison who is making a living by criticizing Clinton.

- Arya Lyall

May 27, 2008 at 6:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I also watched and got a laugh or two out of those guys, but I've can't take them anymore. The press in the USA has become a joke. Just when you think the W.H.is a lock in 2008, the Dem's will find some way to BLANK it up

- Kevin

May 27, 2008 at 6:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article is completely baseless considering EVERYONE in the media shows some bias, not the entire network. Pat Buchanan, Tucker Carlson and Joe Scarsboro, all on MSNBC, are pro-Clinton and very anti-Obama. So, I think to state that MSNBC is pro-Obama is pretty inaccurate. And if you want to accuse an entire network of bias, how about the hate-fest on Fox towards Obama (seen Liz Trotta or Sean Hannity lately?)

- XME

May 27, 2008 at 6:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We Hillary supporters have been crying foul for months. It's refreshing to see that at least one Obama fan is willing to say that MSNBC is in fact in the tank for Obama. Another unintended consequents of their coverage is the the outrage that Hillary supporters like myself feel about the treatment and we feel that Obama was complacent about what was being said about a fellow democrat. Of course Hillary fought back. Hell, the media wasn't going to give her any credit so what choice did she have? I am one of those Hillocrats that will be voting for McCain this fall because of what has gone on in the media and inside the Obama campaign. David Axelrod is the new Karl Rove.

- Harley

May 27, 2008 at 6:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Like many who have already written, I am a progressive liberal. That being said, only a brain dead zombie would miss the all too apparant Obama bias of Kieth Olbermann and Chris Mathews. I like Kieth's show, and continue to watch it regularly. At least, until Hillary is named. Then, as has been the case for the ENTIRE campaign, I tune out and tune off. The fault of MSNBC and NBC is not in allowing ether Olbermann and Mathews to have a show dealing in the slightly slanted viewpoints that they treat us too. It is the tossing of voter night co-host chairs that they enjoy to thrill and chill us with their "not too brilliant" ideas and feelings. They are, in the end, just political commentators. They have a place in the news, and that is not in reporting it to us.

- Paul Clinton

May 27, 2008 at 6:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'll remember Chris, Keith, Mica, etc. long after this primary is over, and will never again view them as anything but than partisan hacks. I used to think they were clever, so in that regard the campaign's been enlightening.

- Don

May 27, 2008 at 7:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I used to watch Keith Olbermann almost every night. I was OK with his bias towards Obama on Countdown, but when his bias became so evident when he was anchoring the election news results, I felt that was inappropriate. I felt the same about Chris Mathews and Hardball, although I never watched Hardball. I have stopped watching MSNBC for the duration of the primary and welcome the more objective CNN. I listen to a progressive radio station as well where almost all the hosts are pro-Obama. It is interesting being a progressive liberal backing the "wrong" progressive liberal. It makes me wonder how much I was swayed in the past when they were saying the kinds of things that I agreed with. What it has taught me is to be more discriminating in listening to both people I agree with and don't agree with. I like Obama. I just felt Hillary was more seasoned and ready. I also liked Dodd and Biden. I agree most with Dennis Kucinich, but he didn't have much of a chance. Interesting how we ended up the three least experienced in government: Edwards, Clinton, and Obama.

- ann650

May 27, 2008 at 7:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I stopped watching MSNBC about 2 months ago; just couldn't stand the blatent bias anymore. Matthews, Olbermann and co. show us what a male version of 'The View' would be like and it isn't pretty.

- Independent

May 27, 2008 at 7:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

-

May 27, 2008 at 7:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I say Amen to that

- kosmotropic

May 27, 2008 at 7:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Most of you guys scare the hell outta me along with your Messiah, Obama. You think W's bad? - you ain't seen nothin' yet...

- M. H.

May 27, 2008 at 7:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh please. You can't say MSNBC is pro-Obama if you watch "Morning Joe". Joe (although absent recently) has been consistently critical of Obama. The only candidate he has shown much love for was Mike Huckabee. 6 months ago all of these shows had HRC pegged as the almost certain party nominee. Clinton supporters didn't complain much back then.

- IaDem

May 27, 2008 at 7:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry, but there is such a thing as objective truth and it does happen (though rarely) that a certain politician's "talking points" line up with objective reality. In other words, the truth has a pro-Obama bias. I haven't heard Olberman or Matthews attack Hillary or praise Obama for anything that didn't seem quite appropriate to any intelligent and open-minded observer. Your misleading article title was brilliant by the way. It reminds me of Fox's slogan "fair and balanced." Right.

- Jake

May 27, 2008 at 7:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am soory you feel that MSNBC is Pro Obama- You must have just turned on the tv. All the news cable networks have helped Hillary Clinton and McCain. Clinton sll put put a hit out on Obama on national tv and NOBODY is outraged. This media is perjudice and Obama has been walking a thin line not to offend Clinton. She has done the other. Its a sad day in american becasue she has sinngle handed played the race card and stirred up some ugly emotions. I sure hope those Puetor Ricans dont think she is actually going to help them. All she want is those delegates and they will NEVER see her again. Obama better watch his back - and not put her on his card. He may not make it to the inguaration.

- Cindy@aol.com

May 27, 2008 at 7:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article is dead on accurate. I was a loyal MSNBC watcher until they all decided to wage war on Hillary Clinton and promote Sen. Obama as though he were the second coming. I cannot stand the network anymore and now watch CNN (not much better but less offensive). I don't understand what has come over them. What forced me to go to other stations was when the FL primary results came in and Clinton went down to celebrate with her supporters. The "boyz" at MSNBC had an entire all-male panel (including Eugene Robinson of the Wash. Post who must be on the Obama pay roll by now) and they spent a large part of the evening making fun of Clinton. They did not address the fact that the entire party knew eventually the FL vote would have to count, but instead laughed and said Clinton was having a fake celebration, that she had won nothing, that the votes would never count, and basically calling her a fool. It was so horrible and so insulting to our intelligence as viewers that I swore off MSNBC, especially Russert, Matthews and Olbermann. Amazingly, I do watch Morning Joe, as Scarborough is more balanced in his coverage and in the guests he includes.

- bells

May 27, 2008 at 7:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank God for MSNBC - at least there is one 24-7 media source where I can go to hear something positive about the leading candidate in the Democratic nomination process. I'll gladly take my daily dose of Keith Olberman. Who else is strongly taking on the Bush administration and honestly dealing with the outrageous campaign Hillary and Bill have run. The Clinton bias of The New Republic and especially this author is so obvious. It is almost laughable that this article and the comments here are at least as biased a you all claim MSNBC to be. At least MSNBC has some balance with Pat Buchanon, Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd. Please name one pro-Obama individual on CNN or FOX News. I go to PBS - The News Hour - or the BBC when I want balanced new coverage. "Fair and balanced" doesn't exist on the 24-7 media and don't pretend that it does.

- old lake lady

May 27, 2008 at 7:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I stopped watching MSNBC awhile ago. When Obama loses the election in November, they will try to blame Hillary on the split in the democratic party. When in all honestly, it will be their fault for favoring and pushing a candidate. As a lifelong democrat, I will never vote for Obama, I now watch Fox and will vote for McCain.

- Lynda

May 27, 2008 at 7:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MSNBC is not news...it is purely "entertainment" and it is entertainment which I have stopped viewing. Matthews, Olberman, Todd, Russert...the whole bunch of them -- should simply wear their "OBAMA" pins on their lapels and be done with it. I believe there will be a backlash by women voters in November, myself included, and I'm not even a diehard feminist. The treatment of Hillary by MSM has been a disgrace to the tenets of journalism, and unfair to the Clinton campaign. Let's hear those blowhards is November trying to explain to their viewers that Obama, contary to their belief, cannot walk on water.

-

May 27, 2008 at 7:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm still waiting for Shuster to accuse Obama of pimping out his daughters when they where at a campaign stop in Indiana saying "please vote for my daddy" on camera. At least Chelsea is of legal working age.

- Morty

May 27, 2008 at 7:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seeing an opinion by opinion show hosts is a breath of fresh air. An argument beyond reproach is that people want to watch someone who agrees with their ideology. The phony face by so called main stream media has led to the current ideological situation where RWM espouses its believes with impunity, while the MSM attacks the very candiidates it supports , relentlessly. NBC is right to support Obama and should stand up more for themselves, after the thuggish tactics of the Clintons to silence any voice raised against them. I still remember the fear I felt for Senator Kennedy's political legacy when he came out for Obama. I was sure that the Clintons would break his ankles and throw him to the dogs. TO be able to speak up to thugs, bullies and dictators is not a job but a duty of a journalist. It is time that we have Obermanlike commentators, who can stand up to the likes of Rush Limbaugh ( who gets my 100 percent rating for holding and espousing an opinion ) and defend a point of view and a candidate. And then in the name of fairness, do not get up next morning and try to smear his name the next day. The clintons have the CNN, McCain has the fox channel, why can not Obama have CNBC ?

- zeusthunderbolt

May 27, 2008 at 7:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Isaac Chotiner, you are a liar, you are NOT an Obama supporter.

- D. Roth

May 27, 2008 at 7:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The CNN network is always spinning the news the Clinton's way. The so called liberal media will have to stand up and develop a liberal bias. It can never please the conservatives, and hurts the progressive candidates more then the conservatives can. SO guess who wins the propaganda war. The progressive element in our society has given up the good fight. The fight to educate the public of the evil, selfish, dog eat dog nature of conservatism that we have witnessed. Stop living in a fools world and demand that FOX news ' opposing point of view be aired. People need to hear and see the progressive, liberal leaders of the free world admired and praised. I know plenty of people who get their news from FOX news. Let some of us take pleasure in basking in the glory of the moment and let it be broadcast that an intelligent, peace seeking, ispirational leader has finally shown up to lead us out of this abyss of ignorance, bigotry, hateful, biased, war torn and ravaged legacy of passionate conservatism.

- zeusthunderbolt

May 27, 2008 at 8:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So MSNBC is pro Obama. So what? FoxNews is pro McCain. CNN is pro Clinton. Now all three have a network in the bag.

- Jim Jones

May 27, 2008 at 8:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Does the hurricane complain about the news coverage of the devastation she causes? Does she claim sexism when the reporter gleefully tells stories of survival and triumph against a negative force of nature? If a candidate casts him/her self as the heavy, the tough guy/girl, can you really blame everyone for siding with the hero with the silver star on his chest? I'm a Lakers fan, and I completely get why everyone outside of Los Angeles generally roots against Kobe Bryant, and happily points out his perceived character flaws. I understand it comes with the territory of being a ruthless competitor; NOBODY BUT THE HOME CROWD LOVES YOU. I fail to see any difference in the attitude towards Hillary Clinton, than these other cases of natural phenomenon.

- Anthony Harris

May 27, 2008 at 8:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your article comes with no suprise to me, based on the way you've been treated when you appear on MSNBC. Who is biased now? No progressive expects anything different from the NR, since your whole editorial has being anyone but Obama!

- Albert williams

May 27, 2008 at 8:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A couple of points the author of the article left out. 1) Joe Scarborough of MSNBC's Morning Joe has been an ardent cheerleader for HRC. Also, HRC surrogates and supporters flood his show and other cable news shows with their biased arguments. 2)Pat Buchanan has been an ardent cheerleader for HRC 3) NBC & MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell is a cheerleader of HRC. 4) Chris Todd is/was a cheerleader of HRC. He's recently become more of a bandwagon guy now since Obama is close to getting the nomination via super delegates. This is the same guy that dismissed Obama's speech on race when he said rural folks don't want to to talk about race. Hello??? Looks like Todd didn't quite understand Obama's speech. 4)Dan Abrams has been ardent cheerleader for HRC with his skewed "media bias" argument that he's in an uproar about. 5) David Gregory is a closet Republican, pretending to be unbiased and "fair." Intially he seemed "balanced," but since he's settled into his show nowe, like he was on his Tuesday (5/27) show, he was hyping up McCain with the direction of the panel discussions. So there's 4 HRC "supporters" and 1 closet Republican who get a great degree of airtime via their jobs or associations with MSNBC, compared with 2 supposed Obama "supporters" from MSNBC.

- AzynAm247

May 27, 2008 at 8:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Poppycock. Since when is a news commentator not allowed to point out how persuasive and inspiring a candidate is? The reason 'the truth' and 'Obama's talking points' are all blurry when honestly reported is because they are the truth. If they're put in a favorable light by his campaign, that's "spin"? Poppycock. Turns out Mathews was right about a wave of Obama-reality IS sweeping across this country. And you guys are just a bit disoriented by the tumbling, is all. Truth is, MSNBC is just refusing to join in with the right wing noise machine (which has now become the ENTIRE MEDIA PANOPLY but for a few lone accidentally tolerated voices) in playing the denial games about who is being honest and who isn't. And thanks to KO's integrity, we can tell that it isn't the thousands of people who show up anywhere our next President speaks who are biased or being mislead, its the people who find it discomforting to watch. It's not MSNBC's fault the fact have a decidedly pro-Obama bias.

- tmax

May 27, 2008 at 8:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have to agree with the author and I am an Obama supporter. I will not let my partisan feeling blind me to the facts. Accepting bias in a media outlet just b/c it matches my own would make me no matter than the robots that watch FOX everynight. I once watched Hardball & Countdown religously, now I download the Countdown podcast skip the "Worst Person In The World" then delete it and I do not watch Hardball at all. I too would like to see Olbermann have a few Conservative on his show he seems pretty smart but we will never know until we see him really debate and see how good he is without a script.

- Allen M

May 27, 2008 at 8:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

While I think this article raises interesting criticisms concerning MSNBC's coverage, it misses the point that MSNBC has needed to use intensely opinionated language to communicate simple issues of fact that the other networks initially missed. A prime example is the fact that Senator Clinton mathematically cannot win the nomination without Michigan and Florida. For several weeks, most networks dismissed this story - MSNBC pushed it with the assistance of the blogshere to the forefront, and straightforward non-opinion reporting might not have done the job. Furthermore, CNN staked out a pro-Clinton position early on that many observers noticed, and MSNBC simply fills a void: a network that is pro-Obama. Fox is conservative. Unfortunately, the result is few options remain for objective news reporting.

- Observer

May 27, 2008 at 8:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Keith O. is the "left's" equivalent of the "right's" O"Reilly: both are self-indulgent & self-righteous gasbags, masquerading as defenders of the truth. AAAAAArghhhhh.

- MGN

May 27, 2008 at 8:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Any station that has Pat Buchanan grousing seemingly twenty-four-seven can't be all liberal. I must have missed the sexism comments. In fact, I must have missed all the anti-HC comments because I've thought the coverage has been relatively fair. Matthews is an excitable, political junkie, geek and gets on my nerves at times, but I admire his enthusiasm for, and knowledge of, political history. The one I find myself looking forward to hearing from these days is Chuck Todd. He seems to have no axe to grind and isn't overwrought with imagined self-importance. Cable is just one of so many outlets available for getting news. Let's not make it more important than it really is.

- Duh

May 27, 2008 at 8:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I envy the republican party for nominating the candidate with the best chance to win the general. The democratic party and the media are falling in line behind the guy that attended the Church of God Damn America for 20 years. What are they thinking?

- BryanD

May 27, 2008 at 8:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MSNBC has become so biased for Obama that people are leaving in droves. I don't know anyone who watches it anymore. It might have a little entertainment value (let's see how they mock Hillary tonight), but there are really funny comedians we can watch. Bye MSNBC....watch out NBC!

- Mary F

May 27, 2008 at 8:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The writer failed to note a major difference in journalistic standards between Fox and MSNBC. A pundit like Bill O'Reilly is kept confined to his pundit program. MSNBC allows Olbermann and Matthews to host debates and sit on news panels. MSNBC is also allowing Olbermann to write diaries at DailyKos, a hyper-partisan website where he pimps his upcoming shows and even asks the Kossacks to email his bosses at MSNBC to give Rachel Maddow, an Air America host, her own MSNBC show. MSNBC's standards are truly egregious lately and no adult seems to be supervising the situation there. You have to wonder what Russert and Williams are thinking. Their reputations are getting tarnished by the meshing of MSNBC and NBC news.

- Whomsoever

May 27, 2008 at 8:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MSNBC has been all over the place. There were weeks on end that Obama couldn't do anything right - or Wright. Also, some of the pundits are so consistantly pro-Clinton, while others are pro-Obama. A lot seems to depend on who has made the most recent gaffe.

- Zoolie

May 27, 2008 at 8:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So when do we get the hand wringing pieces about the dangerous relationship between John McCain and his "base", the press corp. And why is it that Lynn Sweet is getting elevated to national prominence, but I have never or heard any reporter from the Arizona Republic? Do we have such short collective memories that no one remembers MSNBC's saturation media coverage of Rev. Wright, "bittergate" and Rev. Wright II? It sure did not look like MSNBC were in the tank for Obama then.

- Brandon

May 27, 2008 at 8:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For anyone who thinks that Hillary has been dissed by MSNBC, that person ought to watch Morning Joe, where there has been a veritable campaign for Hillary and where even a report on Obama comes from the negative view [can he win the white voters? can he live through Rev. Wright? Can he win the working class? Why can't he win the big states?]The shrill Pat Buchanan, that southern rube, hates Obama with a hatred that is palpable. Joe is the same; how many times has he lauded Hillary for her "fortitude?" But more than any of these facts is the story a stopwatch tells. On MSNBC, except for Obermann, the ratio of time on reports is in favor of Hillary at about 5 to 1! So please spare me this Hillary dissed scenario. For the clincher, turn over to CNN and watch Cambell Brown, who apparently is a paid Hillary staffer, for she spends the entire time she is on the screen in a rant against Obama and an unrealistic worship of all things Hillary.

- Victor Edwards

May 27, 2008 at 9:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I find this odd. If you win twice as many states and survive the press coverage of Bitter, Wright, etc. it is no wonder the media would take notice. Defeating a giant gets you recognition. He didn't just survive Hillary and her attack dog tactics, he also did it to Bill Clinton too. What a monumental victory. Deserving of all the praise he's gotten. The world is consistent. The world loves a winner. Besides, who is favored before the first pitch except the champions. Hillary had her time in the spotlight and it came to an end because someone outworked her for the votes. How ironic that beating him by 40 points didn't mean much. After all, it was Hillary who laid the claim that big states only mattered. Flawed logic and poor planning. The media as a whole has recognized the brilliance of a campaign doing something that has never been done. What that6 might be you ask? Take your pick.

- The Time Keeper

May 27, 2008 at 9:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well said. I am glad that an Obama supporter had the courage to write this. I truly feel MSNBC has helped to create a wedge between Clinton and Obama supporters. It makes me wonder what the network's true agenda is. Is it really shilling for Obama or is it trying to divide the party to ensure a McCain victory? On a personal note, I feel Keith Olbermann's rants against HRC are the signs of his trademark self-destruction. The man really needs help. It's so sad to see his talent inhibited by a lack of maturity and poor anger management. http://44president.blogspot.com/

- Mishka

May 27, 2008 at 9:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hillary is a Lying Monster. How about CNN, FOXNEWS and NYTIME's CONSTANT Clinton Gang slant during this campaign. NONE of you MSN "reporters", Including this column, CALLED Ma HILLARY on her "white candidate" rallying shout out to her klan leaning "followers in Appalachian country nor did you APPROPRIATELY CALL this Frankenstein on her Bobby Kennedy rendition of campaign "hints" about her Assasination tips to her gun happy crews.

- CooCheeCoo

May 27, 2008 at 9:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What amuses me is how Olbermann signs off with the respected journalist Edward R. Murrow's Good Night and Good Luck. It amuses me because Olbermann's show is exactly the type of news program Murrow warned about long ago. Olbermann's tactics are closer to Senator Joe McCarthey and not even close to that of Murrow.

- PA Voter

May 27, 2008 at 9:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What amuses me is how Olbermann signs off with the respected journalist Edward R. Murrow's Good Night and Good Luck. It amuses me because Olbermann's show is exactly the type of news program Murrow warned about long ago. Olbermann's tactics are closer to Senator Joe McCarthey and not even close to that of Murrow.

- PA Voter

May 27, 2008 at 9:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How can you possibly watch MSNBC and not draw the conclusion that the pundits there, with the rare exception os Scarborough and David Gregory, have completely sacrified journalistic credibility in their lemming-like worship of Obama.

- Jo Chicago

May 27, 2008 at 9:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I now hate Tim Russert as much as I hated Karl Rove. And ... I'm not alone. How sad is that. This prejudice shown by members of the media does not help anyone. You might say ... it will help Obama get elected and that is all we want ... but, do you want him held up in a bubble that will burst at some point? And then what. I have, I'm almost embarrassed to admit, been watching FOX since the Texas/Ohio primaries. Mostly because I want to see the numbers and not hear people basing Hillary. Of course, after a while the ego's nauseate me and I go away but ... having other egos on MSNBC basing my preferred candidate sends me away also. The democrats are screwing up and MSNBC will be at least partially responsible for our fall in November. Too bad.

- mbi

May 27, 2008 at 9:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I recognize you're targeting of Olbermann, Matthews and Shuster...but you fail to include the middlemen Tim Russert, David Gregory and Brian Williams along with those pesky penchant for democrat-bashing and Pro-Hillary supporters Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan. What about their contributions to the discussion...? I think that overall, that the coverage is one of the only places where there's a little more than a lot of everything for somebody. Anyway, even if it's too liberal for you, where else can someone go for the much deserved White house skewering..? When you find it, let me know.

- litzealot

May 27, 2008 at 9:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I used to work for an ophthalmology group practice that included internationally known physicians who specialize in all assortment of eye ailments. With so many patients seeking treatment for retinal detachments, I convinced myself that those pesky floaters that danced across my field of vision were in fact the sign of my own impending retinal detachment. If the only point of view you seek out is one that reinforces your own, you blindly believe that the entire universe shares your beliefs.

- Cathy

May 27, 2008 at 9:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MSNBC is a DISGRACE!! They should all get new jobs on the obama cheerleading squad! I watch NEWS for FACTS - NOT their opinions. The Hillary bashing is just shameful. CNN that old Cafferty guy is the worst - what exactly is he qualified to do??? We can and do change the channel - Yes We Will!

- Molly

May 27, 2008 at 9:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am investigating a Class Action Suit against the media, especially MSNBC TV for their egregious sexism and slurs that are against the law in the workplace but that have thrived over the airwaves and in print for the past 18 months. Whether or not they have also influenced a political election in this unprecedented manner is another suit, perhaps. When one must shield their children from the exposure of a historical campaign because of the new filth of "politics", there is something very wrong. It is amazing that this network can have public service announcements from their questionable staff proclaiming "democracy". One does not need to support a particular candidate or even like the candidate. One must, however, adhere to laws if one does not have any boundaries that resstrict their own sexual conflict and arrested development, especially if one commands a national audience.

- Tommye J Winkley

May 27, 2008 at 9:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am investigating a Class Action Suit against the media, especially MSNBC TV for their egregious sexism and slurs that are against the law in the workplace but that have thrived over the airwaves and in print for the past 18 months. Whether or not they have also influenced a political election in this unprecedented manner is another suit, perhaps. When one must shield their children from the exposure of a historical campaign because of the new filth of "politics", there is something very wrong. It is amazing that this network can have public service announcements from their questionable staff proclaiming "democracy". One does not need to support a particular candidate or even like the candidate. One must, however, adhere to laws if one does not have any boundaries that resstrict their own sexual conflict and arrested development, especially if one commands a national audience.

- Tommye J Winkley

May 27, 2008 at 9:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Get over it...CNN has been the (C)linotn (News) (N)etwork for months on end now, with Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper and others doing everything but crowning her Queen of America. And if you try to post a comment on their political ticker blog, unless it's pro-Hillary, your comment is placed in "moderation limbo" never to be posted (I know...it's happened to me time and again...UNTIL, I threatened to report them to the FCC!!!

- Patricia Walker

May 27, 2008 at 10:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's time to have my Cable TV disconnected.

- joyce

May 27, 2008 at 10:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Len09 (Post #199), Your description of Olberman's Countdown is the best I've read so far. You got it perfectly!

- Ernie Laredo

May 27, 2008 at 10:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- Dan

May 27, 2008 at 10:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I couldn't agree more. Keith Blabberman is an absolute disgrace to the profession of journalism. His "show" is so full of hate...biased is way to simple a term. I remember liberals blasting Republicans as "hate-mongers". Well, just watch Olberman once, and you'll see who the clear "hater" is. As previously noted, at least Hannity and O'Reilly have guests on with a contrary opinion. Olberman simply loads up with "yes" people who parrot his vile diatribes. I literally can't watch him, and wonder who, other than true haters, can even bare to see his face on their screens.

- Will

May 27, 2008 at 10:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Finally, let the recognition of this distasteful bias get a full public airing and discussion. It's toxic no matter which candidate you support. I used to feel MSNBC was a place one could hear people speak truth to power but now I see it has become filled with commentators drunk with what they perceive as their own power.

- Rikki Faineoller

May 27, 2008 at 10:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dave- you question that Angel will vote for a Republican because of the MSNBC bias? Well, don't. I cannot tell you how many friends and relatives will do likewise. I was an Edwards supporter, but I will not allow the Obama propaganda to go unchallenged. I will not reward the anti-democracy I have witnessed in the Democratic primary process. It's bad enough that party leaders chose such a poor method, caucuses. I can assure you that millions will not vote for Obama in November, period!

- hal_b

May 27, 2008 at 10:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, after all there is a "fair and balance" distribution of the cable news political programming: FOX (McCain) CNN (Clinton) MSNBC (Obama). It is up to the audience!

- Cristina

May 27, 2008 at 11:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is my question? Has MSNBC and CNN pro Obama coverage of Democratic primaries driven enough supporters of Clinton to FOX News to make it at factor in this election. If Clinton supporters are finding FOX News more “fair and balanced” about Hillary Clinton than MSNBC or CNN, how will it affect Democrats getting their political news from a “Republican” media cable new station. On FOX, Clinton supporters may get a reprieve from the Hillary bashing often offered on MSNBC, but they also receive a hefty dose of negative reports on Obama about his extreme liberalism, Rev. Wright, Michelle Obama, and William Ayers. Anti Obama reporting on FOX may have strengthened Clinton Democrats resolve for Hillary and opened a possible option in their political brain for the Republican candidate like John McCain. If these Clinton Democrats continue to view FOX throughout the election until November, then the Democrats and Obama will find it harder to win these voters back even with Clinton out of the race. FOX will accentuate McCain’s leadership attributes and years of experience while the FOX Obama narrative will cast him as a candidate who is naïve, unpatriotic, and unable to connect with common Americans. Keith Olbermann may think his “Special Comments” on Clinton are winning voters over to Obama but, instead, MSNBC may be steering Democratic voters to FOX News where Republicans are can sell them their candidate—a Republican president in November.

- JSiobhan

May 27, 2008 at 11:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For the first time in recent history the only cable to provide anything resembling balance on the Clinton-Obama fight for the presidency is the FOX News Network!!! MSNBC is a total disgrace especially Olbermann and Matthews; they should at least have the honestly to state their political objectives via their so-called "campaign coverage". CNN is more subtle. They bring in analysts that are supposed to help explain the events in an unbiased fashion. Roland Martin is clear Obama supporter; Donna Brazile is a more sly stealth supporter of Obama. The point is most of these "analysts" are acting in the best interests of Mr. Obama. They are trying to shape events rather then analyze events. This is a huge disgrace.

- Pembrokes120

May 27, 2008 at 11:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am a newer MSNBC viewer and I don't find much wrong with their coverage of the campaign. I know they editorialize. I stand with them on most of their points - this has been a shockingly inept, desperate, sloppy and disingenuous campaign on the part of the Clintons, particularly after Feb 5th. Olbermann went through the same transformation I did. When I also saw HIllary tear Obama apart and cozy up to the Republicans and Fox News crows for political expediency, I switched to Obama. I've had eight years and enough of the blind ambition without any regard for what is true and right - why would I want Hillary and 4-8 more years of this crapola? The MSNBC ratings are up - and maybe due to people like myself who are yearning for something more from their leaders, like leadership, honesty and forthrightness.

- Harry N

May 27, 2008 at 11:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

no I don't see it, but then I watch news on a wide variety of commercial and public stations. It makes sense that commercial stations tend to represent the views of their ownership - and publicize news they think will get more eyeballs.

- mcgreen

May 27, 2008 at 11:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Matthews clearly can't stand Hillary [many would say for good reason], but you are overhypping his importance. CNN doesn't even get 1% of TV viewers and MSNBC gets even less. Hillary is a candidate who began the race with every imaginable advantage, including a 20+ point lead in Dem voter preferences, more money, more name recognition, more endorsers, more superdelegates, a then-popular ex-President advocating for her, etc---and she lost to a relatively little-known candidate. She lost because she was a terrible candidate and she ran a terrible campaign. That, not a couple of news commentators who didn't like her, is what cost her the nomination.

- Funnyguy

May 27, 2008 at 11:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm glad other people are seeing the same thing: FOX News is providing the best balanced reporting on the election; certainly the best balance with Clinton-Obama. FOX news is the last cable channel I thought would provide balance. This is all somewhat relative with MSNBC promoting Obama and I believe CNN has been more detrimental to Clinton then Obama. I will never watch Olbermann or Matthews again; they have disgraced themselves to the point where they are unwatchable.

- Pembrokes120

May 27, 2008 at 11:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Clearly, Matthews and Olberman are biased toward Obama. But then Morning Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, and Pat Buchanan are clearly biased toward Clinton. So how does the entire MSNBC station receive you designation as being pro-Obama? You have these two liberals taking on the aforementioned threesome on their own station plus O'Reilly, Dobbs, Blitzer and all of Fox News. Were it not for them, there would be no pro-Obama anchors anywhere on cable "news." So I am not saying that your assessment is wrong, but your implication, your insinuation about this issue in isolation feeds the continuing trend of the cable "news" stations hiring more and more conservatives while the country seems prepared to wander steadily away from that proven dread as practiced for the past eight years.

- Joseph Schofield

May 27, 2008 at 11:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All you whining Hillary supporters’ man or woman up! She lost this race on her own. What do you say when your candidate changes who she is from state to state? What do you say when she welcomes ignorant, hate mongering racists vote in WV and KY? What do you say when she used a "misspoke" by Senator Kerry when he messed up on the joke of uneducated individuals going into the military? I could go on and on. Your outrage is FAKE to say the least. Now, because I am fair and balanced...Barack Obama has made mistakes as well. He is not perfect nor is Satan (HRC), so you have to give them the benefit of the doubt sometimes. However, this latest gaffe by Hillary is no gaffe at all. She spoke what she considers truth. She can win if something "bad" happens to BO. What seasoned, so-called experienced (remember 35 years), politician uses the word asassination in any context? Then she lied about her husband's campaign. The philanderer had it all sown up well before June. She could have used many other examples, but she chose not too. So you see HRC supporters, if you are honest with yourselves, you know Hillary is a liar, dishonest, no morals, hateful, etc. The list could go on and on. If you would only blog honestly about why you love this woman. She is who she is and that is why over half of the American people despise her. Last, let me get this out in the open. All this garbage about we will stay home if we don't win. Stay the hell home then! You will get exactly what you deserve in John McCain. This process has brought out the worst in all of us. However, I must say, the total delusion I see her supporters on television talking about drives me insane. If BO were in the same position, I would no longer support him. She is destroying the party and you know it. In addition, the media bias is just garbage. She is the STRONG/TOUGH one remember. Hillary is a closet Republican. Just look at FOX news...all the sudden she is the darling of the Republican Party. Nuff said!! Almost forgot. The bottom line folks -- the young black junior senator has out played her in this game and she nor her husband can stomach that. Just look at how they ran the campaign. They ASSUMED it would all be done by Super Tuesday….NOT. Home girl lost eleven states in a row. Then she came unglued. Her mottos changed from small states don’t count, only big states. Then it was caucuses don’t count. Then it was whoever has the most delegates is the nominee. Then it was the popular vote. Then it was the “good ole boys” are pushing me out. Like any black man has ever been invited to the “good ole boys” club. Now it’s the medias fault for her failures as a candidate. I am not going to bother mentioning FL and MI. It is just too much people. I will say again, she is who she is…A DISASTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I never understood the hatred or distrust of the Clintons, I do now.

- Shianne

May 27, 2008 at 11:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Isaac Chotiner is the only dumbest reporter there is left to understand how horrible Hillary has become. Here is something you can write about Isaac, something that requires analysis and not just shot it like you did on this article without thinking... I was looking for a Woman President who could bring a different kind of politics. Someone that can bring sensitivity, caring, compromising to reach out to the other side, a uniter, but I find myself looking at a woman who want to be seen as a Man. She has made it difficult(by at least another 20 years) for future women running for President to become successful because she has tarnished the women quality men do not have. Why should a woman converts herself to be looked at by voters as a Man? Is it not proper to distinguish and promote the Woman's value and her identity so that equally a woman is capable to lead in her own ways not just the manly way? What she has done in this election is belittle woman, assassinate the foundation we were brought by our mothers, discourage our wifes to fight for their right with respect for equal opportunity and our daughters to continue to look at men as the only leaders there are. Why don't you tell them you have to be like a man to get some where. WRONG MESSAGE! Hillary, Issac may agree with you, but is laughing at you at the same time as your failure to capitalize on the different kind of politics you could have introduced becomes a taboo. I have a choice between two man and I have chosen Obama! Good Night Isaac and thank you for wasting my time reading your article.

- Daniel

May 27, 2008 at 11:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dead on! She lost this fight all on her own.

- Shianne

May 27, 2008 at 11:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, with Olbermann approaching lunacy, Matthews as a political junkie with zero remaining credibility, MSNBC has become insulting to watch. That's too bad because Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough offer needed insight and fresh air. Even in the AM, with Mica as a love struck Obama airhead, MSNBC is hard to watch. So I don't anymore, AM or PM.

- Katie

May 27, 2008 at 11:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Too late homey! There is a change a comin and it is President Barack Obama! Get use to it. You and others like you will not dictate who is fit to be our next President. It is ok...the black man will not rape your wife or rob you blind or turn this country into a radical black nation. He will bring all the things we have lacked for so many years.

- Shianne

May 27, 2008 at 11:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Racism will be a factor come November at a level we have never seen before. Hillary know it and that is why she has been injecting it. The sad thing is this country will never get itself out of the gutter.

- Daniel

May 27, 2008 at 11:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is too ridiculous... It's as if someone turned a light on for some people here. What you all are experiencing in this episode of the Twilight Zone is the vox populi of the uneducated American citizen. Its not the news, IT IS THE VIEWER who is at fault here - the ordinary citizen. Examples to support this beyond news coverage: 1) A Belief in the good of a Gas Tax Holiday 2) A Belief that Obama is a Muslim 3) A Belief that Hillary is a Lesbian 4) A Belief in..."well Climate Change is...well... I'm not sure if its real" 5) A Belieft that John McCain is a vampire In actuality John McCain isn't a vampire nor is there at present a circulated rumor to this effect, but I bet I could get it started and get people to vote against him on this notion. No people. What we have here is a very, very dangerous situation in America. One, I dare say which is more dangerous than any external force, natural or man made. This present danger is one in which the citizen shirks his or her minimal civic duty to be educated enough to the pull the lever in a voting booth and relies on slanted sound bites to make a choice out of fear or desparation. Instead of people freaking out over the application of the title "Elitist," we should be striving on an individual level to become "elite" in our knowledge and understanding of our political democracy, what challenges face our nation, and what candidates are presenting to us in the form of leadership. This one change in everyone's civic duty to become knowledge about issues affecting our daily lives would push the agenda and news coverage to focus on many more facts and a lot less speculation and punditry.

- CitizensAreTheAnswer

May 27, 2008 at 11:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Too late homey! There is a change a comin and it is President Barack Obama! Get use to it. You and others like you will not dictate who is fit to be our next President. It is ok...the black man will not rape your wife or rob you blind or turn this country into a radical black nation. He will bring all the things we have lacked for so many years.

- Shianne

May 27, 2008 at 11:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's funny...I personally thought most of the hosts at MSNBC became pretty transparently PRO-HILLARY after the ruckus with Matthews' and Shuster's comments. Their sucking up to Hillary became pretty sickening for a while there, and I stopped watching most of the programs because of it. So it's all in how you look at it... I'll admit Chris Matthews used to go a little over the top with his plaudits for Obama...but then again, he also harangued Kirk Watson on air for not being able to name any of Obama's Senatorial achievements, while giving Clinton supporter Stephanie Tubbs Tones a complete free pass. As far as Olbermann goes, he's been more than fair for most of the race, choosing not to endorse either of the Democratic candidates (and even prefacing his Ferraro Special Comment with an aside that it was not to be taken as an endorsement for Obama). In fact, he's had Clinton on the show MANY TIMES, as recently as a few weeks ago. He's become increasingly critical of her because of her own words and actions. He is a staunch liberal Democrat and as such has every right to be irritated when a fellow Democrat has a Rovian campaign style (doing the Republicans' work for them, as I believe he put it) and goes out of her way to do things like praise Senator McCain over Obama. The Special Comment on the RFK gaffe was completely justified. Anyone with any semblance of a conscience should have been horrified by that remark. The only people who think MSNBC has been unfairly biased against Clinton are her sycophantic supporters who don't think their "inevitable" candidate could possibly lose the nomination...even though she has been consistently losing since Iowa. Also keep in mind that Hillary Clinton was considered the presumptive nominee by the media for about TWO YEARS prior to the election and treated with kid gloves. The idea that she is losing because Obama has gotten a free pass is absurd. Finally, consider that cable news outlets basically consist of editorialists and pundits. If you want straight up information and don't feel you're getting it, read a newspaper or even watch one of the network news programs.

- Tim Calhoun

May 27, 2008 at 11:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When this contest began enons(?) ago, I too, felt Hillary and Bill were inevitable and was quite comfortable with it, then, this young, idealistic, relative newcomer, Barack Obama seem to appear from thin air with a bunch of refreshing 'truth' for a change. I've watched MSNBC for a long time, and compared to the other major networks, Obama gets some favorable coverage which he has earned by his cool, calm demeanor and substance. After Hillary lost Iowa which I think she rather assumed she would pull out, her campaign began its run of erratic, inexplicable strategies virtually on a daily basis. Then, after eleven straight losses, mostly caucuses which are the political pros, she seemed bewildered and spoke it with the 'me and McCain are ready but Obama has a speech'; Bill's comparison to Jesse Jackson in S. Carolina, then they were really off to the races. I think MSNBC, Matthews and Olberman, saw through the verbal mechanics of the Clinton's early on and suspected their motives, as did I. Clinton math and attacks were a reaction to the smashed illusion that they were to be 'coronated' by the democratic party. I think the MSNBC people got turned off by them and as is their right on a network which promotes itself as the place for politics, they probably do favor Obama but to be fair, he has given them many reasons to do so. I don't fault them any more than any of the other networks who show whichever leanings they may have as well. I think in the grand scheme, it's probably a wash. Thank you.

- Oscar M.

May 27, 2008 at 11:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think the whole article is baseless. Matthews is a Republican who has been enthralled with McCain, and many other Republican politicians. Most of the MSNBC political hosts/analysts are conservative and seem to favor the Republicans, with the exception of Olbermann.(He represents most of the viewers, like myself, who are Over Republican politicians). Olbermann has been more politically savvy, is brave enough to call the politicians when they are on the wrong path, and is way ahead of most of the commentators on what is happening. His ratings reflect his ability to find humor and truth in the political arena. Hillary seems to fit in more with the Republicans than her own party, so maybe that would explain the pandering that most of the networks lavish on her. Matthews has raved about her, Buchanan has almost deified her, Abrams, O'Donnel can't stop going on about her--so who has "deduced" that MSNBC is all for Obama? MSNBC is not an Obama camp. It seems Hillary and her people have too much investments in networks and too much clout--too many people have been criticized simply because they don't think she is the "best candidate".(And that would be the majority of the country by this time). Tired of conservative clones on all the networks. Diversity is a good thing!

- Sandra

May 27, 2008 at 11:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I believe, the lack of or inadequate exposure or explicit talks on MSNBC direct at Hillary Clinton is obviously the annoyance of the tone in her campaign. Throughout this election it was the constant disrespect from the Clintons campaign toward Obama that has anger his supporters and the media. I don't think the accusations from the Clinton campaign to the Obama campaign and the media has any thing to do with being sexist or disrespectful other than merely annoyed. The fact is the strategic tactics that was exercised by Hillary Clinton and her campaign was a play on our intelligence. There where so many incidences where we had to ask ourselves did she really say or do that which wasn't exercised in the Obama campaign. Hillary Clinton was the old politics, negative, aggressive, and tough, after she fell behind in the delegate count. It was Hillary tactics and rehtoric which disgusted Obama supporters and some of the media. It was more like Hillary the Bully and Obama let her be. Everybody knows nobody likes a Bully, it turn people off and thats what happen. People in the media, undecided voters, and Obama supportes where turned off and against Hillary Clinton. However, Hillary was just as effective with her supporters when she often refered to be the victim of Bias which angered her supporters. Basically, Hillary's role to play tough caused her to again play the victim. Its her changing faces at different times during this campaign when convienent to her that made people feel she was playing on there intelligence so they were showing her they weren't as stupid as she thought. The act didn't work but allot of people on both sides are angry.

- Brooke

May 27, 2008 at 11:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You thought Tucker Carlson was fair and unbiased? Well I think that points out we see and hear what we want to see and hear. All the main stream, corporately owned news sources are unreliable, however it's ridiculous to suggest MSNBC cares about Barack Obama. They are simply reporting the truth of his amazing rising campaign.

- tchris

May 27, 2008 at 11:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The media spends more time on Obama for a reason; we all are sick and tired of the Clintons..they've been around too long, way too long, and their campaign and how they run it is good for a least a week of news totally dedicated to how bad they have done; everyone's tired of Hillary's threats, that she will appeal the DNC, like she was SUPPOSE TO BE THE NOMINEE AND SHOULD BE IN THE WHITEHOUSE;...let's see, she brought up rev. wright over and over and the MSM ran it for months; bitter gate, yeah that was a good one for Spillery; but she lies about SNIPERS and says she misspoke; (in her book and three other times) - that she was human. WHATEVER, I have het to see her say anything about McCain. When she or Bill speak at all I either mute it or walk away - I suggest you do the same.

- Kay

May 27, 2008 at 11:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Who on earth could view Matthews, Olberman and their MSNBC counterparts as "hard news" readers? The silly idea that any of these clowns are anything but talking heads, one of whom became a celeb by yelling at guests, the other as a sportscaster, is just ridiculous. Using these flakes as sources for hard news just belies any point being made by the columnist. Obama is a clown without a resume - truly a man in an empty suit. The idea that anyone finds him intelligent is an appalling comment on our unionized education system. Those shilling for him - anywhere any time - need to understand the damage they are doing to Liberals everywhere by fainting at his sight rather then vetting him in the same haad way they vet GOP candidates. Nominating Obama will set back race relations in this country decades - especially when he is trounced by thinking voters.

- Engage Brain B4 Fingers

May 27, 2008 at 11:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seems fair and balanced to me. HRC has been about as loose with the truth as the Bush Administration, flipflopping all over the place to suit whatever need she has at the time. Olbermann calls her on it. Same with McCain. Obama's has been far more honest and consistent so the MSNBC BS-meter has been a lot more quiet for him. I don't see them disecting policy much, so that coverage seems about even.

- Jeff Martin

May 28, 2008 at 12:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have come to hate watching OblahMan and OblahdeeMan Obermand and Matthews. What a crock of bull. What the hell happened to MSNBC? Booooo.

- Fainstadt

May 28, 2008 at 12:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'll ask a simple question. What is worse, being biased towards one candidate, but give the facts as they are. Or prop up a candidate whose campaign is on the way to the morgue and "sell" the viewers on a horse race that doesn't exist? Personally, I can see through bias. It's harder to see through misrepresentation.

- moondancer

May 28, 2008 at 12:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think there is a problem with the way Chris and Keith report the news. Personal bias is definetly there. I noticed it especially after the WV and KY double digit wins by Hillary Clinton. Chris said they asked Clinton to appear on the college road tour but she declined. I wonder how hard they tried to ask. Anyway, I have a problem with Chris Matthews giving personal opinion when reporting the news. Here is an e-mail I wrote to the "Race to the White House" show on MSNBC. My e-mail talks about the reason Chris Matthews had given for why Hillary Clinton won by such large margins and the voters said race was a factor in their vote. He was basically calling West Virginia and Kentucky voters for Clinton racists. If he believes this, he needs to discuss it somewhere else and not on nationally television. The e-mail goes as follows: I listened to Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, and Pat Buchanan talk about the West Virginia primary win for Hillary Clinton last week with disbelief. I usually have good things to say about Chris Matthews but I did not like his comment that the exit poll showed most of the voters said race was a factor and that they would not vote for Obama in November. He kept acknowledging this means West Virginians are racist. He may not have used those exact words but I think anybody listening should have known what he meant. Pat Buchanan, on the other hand, came to our defense while Andrea Mitchell seemed to be out of words. Having said that, tonight after a big blowout in Kentucky, Chris was at it again saying almost the same thing about voters Kentucky. Again, many voters said they would not vote for Obama in November. This time it was Nora O'Donnell that came to our defense. She noted that the number of democratic defectors this season is very similar to those of John Kerry in 2004. Maybe the voters didn't support Obama because he didn't seem to support them. Clinton was all over the state of West Virginia. Both Bill and Hillary held rallys within an hour of my house. They came to Fairmont, Clarksburg, Morgantown, Philippi, and many other places in my own state that I have never head of. The point here I am making is Obama came to West Virginia maybe less than five times. I know he was in Charleston. He was there the night before the primary shooting pool, I think. This state is a lot bigger than the little town of Charleston. He did better in the counties with bigger towns but lost by 60 or more points in most of the rural counties. It is one thing for the media to analyze the votes but to call people of a great state like West Virginia racist or even insinuate it while live on television is just wrong. If you want to know what West Virginians are really like ask our governor Joe Manchin. I am a 35 yr old white male with a bachelor's degree. My income is $80,000 a year. My wife is a 35 yr old white female with a high school diploma. She is a stay at home mom. We would like to let you to know why we didn't vote for Obama in the West Virginia primary and why we will not vote for him in November: 1) bad judgement ---> Rev. Wright. Dis-invites him to his announcement speech last year. Says his sermons can get a little "rough". After Wright's You Tube moment, Obama said he had not heard those particular comments while in the pews. Says Wright's You Tube moments were taken out of context and he could not disown him because he was like an Uncle. He did admit to hearing controversial messages while in the pews but did not elaborate as to what he had heard. Only disowned his 20 yr Rev. after he became a political liability after his National Press Club moment. 2) bad judgement ---> William Ayers. This man is well known in Chicago. Obama should have known about the bombings this man did in the 70's. They served on a board for a few years together. He even hosted a party for Obama. He made him seem less important be calling him a college professor instead of a man that bombed American government building and said that he "wished he had done more." 3) bad judgement ---> Tony Rezko. Also well known in Chicago for being corrupt. Bad real estate deal. Used him to raise money for his campaign and believing that the money was "ok". 4) lack of experience ---> Not "no" experience. He has only been in the Senate for one term. Between him and Clinton, she surely has more quality experience. I think her time as First Lady is valid experience. She went places representing the United States as First Lady, met heads of state, and had her own agenda as First Lady. I'm sure Obama was a good community organizer, state senator, and is a good congressman but he is just a young pup compared to Hillary. Remember what you got when Carter was elected in 1976. The older group that supports Hillary probably remembers that time. No wonder he wasn't re-elected. Obama young supporters are so young they don't know to pick experience over change. Change will come no matter which candidate is chosen. 5) unknown ---> Who is Obama? Sure he has been running for this office over a year now but it took a year for the Right issue to become an issue for him. I think if it would have came out earlier, we would have had the nominee already, Senator Clinton. The Clintons have been in the national spotlight for almost twenty years. Obama hasn't been nationally known for long. I hope any bad news about him comes out before the election because we don't need a scandal in the White House after he gets there. We all know how hard it is to get somebody out once they are there. We would be stuck with him for at least four years. 6) his message ---> He is running on the message that he can unite the country, go beyond party lines to get things done, and go over the racial divide. His campaign, on the other hand is doing the opposite in some cases. He has been getting a great majority of the black vote. They will not say it is because he is a black candidate. If somebody else says this, Ferraro, they are cast as a racist. Why won't he just acknowledge this fact. It has been said many time by the media. Clinton is getting the majority of the women votes. Are we sexist if we acknowledge this. Sure Obama is getting white voters. If he wasn't he wouldn't be where he is now. But if he wasn't getting the black voters he wouldn't be in this position either. These are the main reasons why we will not vote for Obama in November unless Hillary Clinton is on the ticket as VP. We don't care if they pick a Clinton supporter or not. If she is not on the ticket, we will vote for John McCain. Obama gets mostly the upper class, rich, well educated, urban voters. Check out the maps of each state that show the places each candidate has won. He gets mostly the counties that have large cities with a huge population. In some states, this is only a few counties but he does well because these counties have more delegates to award than the rural counties. Why can't he get the rural voters like Clinton? This great unitter didn't seem to bother coming to West Virginia or Kentucky's rural areas to unite them with his message. He keeps comparing himself to Kennedy but Kennedy knew the value of West Virginia and the rural voters. We will see if Clinton is right when she says West Virginia and Kentucky know how to pick presidents. Lastly, Hillary Clinton should stay in this race until it is over. She has won primaries after Obama had escentially crowned himself king of the party. Even though she can't catch up with him in the delegate count, she has a good chance of leading in the popular vote at least after Florida is added in and after the June 1 vote in Puerto Rico. If she comes out on top with the popular vote, Obama has to really think if he should deny her the VP at that point. We do nominate our presidents using the delegate count but he must realize he can't ignore the popular vote if Clinton does win it decisively. If he doesn't give her the VP then I think it will be hard to get her coalition to vote for a candidate that did legitimately get the nomination with delegates but did not win the popular vote. Even if she doesn't get the popular vote he should still offer her the VP or he will risk losing a lot of her voters.

- Donald

May 28, 2008 at 12:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mika Brzezinski on Morning Joe is so transparent with her love fest of Obama. Did you know she has two family members (I believe her father and brother) who work for the Obama campaign?

- rel

May 28, 2008 at 12:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If Matthews is sexist, perhaps it is fair to charge Hillary with racism?" Neil, your unfortunate post is indicative of the Obama supporter mindset... but, but, she's bad, so what if someone is sexist. what a silly quote. if it's sexist, call it sexist. if it's racist, call it racist. if Obama had been subjected to racism at the same level Hillary is subjected to sexism, there would be a firestorm in the media. it's time that sexism is taken as seriously as racism. women are 50 % of the world, enslaved in many parts of the world, 15 women burned in Kenya recently, suspected of witchcraft. (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) be sure to email me when Obama calls out those people hawking the "Bros before hos" t shirts with his likeness and Hillary's on it. gotta go back to what Barack says about women...tea drinking and periodically frustrated.

- cecily

May 28, 2008 at 12:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Can I just say that I don't think any network in mainstream America is completely unbiased? As a Journalism major myself, I can definitely appreciate when articles are truly unbiased and simply report the facts. But I think that's the only place you can find unbiased information - in print. I think the days of unbiased reporting in the political realm on TV are over...at least from one network. I think we all need to give up on being able to watch one channel and get the whole story. It's just not going to get you what you want. Read a little bit of everything, right, left, middle, sideways, and glean the truth from the mashup of it all. I, too, enjoy watching Keith at night because it's nice to watch someone who's voicing exactly what I'm thinking. But I don't treat it as gospel or claim that they're unbiased. I think every network out there is.

- Kelcie

May 28, 2008 at 12:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As someone who's watched Hardball since the beginning of the Democratic campaign, I have detected a shifting "bias", if that's the word you want to use to describe any indication of preferential treatment of one candidate over another. Early in the campaign, Matthews definitely appeared more favorably inclined towards Clinton. He called an early exchange between Wolfson and Axelrod as going for Wolfson. For weeks he seemed to favor the streetfighting ethos of the Clinton side, perhaps because he had personal relationships with some of the senior staff. In one arguably valid measure of favoritism -- his daily "power index" where he ranked the candidates by their chances of becoming president -- Matthews consistently put Clinton at the top, one or two slots above Obama. After Iowa, he was intoxicated by the Obama story, along with a lot of other journalists, yet he still listed Clinton at the top of the index. After South Carolina, Hardball covered the "Jessie Jackson" comments and the shifting African-American vote with relish. Over time, he seemed to be bothered, like many of us, with the tenor of the Clinton campaign. The shameless pursuit of anything that would spur Obama's negatives was the antithesis of Obama's uplifting message. Over time, I detected his seeming affinity for the underdog. Face it, it makes a great story. By the time Clinton pinched his cheek in that news conference, the feud had set in. Interestingly, I saw a shift back to Clinton during the Pennsylvania campaign. Perhaps due to his own personal connection to that state (or future political aspirations?) he became hyper-complimentary to her and her effort in that state. "The Girl from Scranton" could do no wrong in Chris' eyes. After the tipping point of North Carolina, he has called Clinton on her, shall we say, abundantly ambitious nature. With the RFK comments, he was flat out disgusted. So, from where I sit, we've seen a shift in attitudes driven by the behavior of the candidates, the contour of the race, and Matthews hunger for a good, juicy, even epic story.

- Observor

May 28, 2008 at 12:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama is above the fray and his cult of personality won't allow his supporters to hold him to any particular policy. It will be interesting when he deals away social security, abortion, and health care, to the Republicans in the name of bipartisonship. Name his bottom line positions Obamathons.

- Mark Anderson

May 28, 2008 at 12:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, come on. I watch Countdown and Hardball more than I used to. CNN and Fox are busy trying to get the Machine nominated: CNN because it was and still is the original Clinton Marketing Network (CMN); Fox because it knows every Republican with a pulse will vote against her and elect President John McCain. MSNBC shares my pro-Obama sentiments and it's just fun for me to watch it. Yet to hear liberal writers/editors like you breezily dismiss Fox is to hear you breezily dismiss the vast overriding majority of cable news watchers who prefer Fox 3:1 to 4:1 all day every over CMN and 6:1 to 7:1 over MSNBC--and in so doing, sir: You are an idiot. Nobody ever heard of Isaac Chotiner. Everyone's heard of Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Britt Hume, Shepherd Smith, Keith Olbermann, Chris Mathews, Tucker Carlson, "Morning Joe" Scarborough, and the crew over at CMN. So I guess we're all stupid out here, too.

- Rex Range

May 28, 2008 at 12:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ditto. I was never a fan of Chris M or Tim R but I am heartened by how many share my experience of liking Olbermann before and not being able to stand him now. When he interviewed Clinton several months ago and was rude to her, I actually wrote him a letter -- as if it could help! Then I stopped watching him. As to what it does to Obama's chances in November... they never were great to begin with but this fawning and Clinton hatred diminish them further. Too late for sanity though. We are moving towards McCain's presidency, more conservative judges on the SC and the train, alas, has left the station.

- clare knight

May 28, 2008 at 1:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I've been comparing coverage of MSNBC and CNN for about a year, and except during Olbermann, who is not pretending to do a straight journalism program, I find them comparable. I've also read that the "top brass," or whatever you want to call the powers that be at MSNBC, actually favor Clinton in general. And yes, it was Wright and bitter-gate on MSNBC every bit as much as anywhere else. Morning Joe is on the conservative side. I think this is just piling on and if there is any pro-Obama bias it for sure is being overstated. I'm just thrilled there is a place where I can see some actually intelligent, articulate liberals having some success. And the Hilary people need to stop with the victim stuff. She started with more money and clout than God and screwed it up fair and square.

- Linda

May 28, 2008 at 1:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

tell them like it is

- fair&square

May 28, 2008 at 1:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OK..Get over it. He is winning and the Clinton's and their supporters are whinning..Sometimes the truth is the truth..and..acting like Bagdad Bob..won't change that..

- tom

May 28, 2008 at 1:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree that MSNBC has gone into the tank for Obama. CNN has followed merrily along. Ditto much of the MSM. So much so, in fact, that FOX friggin' NEWS is now truly the fair and balanced coverage they have been claiming for so long. In the blogosphere, the Obama idolators include Arianna and the Obammington Post, Daily KOS, and the vitriol, misogyny, and hate that has been poured out there could fill the universe. That the publishers of those sites allow this anti-progressive behavior on their sites to continue unabated and without even a word of distress speaks for itself. The meme of Hillary ran a "bad" campaign or Barack ran a "better" campaign is another easily dispelled fabrication. Hillary fighting constantly upstream against the MSM and the faux-progressive blogs is still within a handful of pledged delegates of Barack. She has captured the votes of more Democrats by a small but widening margin and is likely to finish several hundred thousand votes ahead of Obama. Hillary has built a coalition that can actually win the general election. The only reasons Obama is slightly ahead in pledged-delegate count are a 90% "race-pride" buy-in by AAs bought through the most vicious kind of race-baiting and smear campaign, and leveraging the strangely distorted primary caucus system (ex. Obama won more net delegates from Idaho (12) in winning the state by 13,000 votes out of 20,000 cast than Clinton netted from New Jersey (11) in winning the state by more than 100,000 votes out of 1 million votes cast) to win disproportinate delegates. If Hillary's campaign had recognized earlier the tactical error in not contesting those caucuses more strongly, Obama would be old news right now. I hope that the superdelegates will come to their senses, shake off the pundit-generated fog, and do their jobs in Denver. Namely, select Hillary Clinton as the nominee who has the votes of more voters now and who will win in the Fall. It's time to turn the channel from both MSNBC and Barack Obama.

- v4hill

May 28, 2008 at 1:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This slyly conflated article by Isaac Chotiner, attacking the presumptive Democratic nominee Obama, while saying how faithfully he likes to watch MSNBC on primary nights, is utterly disgusting.

- Fil Munas

May 28, 2008 at 1:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Instead of writing an article about Obama, why don't you focus on the free ride that McCain is getting. No one is scrutinizing McCain record, and I do not see such an article about that.McCain called the media his base in 2000, and I guess that still applies. Please write an article about the republican gutter politics. BTW, I enjoy watching MSNBC and I think they are fair. Also, note that Obama is not the enemy but a fellow democrat. We need to unite and turn our attention to the real beneficiary of this family fight the republicans. Obama and Hillary 08

- Sarah

May 28, 2008 at 1:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Regardless of who's saying what in the election coverage, I feel uncomfortable with this whole process. I find it disturbing that O'Bama's donations topped Hillary's by far. I wonder who or what group donated to his campaign. something about him smacks of a Republican in Democrat's clothing. I can't in good conscience vote for McCain...talk about 4 more years!!! however I feel we are being pushed into voting for O'bama...sometimes I wish we had a viable third party!!!

- Pete

May 28, 2008 at 2:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I will admit that Olbermann goes too far in his rhetoric sometimes. I almost entirely agree with him about Hillary Clinton and I despise the low-brow, divisive way that she has campaigned, but his recent special comments would have been far more appropriate if they very much shorter and to the point. Actually, all of his special commentaries have been way too wordy, and would have been a lot more persuasive if he had reserved appropriate anger for one or two sentences, not the whole rant. Lately he has had a rather unconfortable way of inserting a sometimes off-putting spike into the last sentence of a segment with with one of his knowledgeable guests. It is demeaning to his guest and comes off more than a bit arrogant. But he is still not Bill O'Reilly on the left. At least there is factual basis for Keith's opinions. O'Reilly operates in a almost completely fact-free zone. But all of this is hugely entertaining when you agree with him, especially as an antidote to the noise from the right, but also to the NPR-style soft-spoken effete snobs that so many associate with liberalism.

- Geoffrey Swenson

May 28, 2008 at 2:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That's not true. Olbermann hosted the Democratic debate last summer (2007) from Chicago. Fact.

- Jackson

May 28, 2008 at 2:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think this article is greatly over-simplifying the situation. A brief, terse comparison of gaffe statements from the MSNBC news staff at a few moments does not necessarily tell the whole story. If anyone watches 'Morning Joe', you know for a fact that every day, since about 4 days after Iowa, Hillary's campaign has been given pretty much unconditional love by Scarborough for hours at a time, every day. That's not too much of an overstatement, really. I had to take a break from watching it at all for a while, it was so simultaneously one-sided and not grounded in reality. Olbermann started off the primary almost noticeably favoring Clinton. He attacked every attack against her, had a pretty dismissive attitude towards Obama, and seemed somewhat friendly towards Edwards. He is a good example of someone who, over time, has simply developed a strong aversion to her tactics, and those tactics happen to fall within the bounds of things he finds objectionable, and comments on, forcefully. Wherever they come from. So, she inevitably found herself in his targets after employing divisive tactics involving race-baiting, and in her talk of a 'nuclear umbrella' over the middle east, or her more recent mis-statements. Olbermann has a large BS detector, and he uses it. Chris Matthews is much more schizo. Yes, he has said worse things about her than anyone else in the biz, but at the same time, if you watch a lot of his show (and I've just watched a ton of MSNBC for some reason these past few months) he also speaks very highly of her, very frequently. And will then just trash her in his next sentence. He gives pretty similar treatment to Obama, if you can believe it. Really, watch, he does. He called nearly every single debate in her favor. I was happy he was forced to apologize at the same time, just because he's so relentless and harassing. The thing he apologized over - saying that Clinton only won her Senate seat by way of Bill cheating on her - was a stupid thing to say which starts off about to say something useful, and then veers off into weird territory. It would be accurate to say she'd likely not have won it had he not been president, but I doubt his having an affair helped her case a massive amount. I'm quite sure she would have picked up a lot of female support and male Dem support anyways. She is definitely the recipient of some nepotism, and she's used it in her favor. Good for her. But it seems like, in a way, it has been so off-limits to criticize her, that a lot of people ended up doing so more than they would have otherwise. As the campaign really got underway, even simple episodes of John Edwards and Chris Dodd asking her about her response on the Eliot Spitzer immigration thing, they went straight to the media and complained, with that overwrought 'the Politics of Pile-on' video, and Bill out there saying the 'boys' were being 'tough on her'. just for asking her to clarify!! people don't like that stuff, really, people react viscerally to it. People don't like an unfair fight either, but it was clear to most that this wasn't what was happening. And I'm still very, very unconvinced that Clinton has received overall worse media treatment than anyone else in this cycle. She's actually had more and better than nearly all.

- onceler

May 28, 2008 at 2:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well...biased...let me count the ways. Biased. Yes, they are biased. When is being biased a good thing? Should the media always be unbiased? I wonder if the Watergate story would have been picked up if the media was not biased? Maybe if the media wasn't so afraid of appearing biased they would have been more on the ball when it comes to the Iraq war. The political pundits are excited by Mr. Obama's promise of an honest politician. Is that a bad thing. I would imagine that it is if you are running against him, but is it a bad thing for the country...Only time will tell. So here is my example. I am a professional movie critic. Two movies have came out. One is "Saw 30" and one is an Indy film "Love of Country". "Saw 30" is a blood and guts horror movie that preys on our lowest values and fears. "Love of Country" is a beautifully filmed movie with a powerful story about overcoming adversity. I know "Saw 30" will be loved by millions and make millions but I give it two stars. I give "Love of Country" five stars. Am I biased? I would imagine that the producers of "Saw 30" would think so. I would imagine that the people who love "Saw 30" would also think so. Is being biased a bad thing in this case? What Obama has done in this campaign would have seemed impossible one year ago. The fact many people do not want to give him credit for beating the Clinton's. Give his campaign their due.....they beat the Clinton Machine and the pundits should not be told that they are biased by being impressed.

- Hank Jestor

May 28, 2008 at 2:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I believe MSNBC has outfoxed FOX by it's coverage. The nation is moving a bit towards the left, and it's profitable for the news agencies to do the same. Still, a liberal in the US would likely be a conservative in Canada, Europe, Australia,and other parts of the world. I watch some CNN-love the insightful comments of David Gergen as a guest, Hardball-really enjoyed the evisceration of the talk show host trying to conflate appeasement on Obama, and some Fox. Watching a brief bit on Fox yesterday about the environment and the host tossed in how bad of a carbon footprint Obama has using an SUV and flying quite a lot. Would love to see a side by side comparison to McCain. I don't find MSNBC to be biased.

-

May 28, 2008 at 2:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I believe MSNBC has outfoxed FOX by it's coverage. The nation is moving a bit towards the left, and it's profitable for the news agencies to do the same. Still, a liberal in the US would likely be a conservative in Canada, Europe, Australia,and other parts of the world. I watch some CNN-love the insightful comments of David Gergen as a guest, Hardball-really enjoyed the evisceration of the talk show host trying to conflate appeasement on Obama, and some Fox. Watching a brief bit on Fox yesterday about the environment and the host tossed in how bad of a carbon footprint Obama has using an SUV and flying quite a lot. Would love to see a side by side comparison to McCain. I don't find MSNBC to be biased.

- BrianJ

May 28, 2008 at 2:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

i used to like Chris and Keith, But you are right, they have become the two love sick dogs for Obama. It is disgusting to see two network hosts become so infatuated with Obama. Maybe their wives better be sure they have not turned Gay. This could become another McGrevy situation (remember the NJ gov). MSNBC is hoping to become the new surrogate for Obama. Even the NBC anchor Brian Williams, should now call himself the Obama propaganda boy toy. It's the Obama, NBC, GE Iran connection. Immelt hopes to bring in more revenues from Iran after Obama becomes President. What a bunch of LOSERS.

- Bruno1213

May 28, 2008 at 2:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Every night when i returned home from work, my Tivo awaited with that days "Countdown" with Keith Olberman and "Hardball" with Chris Mathews. For years now i have been a outspoken cheerleader and loyal fan of MSNBC news coverage. Now i can hardly stomach the loudmouth Mathews and cynic Olberman. Watching those two praise the path of Obama and scorch that of Hillary has rocked the credibility of those two shows. Once in a while i still watch Countdown and Hardball, but never to the extent as before. Now i find myself watching "NewsHour with Jim Leher"....just the facts, in depth analysis, and nothing being shoved down my throat. Screw you Mathews & Olberman, you lost one very loyal & long time viewer. Someday when you wake up and realize you have aliented your base, you'll care...but for now you just keep on drinking the kool-aid....until it runs out.

- Scott 'n Santa Barbara

May 28, 2008 at 3:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Olberman has become a laughing stock and Chris Matthews isn't far behind him.

- Lauren

May 28, 2008 at 3:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Olberman has become a laughing stock and Chris Matthews isn't far behind him.

- Lauren

May 28, 2008 at 3:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What cow chips! Pat Buchanan, Tucker, Andrea Mitchell, and such do not seem to be in Obama's corner. Morning Joe? If you watch Cambell Brown, Wolf, AC360, or Larry King, you find that some guests have a harder go or fewer responses than others. Abrams near obsecssion with Clinton on the ticket, day after day, seemingly playing with his audience? If you don't like what you see then turn the dial. I spend 3% of my time at the TNR.com site. Oh yes, from time to time turn on Fox News. I can not believe that TNR readers would have difficulty in separating news from analysis from opinion. MSNBC on balance does a better job than the two other networks from my viewpoint. Yours may be something else.

- pdxgordon

May 28, 2008 at 3:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are right Mr. Chotiner. To the exact point. I used to watch MSNBC before but when they started destroying a fellow Democrat, I started to feel a thrill up unto my legs too. I used to listen to Keith Olbergay's special comment but when he started to target a woman candidate almost to say just get out of the race b****, I cannot stomach them anymore. I still watch MSNBC when Joe Scarborrough and Pat Buchanan are on. They are the last two remaining sane host and guest, respectively, remaining in that network. Even the women there, Andrea Mitchel, Mika (cannot spell her communist sounding last name) and those Obama Kool aid drinkers are just nauseating to watch. And did you notice that the number of Black commentators or analysts are growing in number? And they seem fo be exalted being in the concentration camp of Auzwich with their uncles. I think you are right, Obama will lose in the general election (God forbid he is the nominee) because of public resentment specially the sane ones via MSNBC. When Obama lose there goes MSNBC to the gutter.

- vidiii

May 28, 2008 at 4:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Geez, why do we continue to hyperventilate about journalistic bias... when we know with high probability the preference of just about every "journalist" that has his/her own show. These people aren't journalists in the strict sense anymore - they're commentators! Has everyone forgotten the last time the MSM were clearly biased during a presidential campaign? How 'bout 1992! We seem to have forgotten the breathless coverage of the Clinton-Gore bus trip, the huge crowds, the speeches, the atmospherics. Republicans were digging up draft-dodging stories, womanizing gossip - but the less conservative MSM was enthralled with the sights and sounds of Clinton-Gore. I believe the MSM will ALWAYS be biased toward the candidate they collectively view (for whatever reasons) as the most captivating story of the current campaign...and, in my opinion, that will almost always be the candidate whose campaign offers the best sights and sounds! I think a lot of journalists are just suckers for candidates who give great speechs and generate great images, like huge crowds of smiling faces. That's why they were drawn to Clinton-Gore, and that's why I'm told they were also drawn to Reagan. It's in their genes.

- DeeDee

May 28, 2008 at 5:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good try.Can you remember when chris mathews was repeatedly calling barack hussein obama?trying to draw attention to his middle name?Do you remember the coverage of rev.wright?What about John mccain's gaffes and pastors?where is the fair coverage?Do you remember when hillary's win in pensylvania was pushed to 10%?What about anchors now talking the clinton's talk that she is winning the popular vote? Can you state that if clinton had won 11 straight elections as Barack did,he would still have been in this election?Have you watched wolf blitzer and his coverage of the clinton's? Clinton is no longer a fighter,she is mow a victim of sexism and the media?Give me a break.

- tambe

May 28, 2008 at 5:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Olbermann was a Clinton supporter before her campaign went off the rails. To compare them to FOX. Ridiculous.

- Billy Delyon

May 28, 2008 at 5:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

FOX News has, in fact, been extremely critical of John McCain. We watched Olbermann's show until it dawned on us his comments about Bush began after the pres. approval ratings had been below 40% for several months and his pretension as the reincarnation of Edward R. Murrow became a joke with his attacks on Sen. Clinton. The sexism and bias is understated by the arthor. Since these are the same commentators who said nothing negative about Bush for the first five or six years of his presidency, why would anyone be interested in anything they have to say about this campaign. CNN is no better since I distinctly remember Wolf Blitzer touting the Iraq War.

- Bonnie

May 28, 2008 at 5:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not sure but I seem to remember nearly two weeks of negative coverage of Rev. Wright on MSNBC that did not seem very pro-Obama. "Sniper-gate" received three days coverage which was a lie by Clinton. I think the point is taken but maybe the author should look back at the entire picture and not a selective picture.

- Mick

May 28, 2008 at 6:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MSNBC disappointing at best. some real objective commentary would be refreshing.

- mi

May 28, 2008 at 6:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Exactly. Olbermann has only people who suck up to him, and completely agree with him. I have gone from loving him and defending him, to downright loathing The Pompous One. He turned me to FOX. I discovered the same thing -- that although I may not agree politically with FOX, their coverage is usually much more balanced and fair. I can't believe I am even saying that! But it is true. Have you ever seen one, even one, guest on 'Countdown' that disagreed with The Pompous One? And David Schuster is a ninnie!

- Monique

May 28, 2008 at 7:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bull. I don't have to take Clinton's word for it -- I know it. The media is biased for Obama, but MSNBC is a joke. Yes, Matthews can be a bit schizophrenic, but only because he decides to try and conceal his bias every once in a while, because he has been so overtly bias for Obama and sexist against Clinton. If the shoe were on the other foot, and Clinton were ahead in pledged delegates, and she had even considered claiming victory last week after the Oregon and Kentucky primaries -- as Obama almost did -- knowing that that metrix was something he had concocted all on his own, that he had not reached the number of delegates required yet, and that superdelegates would decide this thing, and that many had still not come forward -- THE PRESS WOULD HAVE GONE BALLISTIC on her. They would have talked about it for the entire week leading up to the primary -- how dare she? Who does she think she is? She can't declare herself the winner when she has not yet won! They would have swallowed their tongues, all jumping to attack her arrogance and audacity! But no, because it was Obama, NOT ONE journalist talked about the fact that he was going to claim victory before he had actually reached the required number of delegates. He had concocted this idea that he would try to sell the public on the notion that because he had reached a "majority" of the pledged delegates, that this was somehow a winning number. And it was a bunch of bull! But no, Clinton was forced to finally come out on the morning of the primary and say "Whoa, not so fast!" Had she not, what? The media would have just sat there and looked at each other, pretending that nothing had just happened? Never in the history of presidential politics had a candidate ever declared victory based on his own devised metrix, but not one journalist called him on it. When Obama finally decided to back away from the idea, you finally heard a couple of journalists talk about the fact that he had changed his mind and was holding off, but why didn't they say something before? Why did Hillary have to call the media's attention to it? The media has gone over the edge. They are biased, sexist, and have abandoned their journalistic ethics and standards. It is sad. But many at MSNBC are embarrassing. And Olbermann has become repulsive. I find myself enjoying Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, and Tucker Carlson -- while they may not agree with Clinton, at least they can acknowledge that she is amazingly tough and resilient.

- Monique

May 28, 2008 at 7:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Exactly. He is so puffed-up with ego and full of himself, I think he is going to explode one of these days. Or maybe he will break his neck as he haughtily swings it around from one dramatic camera angle to the next. He's a joke.

- Monique

May 28, 2008 at 7:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Media (CNN, MSNBC) sold its soul to Obama. Blitzer, Cooper, Campbell, Russert, Matthews, Olberman etc. Every one of them. The way they laugh when talking about Hillary clinton makes me sick. Whatever the shortcomings in Clinton, she is still an accomplished person and a sitting senator. Give her some respect. I don't watch TV anymore. If mediat didn't put Obama out on the pedestal with his razor thin resume, may be I'd have considered him. The fact that they are seeling him to me makes me second guess...

- Sundari

May 28, 2008 at 8:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MSNBC has thrown the journalism out of broadcast journalism. That's why you get bias and pure opinion out of their hosts. You call them news anchors, but they are not. Matthews is a politico who wrote speeches for President Carter and worked for Tip O'Neill. Olbermann is a former sports anchor who worked for ESPN and CNN. They are two of the numerous MSNBC hosts who impersonate news anchors; Joe Scarborough (former Congressman), Mika Brzenski (daughter of former Carter Natl Security Chief), Mike Barnacle (fired from Boston Globe for making up facts in his column), etc. MSNBC needs real journalists sitting in the anchor chair, asking critical questions and challenging the analysts. The editorials of Matthews and Olbermann need to be balanced by others of differing opinion. Only then will this network contribute something other than blow-hard personal opinion and propaganda.

- SJ

May 28, 2008 at 8:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Carol you are so right, the only show on MSNBC with true leaning towards Obama is Countdown, and that wasn't always true. Olbermann changed his position on Hillary when her campaign became divisive way back in January and never stopped. The only other person with their own show on the network that has been positive about Obama is Mr. Matthews, but he can change with the wind. One day he's singing his praises the next he's turned on him. Chris is wishy-washy give him some time he'll be back on Clinton's side. He was for the war before he was against it, he flip flops. What I find funny are the people who say they used to watch Olbermann before he became so biased. You mean like against Bush? He has a segment that trashes Bush nightly, with facts mind you. No, you're mad because he choose not to back your candidate of choice. Admit it. What's interesting is people don't question the facts (and some opinions) that Keith puts forth, only who it is against. If you don't like facts, watch Fox. Fox is as one sided as you can get, there faux pro-Hillary love will last as long as they can use it to divide the party. Then they'll get back to the Clinton hate they're used to. CNN or Clinton News Network, why no mention of their pro-Hillary coverage? I forgot they are not judged the same, are two Democrats. Those of you who think that "assassin-gate" is no big deal. I disagree. Clinton said: "I'm with Harry Truman on this. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." When bitter-gate hit, Hillary exploited it to death, repeating the word elitist over and over again. She even ran a commercial in PA, a COMMERCIAL to exploit it further, you want to talk about not letting something go? She is oh so full of grace. The media was right there in her corner to inundate the news endlessly with Wright, bitter-gate, and my personal favorite flag pin coverage. Is the media biased? As far as I know.

- softrain

May 28, 2008 at 8:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

msnbc is the only cable news I can trust. PERIOD! This race HAS been over for months now and only MSNBC admits this truth. CNN still is rah rahing Billery. What does that accomplish? FOX is insane hard far right nonsense. Go Keith! Go Chris! Thank God for MSNBC

- bigdaddy

May 28, 2008 at 8:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Are we missing the point here? IT'S A RATINGS GAME. This is a blood-lust sport for these networks - especially MSNBS and CNN. (FOX is in a category all by itself.) First they attack Hillary for a few news cycles. Then they attack Obama for a few news cycles. This is not journalism - it's opinionism. They want to keep the competition going as long as they can. More money in their pockets. I have been appalled by the sexist comments about Hillary Clinton. And by the way, why weren't there millions of letters sent to the network or to the show sponsors to protest this like for the ABC debate fiasco? It's fine to spew and vent by writing comments, but it doesn't make a whit of a difference. The only way corporate media is affected is to get them where it hurts - in the pocketbook. It's not just Hillary bashing. I also have been appalled by the non-stop wall to wall coverage for days and days and days and days about Obama's "Bittergate" and "Rev. Wright". I don't know what has happened to Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann. I can't watch them any more - even for entertainment. And then you have the scree-c-h ing Pat Buchanan. And these guys get paid? Please don't confuse this stuff with journalism. Do we even have a "news" outlet any more? There's PBS. There's better news in print - McClatchy and even Al-Jazeera often does better reporting. We get the media we deserve.

- Hoping4more

May 28, 2008 at 8:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Pure elitism

- bob

May 28, 2008 at 8:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You'd prefer more Bush?

- bob

May 28, 2008 at 8:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chotiner, As a contributing editor what's interesting to me is this; What you fail to realize is at the end of the day we're all human beings period! While you hide behind your somewhat enjoyment of the Clinton bashings, ultimately as a caucasian it still gets under your skin to see your own admire what this African American is attempting to do for the first time in the history of this Racist country. And yes, as an American I am aware of the blessings of living in this country, but I also am very much aware of the Foundation which has evolved its dark past into today. Now what's interesting is your take on CNN (Clinton News Network). Talk about being bias, I'm sure owner Ted Turner has a mini phone conference with the Clintons every evening to ask them what questions should Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper, and Campbell Brown ask the usually conservative panel. While we're talking about how MSNBC slants towards Obama, what about a Democrat looking to a known right wing Network such as FOX to help its campaign. In all of my 50 yrs I have never seen a Democrat on a known conservative show. Hillary Clinton gets away with her "oh I was tired" bologna about mentioning RFK and the media CNN flips it off. This was very serious. If one wants to see Mr. Obama speak live they better go online and look for a news outlet that carries live video footage. Turn to CNN anytime you wish to see Hillary Clinton speak LIVE beit Puerto Rico, West Virginia, Kentucky, wherever. This man makes a gaffe about which concentration camp his great uncle help free, and it's all over the news. We won't even start with how CNN and by the way MSNBC help the Clintons use a sharp knife to start dividing the Democratic Party down the lines of RACE and GENDER which was not a problem Mr. Obama had in the earlier primaries. But of course, Mr. Olberman, and Mathews are so bias. What about Morning Joe who has Pat Buchanan on constantly spewing his venom about Obama and throwing flowers to Hillary. You and yours are such a bunch of hypocrites!

- Laura From NC

May 28, 2008 at 8:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You sound so ridiculous. Mika would praise a cat if someone brought it on the set. This woman is clearly pro-Clinton. The slant of Morning Joe which is a conservative morning show is pro-Clinton. It's interesting to see everybody's true colors starting to show. Okay so you hate Obama which is fine. All this man do was decide to run for the White House. This has shocked the closet racist whites in this country since this is the first time any citizen of color has wanted to see if they can help the country they too love. Oh but wait a minute "BOY" who do you think you are to run a superb campaign, raise money from the grassroots, be a gentlemen who loves his wife and daughters, be articulate and oh my god educated, and beat the former first lady who along with her husband is truly showing their real colors and just how much they truly care about this country. Who is he to do such a thing!

- Laura From NC

May 28, 2008 at 8:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dear Rebecca, You poor delusional child. As a woman of 50 years I too was for Hillary Clinton but not because she was a woman but in retrospect because I knew the name and like so many other Democrats thought well maybe if she gets in, then we'll have Bill in there to help straighten things out. Well as the campaign season progressed, and Hillary started to lose because she clearly thought she didn't have a major rival to her within miles. She started the negative attacks first. She used the excuse of being mistreated because she was a woman, then she became the victim, then the Rocky of feminism. She outright lied about her experience level. Now that did it for me. I don't care if it had been Edwards or Obama if they had lied like she did and then when she explained herself there was no sense of remorse just an arrogance. I was finished with Hillary Clinton and personally as a woman she embarasses me. This is not feminism and for all of you who claims she represents you, then unfortunately you're showing a part of your souls that is dark and needs prayer.

-

May 28, 2008 at 8:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The same can be said for the Huffington Post.

- Mary

May 28, 2008 at 8:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Neither are you jackass! Read your history before letting the world see how ignorant you are. They said the same thing about Jack Kennedy, about an actor and governor from California Ronald Reagan who had no foreign policy experience. Sorry, I'll take my chances any day on an intelligent, practical, and sensible, humble man over a deranged, lying, elitist bitch and her sidekick.

- Laura From NC

May 28, 2008 at 8:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dean,you are so very right!

- ted

May 28, 2008 at 9:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Any excuse will do. You were not interested in voting for him anyway. Just be honest with yourself. Alot of whites are scared to death of Obama, not all. The ones who support him are higher minded intelligent people who truly want to see this country move out of the dark nasty racist past of its foundation. No one will hang you if you don't vote for Barack Obama period! It's Okay. Just don't find some feeble excuse like a news program or Cable talk show to hide behind. FOX NEWS has some of the dumbest blond news anchors around. I won't comment on KKK Sean Hannity.

- Laura From NC

May 28, 2008 at 9:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree that CNN is Hillary News ever since the Saturday Night Live skit capturing Campbell Brown. I also think MSNBC feels guilty of how they pounced on Obama during his weeks of scandal and how gracious he was regarding it.

- Callie, Cleveland OH

May 28, 2008 at 9:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Exaclty, they are so ticked off that Hillary is losing that they will say anything to make excuses. Why don't they talk about how Fox is Pro Hillary. The guy who wrote this artice is as bad as Bill Clinton whinning that his wife is being disrepected. Had she ran her campaign with some dignity rather than being so sure of herself that she thought she would have the nomination locked down by Super Tuesday because she thought that some unknown black guy would not get the nomination over the think they own the White House Clinton and they got the beat down of their life by an unknown Senator. All the media in my opinion was horrible to Senator Obama when Rev. Wright made his stupid remark, but no one is talking about the Clinton Pastor that is in jail for molesting a 12 year old in his home and for some other charge also. You are pro Hillary and now want to cry fowl because MSNBC is not dogging out Senator Obama. What about Joe Scarbrough, heck he loves Hillary Clinton so much he calls her his girlfriend, so he has no taste, he works for MSNBC, so your article is just a bunch of bull s.

- Sheila

May 28, 2008 at 9:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Stay here a little longer and you'll see the real FOX "news." All of the MSM is over the top and biased against Obama. They beat the Rev. Wright issue to death and barely mentions McCains' association with Hagee and Parsley, his lobbyist problems his lack of decent support for veterans his readiness to "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." The MSM gives Clinton a pass for her assasination comments, her whining about sexism and courting poor whites. Obama would have been nailed to the cross if he said and done anything close to what they've said and done. The flag pin issue is a farce. To question Obama's patriotism because of a pin is ridiculos. Men wearing flag pins have sent our sons to their death in a country where we shouldn't be. Obama doesn't have a problem with "working class whites." They have a problem with him! The MSM says about Obama, "they don't know him, he's got to make himself known." Read and listen, then you'll know. No white candidate, new or old, has ever been asked to go through this task of jumping through hoops. He is being scrutinized and researched thoroughly.

- vshdst

May 28, 2008 at 9:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As much as I agree with the commentary, I have to say that I watch MSNBC, i.e., Matthews and KO, primarily to see what the opposition is up to. I choose to be informed and, although I am aware of the bias (which I think runs rampant in the news media), I want to know how they think on the presumption that I might possibly learn something, see another side different from mine. It's perfectly OK to watch and listen to biased folks for the simple reason that we all are.

- Sharon

May 28, 2008 at 9:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No she's not! Last name: Brizinski (phonetically spelled)

- vshdst

May 28, 2008 at 9:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Geez. Mighty big of you. MSNBC's appalling coverage of Clinton is a bad idea because it might hurt Obama. Ethics in reporting is so highly valued these days, isn't it? Thought I could expect more here. Apparently not. Now YOUR coverage of the coverage is hurting YOU.

- hysperia

May 28, 2008 at 9:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We must be watching the same shows, only from different planets. Chris Matthews was clearly kissing Ed Redendel's @$$ every minute he was reporting on Pennslyvania. As for Keith, I know he looks like an Obama supporter. But if you report the facts of this campaign, it makes you look like that, because Hill is so Rovian. I was a Hillary supporter and I turned against her b.s. back in February 2007. I'll tell you something about Keith, I don't think you realize yet, if Obama starts down the Rove road, he'll nail his @ss to the wall too. You can't see that because we don't share the same principles. The most important things I measure in a President are honesty, integrity, intelligence and whether or not their TOP priority is what's best for this country. Clearly, Clinton lost me on everything but her intelligence. That's not Obama's, Matthews or Olbermann's fault. And you know what you call someone who is dishonest, lacks integrity, but is still intelligent? Crafty. Like Rove. Word up to republicans, b.s. only flies when things are going well. But when things aren't going well, all we care about is getting the best person for the job. Oh yeah, and we don't have to surrender, all we have to do is make a well organized exit. You need to tell George McCain he can ask any pregnant teen the difference between leaving and surrendering. They know something he hasn't yet figured out.

- Lollie

May 28, 2008 at 9:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Speak for yourself. As an African American woman, I totally disagree with you.

- vshdst

May 28, 2008 at 9:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MSNBC shares an audience with HuffingtonPost, Air America radio and dailyKos. They seem to feed off each other. Unfortunately MSNBC small audience has an large influence on the pundit class because that's where they get airtime. Political pundits take there cues from the likes of Mathews because he's it for politics.

- TSL

May 28, 2008 at 9:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am a frequent watcher of Keith Olbermann's "Countdown" program and was motivated to respond to the above article. Clinton's campaign has been so over the top with the way they've campaigned that I think Olbermann went after Clinton as a result. "Countdown" makes no effort to "fake balance" their news by attacking Obama a certain number of times to equal it all out. It's been pretty one-sided in the democratic primary, in regards to lying and spinning. Examples of Clinton's shenanigans: 1. Clinton's team is trying to include Michigan and Florida into the delegate counting after agreeing to not include them earlier in the primary. 2. Clinton's 60 Minutes comment about whether Obama was a Christian or not and she said he was..."as far as she knew." Clinton knew for a fact that Obama was a Christian, having attended prayer breakfasts with him in the past. 3. The Bosnia sniper story. These are just a few of the stories that Olbermann has pounced on. Countdown doesn't buy into "fake balance" journalism, where you give equal time to both sides, regardless of how horribly one-sided the events are stacked. I feel confident that if tomorrow Obama were to start lying frequently and attacking another party with malice and with inaccuracy, that Olbermann would shift to holding Obama accountable. That's what his entire show is predicated on...holding those in power accountable and going after liars. There is no question that MSNBC has some idiots on air (Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough come to mind), or that they lean Democrat. However, Olbermann has typically worked to back his stories with facts, examples, and will hold Democrats accountable when they get it wrong (from a progressive/liberal point of view). Once Democrats take the presidency and huge leads in the Congress this Fall, I have little doubt that Olbermann will start going after Democrats that are in power. That's what he does. If I'm wrong, I'll stop watching his show. I'm not interested in watching a show that just mouths the Democratic Leadership talking points.

- EddieHaymaker

May 28, 2008 at 9:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Me agree. Watch Fox for unbized vews from Sean Hanty, Bil Reilly, Brid Huume, and House. CNN also unbized--Luo Dobbs and Wulf Blizzer suppord Hilry--must be OK. Watch MSNBC in morning, so Joe Scarburo and Tuker Carson and Pat Buchnanon can explain why Hilry must win. Sory if some typos. Me vote in Kentucki and Wes Vigginea for Hilry. Nedd more edcashun. Blez Jon McKain.

- jwilson8233

May 28, 2008 at 9:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Go back to China with that whining

- Brina

May 28, 2008 at 9:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sadly, HuffingtonPost.com has gone the same route. I LOVE Arianna but just can't stomach anymore of either HuffPo or MSNBC.

- WhirledTraveler

May 28, 2008 at 9:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I believe the Clintons with the coy performances on the earlier debates brought much of this on themselves. Hillary would just try to gaffaw her way through difficult questions as if to say: "go ahead you idiots, ask away, the fix is on and there is nothing you can do about it". This angered these reporteres who were determined not to give her the free ride she felt she was entitled to. The chickens were definitly not hatched. This should be a lesson to you boys and girls.

- krifos

May 28, 2008 at 9:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

KO is definately Pro-Obama. Matthews fluctuates from week to week. Obama may have these "2" on his side, but CLinton has the MSM who refuse to call it like it is. She has become a "fighter" instead of the underachiever" who had everything going for her and even declared that she would be the nominee. Yes, she won big in KY & WV, but then again, Obama has not campaigned against her in three weeks.

- themajor755

May 28, 2008 at 9:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

IMO this article is mostly nonsense. On more than one occasion I've emailed the "Morning Joe" show about its obvious pro-Clinton bias. I'm guessing the author has based his article on selective viewing of Hardball and Countdown. But even there, as other commenters have noted, the Wright business received the same relentless coverage as the rest of cable news.

- NY Dem

May 28, 2008 at 9:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am media struck, since the primaries, I have been watching more news than I ever had in my life. I like MSNBC they seem to be fair. I see what people problem is, if anyone is for Obama, they are evil and not good people. All day FOX bash Obama, Hannity is disgusting, O'reilly is an idiot, but I guess that is OK with you all because they dislike Obama. CNN tries to keep it fair, and I say fair while churning my face. All you Bitter people need to grow up and turn the channel you dont like what they are saying. You can't expect every station to be Pro-Liars and support them sorry Clintons and that clown of a President.

- Former Clinton Supporter

May 28, 2008 at 9:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am media struck, since the primaries, I have been watching more news than I ever had in my life. I like MSNBC they seem to be fair. I see what people problem is, if anyone is for Obama, they are evil and not good people. All day FOX bash Obama, Hannity is disgusting, O'reilly is an idiot, but I guess that is OK with you all because they dislike Obama. CNN tries to keep it fair, and I say fair while churning my face. All you Bitter people need to grow up and turn the channel you dont like what they are saying. You can't expect every station to be Pro-Liars and support them sorry Clintons and that clown of a President.

- Former Clinton Supporter

May 28, 2008 at 9:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A day late, and a dollar short. The time to have run this column would have been after the New Hampshire primary, and running it now without calling attention to what Clinton News Network, uh, CNN; and the GOP channel, er, Faux News, have been up to lately. The big issue is whether MSNBC has fallen into the trap of the other two of becoming another bloviating opinion network. The answer? Not the whole network.; Tweety and Russert have NOT Helped Obama, I agree, Olbermann sometimes goes over the top but he's fundamentally a better analyst, and then you have Rachel Maddow who calls a spade a spade all the time and intimidates the whole Beltway crowd simply because she's smarter than all the rest of you and better with analysis and predictions. MSNBC is not some Obama monolith, although it does sometimes seem that way because of the very high profile of the two part-time misogynists/full-time egomaniacs at that top -- and that would be Tweety Matthews and Timmeh Russert.

- DBX

May 28, 2008 at 10:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Amen! I can no longer enjoy Olbermann. One show recently spent the first 45 minutes bashing Hillary. I get that they are pro-Obama, but I don't get the outright hatred of Hillary. Those guys hate her with a passion, and they only invite commentators who also hate her. "Tonight's top story -- Hillary is a huge bitch who is ruining the county. Let's bring in Jonathan Alter to completely agree with this. Jonathan..."! I have no problem with their liberal bias. They don't pretend to be anything else. But I found the channel more interesting when they still had Scarborough and (ugh) Carlson on at night to provide the other side. Go to Fox for Bushworld, and watch MSNBC if you're liberal. Watch CNN if you want to listen to bubble headds who don't know anything but wonder where their ratings went. Straight, unbiased news? BBC maybe?

- Hillraiser

May 28, 2008 at 10:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Forgot your meds?

- vshdst

May 28, 2008 at 10:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The last three word in your statement describes you and the reason why this country will never live up to its' creed.

- vshdst

May 28, 2008 at 10:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I find it difficult to accept the premise that the MSNBC commentators who are pro-Obama are male; therefore they are sexist. This, to me, is nothing more than a clinton excuse for her failure to devise a winning campaign strategy. The clintons NEVER accept responsibility. bill's problems were the fault of "that woman"...hillary should look in the mirror to find the source of her failure.

- George Clark Esq., Scranton, PA

May 28, 2008 at 10:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

this has also been in my mind--why the abrubt change!

- post#183

May 28, 2008 at 10:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What else is new? Chris Matthews was a cheerleader for John Kerry in 2004; I remember emailing him to ask if he was auditioning to be Kerry's press secretary. He did not respond.

- Carol Felsenthal

May 28, 2008 at 10:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In particular, Olbermann's show, as much as I like it, has morphed into the thing he criticizes FOX for, i.e. blurring the line between news and commentary. Why does liberal commentator Rachel Maddow get to discuss daily the latest happenings on the McCain campaign with Keith? Isn't that the equivalent of having Pat Buchanan on to discuss the latest news from the Obama or Clinton campaigns? Olbermann's show is good TV, but it's definitely not journalism.

- michael

May 28, 2008 at 11:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

this rant by olberman was so full of hatred--clinton herself is a candidate who could also be a target--but moreover, rfk jr did not react with such venom!

- post#192

May 28, 2008 at 11:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is complete nonsense. Anyone who watches MSNBC regularly understands that what Chris Mathews worships is power, that his affections are fickle, and that whoever is winning (or, better yet, exceding expectations will get breathless positive coverage. They were equally fond of Hillary during her wins. There are consistently pro-Obama pundits (Olbermann, Eugene Robsinson) and defenders of Hillary (Rachel Maddow and Buchanan, whatever his motivations). And then there are the panels of guests lined up on both sides. "Turning on MSNBC" one night is not an analaysis of its coverage or its bias.

- Wes

May 28, 2008 at 11:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is a great discussion. I love MSNBC, matter of fact my favorite show happens to be Countdown with Keith Olbermann. I'm such a fan that I have to be home by 8pm to catch the show. After, Clinton gaffe with the Bobby kennedy comment, I was watching Countdown with a group of friends, they saw the passion in Keith's voice about the issue and now are fans. Ok, so I'm fan does that mean I can't be critical of the show..NO...I watch MSNBC because it's the PLACE FOR POLITICS...It's funny because FOX News does notthing but spread propaganda about Obama and his family, half of which is FALSE...might I add that this is a nightly occurrence on the network....Now, the White House is issuing statements that NBC news interview with the President was misleading...And everybody is faulting the networks, the interview was further aired in its entirety and what happened..it was worse, I stongly believed that the network made him look good. The whole Clinton- Obama issue is funny, when Hillary is on top she loves the media, when it's reporting reality it's bias towards her..so typically Clinton

- Kayshaw

May 28, 2008 at 11:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'll be the outlier here. I'll disagree with the whole idea of bias, as if anyone, in any society could know the perfect center of truth running through all the competing opinions and somehow glom onto it. For years, the media has played "he said-she said" journalism, which has enabled the Bush crowd to ruin the country while the reporters could only lamely report, and though they saw lies issuing daily from the falsehood factory at 1600 PA Ave., they could make no comment which would display "bias". I, for one, am extremely glad a few people had the courage to swim against the tide then, and judging from many of the comments here, it still takes courage to see truth and say it. Keith Olbermann deserves our thanks for being one of the very few to question the Bush lies back when the shrub had huge approval numbers left over from 9-11. Olbermann followed his own truth when most everyone else allowed fear to be their master. For that, he is one of my heroes.

- Jagadeesan

May 28, 2008 at 11:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

just watch oberduck's "special comment" regarding hillary's comments on staying in the race through June (like some previous primary races). He went ballistic on hillary like she dissed him and the future oberdick generations. it was the most disgusting, vile, hate filled, angry, (subtle misogynistic) "comment" ever spewed by a "national news guy".

- jrzshor

May 28, 2008 at 11:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If you're in doubt about who to vote for ... do as I do ... watch Faux News and whoever they're bashing 24/7 will be the best president for our country. Then you can sit back, relax, and watch summer reruns of reality shows.

- Sunny

May 28, 2008 at 11:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I only have one question, How would you explain the coverage over at CNN? It seems to me that their coverage is tilted towards Sen. Clinton. I guess it all depends on what your lens is.

- Carole

May 28, 2008 at 11:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I TO USE TO WATCH OLBERMANN AND MATTHEWS. I FIND THE THINGS THEY SAY ABOUT HILLARY AND BILL CLINTON DISGUSTING. THEY ARE TRYING TO SHOVE OBAMA DOWN OUR THROATS, BUT THEY WON'T SHOVE HIM DOWN MY THROAT. THE TRUTH IS THAT HE HASN'T BEEN VETTED BY THE MEDIA. I DON'T TRUST HIM. I DON'T KNOW IF HE IS A TRUE AMERICAN. I BELIEVE HE BELIEVES IN BLACK POWER

- VINCIE

May 28, 2008 at 11:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Last year I frequently said I would move to Canada if Hillary was elected...at the time I thought I would back Bill Richardson. I have followed the process almost to the point of obsession and have come to be so shocked and outraged by the comments and obvious leanings of the talking heads (certainly not journalist)that I became personally offended by the sexism of MSNBC and respectful of the strength of Sen. Clinton through out the process. When I begin turning the channel to FOX to get a more balanced view of the news something has definitely changed with the world! I resent being force fed a Sen. Obama and it makes me view him in a more negative manner than I would have.

- rebekah

May 28, 2008 at 11:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was a devout fan of MSNBC, only to watch it turn into MSDNC...and I am an independent. The time slots used to be mixed , but now it is the Maddow, Ubermann, Spitz Matthews comedy show. There is no original thought expressed for entire hours. I watch MSDNC only intermittently now, because I need more from my newscast than hype, low ball remarks, far left viewpoints. They don't have a single populist on, let alone a (gasp) republican...Pat Buchanan is a libertarian,so he can be the only counter point to stimulate the viewer. Ubermann acts like a drag queen 1/2 the time, which can be fun, and Maddow is an old , bitter, stick in the mud in a younger woman's body...a real freak show ......

- ford

May 28, 2008 at 12:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are so right. I am a Clinton supporter. I am so annoyed with the liberal press that I now listen to Limbaugh, Fox, and Dobbs. And you know what, I am just amazed at how much I agree with them, and how much the Democratic doesn't speak for the middle class. I will not fall in line!

- IAfemdem

May 28, 2008 at 12:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chris Matthews has become irrelevant to the network -- they even wondered why the NYTs chose to profile him rather than Olbermann. Keith O is really quite an expereince to watch. His dementia is palpable. I tune in in snippets and find I can't turn away. It's too much like watching a train wreck. But then the ghoulish, gastly gore of the coverage begins to revolt me and I turn back to Fox or CNN for some sanity.

- Pete Kent

May 28, 2008 at 12:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Of course Obama believes in Black Power. Look at the Church he belongs to and its "black value system" and separatist agenda. He is dangerous charlatan. Things will be creeping out of his closet, so it only a matter of time before he is dispensed with. When we innaugurate President McCain in January, the biggest I told you so smile will be on Mrs. Clinton's lips! You Democrats were warned!

- Pete Kent

May 28, 2008 at 12:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I used to say I would move to Canada if Hillary was elected...at the time I thought I would vote for Biden or Richardson and became addicted to news programs. That was a year ago and now I find myself admiring Sen. Clinton for her strength to stand against such unbelievable media bias and doing computer research to find all the threads that must connect MSNBC to Obama. It's unbelievable when I now turn to FOX news for fair and balanced reporting when I use to mock them for stating that! At least there is a point/counterpoint in their programs...with MSNBC and Matthew and OberRANT I feel I'm being force fed Sen. Obama 24/7 and I resent it and him for it. Geraldine had it right all along and I wish she would come back and comment more often instead deferring for the sake of party unity and the pied piper machine behind Obama.

- rebekah

May 28, 2008 at 12:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I watch MSNBC regularly. Gregory is neutral. Olbermann is pro-Obama. Scarborough is pro-Clinton. And Matthews is pro-Matthews. So where is this supposed pro-Obama bias?

- Sashi

May 28, 2008 at 12:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Softrain (387) and onceler actually get it. I like Olbermann, but not because of some enthusiastic allegiance to Obama. He (Olbermann) only became pro-Obama when Hilary Clinton specifically suggested that the only two candidates worthy of the Presidency were McCain and herself. This was early during the primaries and Clinton, in elitist fashion, declared that only McCain and she were presidential. It looked like a surreptitious endorsement. Olbermann rightly took offense and scolded Clinton in one of those tense commentaries. His comments were aimed at the divisiveness and possible implications for the Democratic Party of one of its candidates seemingly supporting a Republican – so Liebermanesque. MSNBC is definitely not pro-Obama and I find it silly that commenters are using this as an excuse to not vote for Obama. I would ask these persons to search their soul and really determine if they intended to vote for him from the beginning.

- the truth.

May 28, 2008 at 12:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree that MSNBC is beginning to sound like FOX news, just the other side of the same coin. Add Ed Schultz, and Huffington Post to my list of used to listen or read but the bias has turned me off.

- JE

May 28, 2008 at 1:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Only if you watch MSNBC in the evening would you even be tempted to suggest it's in the tank for Obama. I watch it all day just about every day and it's in the take for it's own ratings, not a particular candidate. Unless Clinton is about to be put out of the race. Then it's pro-Clinton with a vengeance. Olbermann is the only host who can be accused of being pro-Obama and he doesn't come on until the evening hours. Every host from Morning Joe till Olbermann leans toward Clinton. But it's the graphics that tell the real story. When you read the headlines that summarize the stories discussed, they almost always lean toward Clinton, sometimes even getting the statistics wrong to make her look better positioned. Joe Scarborough, Andrea Mitchell, Dick Gregory, Contessa Brewer, and the exit poll woman whose name escapes me, are pro-Hillary, anti-Obama or both. Olbermann and Matthews (who doesn't like Clinton but is certainly not pro-Obama) are not MSNBC.

- Craig Hickman

May 28, 2008 at 2:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is Isaac Chotiner related to Murray Chotiner Nixon's right wing wingnut?

- myrna abdel-gawad

May 28, 2008 at 3:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Isaac Chotiner must be right - How I long for the recent days gone by when it was all one sided Republican blather on the air. And now we have I cable station that occasionally slants slightly left - to much of a good thing. How many right wing talking heads out there on the networks and cable news? Actually it's much easier to list the independents or left leaners because I don't even need the fingers of one hand to count them. Beyond Olbermann and Rachel Maddow on MSNBC you have exactly ZERO. Not Scarborough, not Russert, not Matthews (who for the last two weeks is being attacked by the White House as a Democrat - ever listen to him - he sides with whoever he's talking to even if he just agreed to the opposite with his last guest), not Tucker Carlson, David Gregory? don't make me laugh - he's been sucking up the White House Kool-Aid and regurgitating it all over us. Brian Williams, Andrea Mitchell, please stop I'm going to tear my stitches. CNN has no one and keeps hiring Right Wingers (Jon Klein - why - what are you up to?). Boy oh boy Olbermann and Maddow too much good stuff, lets blow it up.

- Plus 15

May 28, 2008 at 4:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

shorter rebecca, poster #22: Obama is the media creation, Hillary is the candidate of the people. They just don't show up to her events as much as they do to his, or donate to her campaign as much as they do to his. But that's all MSNBC's fault.

- psantillana

May 28, 2008 at 4:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You can't paint the whole network as "pro-Obama" based on just Olbermann and Matthews. When Hillary started winning (or at least, when she started leading in PA), the network, with the exception of Olbermann, was totally in Hillary's corner. Andrea Mitchell, Joe Scarborough, even Mika were all raving about Hillary being a "blue collar gal" and playing, ad nauseum, Barack's atrocious bowling. Scarborough was even calling Hillary his "girlfriend". Wolfson and McAuliffe were on constantly -- several times in one day when I watched. It got to the point that I turned it off as soon as I heard they were going to be on, because it was the same old Hillary propaganda. Olbermann and Matthews may be the most watched persons on MSNBC, and thus, it might seem that MSNBC slants pro-Obama, but there are PLENTY of Hillary supporters on there too. Just because people report news that doesn't flatter Hillary doesn't mean that the news is slanted -- news isn't always flattering.

- AKTION

May 28, 2008 at 5:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It,s about time someone is standing upfor Obama Thanks MSNBC

- tina swope

May 28, 2008 at 5:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am a loyal, loyal, loyal Obama supporter, and even I can see the liberal MSNBC bias... and I love it. It's a great antidote to the O'Reilly and Hannity hate on Fox. But even I have to wish they would dial it back a bit(of course, the dramatic boost to their ratings may be reason enough for them not to). When I want balance, I return to CNN; since verybody complains CNN is in the tank for their candidates' opponent, so I guess they must be the least biased.

- Sarah

May 28, 2008 at 5:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tnanks MSNBC

- tinaT

May 28, 2008 at 5:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Four hundred forty four and 'twas only yesterday... AY-AY-AY-CHIHUAHUA! later, folks.

- tomeg

May 28, 2008 at 6:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"This just in: News show produced by people!" Be it producer or consumer, there's no escaping bias. Imagine any "news" event; only bias determined it newsworthy. It's all downhill from there. Mathews wasn't liberal enough only months ago, now he's hopelessly weak-kneed over Obama - proof of bias on the part of whom, producer or consumer? Proof only that even the jaded and cynical can occasionally be touched and inspired - how unforgivably human. That's not aproblem, it's just the way it is. Olbermann's anti-Hillary position exposes his misogyny and shows he's mean-spirited? Couldn't possibly be due to Hillary's oh, so, poorly managed and mangled low-road campaign. Even news people gravitate away from moral mediocrity. While Clinton went low, Obama stayed high moving from far behind to now ahead of Clinton in national polls (in spite of Wright) by exuding a nearly unwavering, moral and consistent commitment to his values. We've all watched him, we've heard him express his ideas and tell us why he is running for POTUS - anyone with a shred of objectivity can't help but to be impressed by this historical figure. Only the most biased could deny that. SB

- Steve Bennett

May 28, 2008 at 7:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I,too, used to enjoy MSNBC because of the exchange of ideas. Now I think it is the cable network of influence, not information. I have decided that, as much as I want to see a Democrat in office, I will not vote for Obama. The media has been negligent in vetting him. Too little is known, his wife is to angry, and he has difficulty looking into the eyes of those he is talking to (a sign of deception?). President Mc Cain will be held in check by a democratic Congress. And I'll wait 4 more years to vote for President.

- jo neil

May 28, 2008 at 8:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ohhhh an actual liberal in the liberal media. How Shocking! Clearly there no room on multiple cable networks for one overt liberal, it throws the Overton window out of whack and 90% of the media fall right of center. We might have to start calling it the conservative MSM.

- Jack H.

May 29, 2008 at 12:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The nomination runs aground on the shoals of identity politics, and the media are lining up to bail whichever half of the boat they choose...hysterical.

- J. Michael

May 29, 2008 at 12:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hillary has CNN and Fox, why can't Obama have MSNBC?

- janet

May 29, 2008 at 3:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MSNBC is a joke! They've never run an anti-Obama story....yet Olbermann every night goes out of his way to bash Bush or McCain. He and the rest can't be taken seriously. That's why they're in the ratings cellar. Olbermann, you're no Murrow...You're just pathetic.

- Honest Conservative

May 29, 2008 at 9:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree, I loved watching "Morning Joe" on MSNBC, but Mikka is so pro Obama, a guest has to only mention something negative and she jumps in to defend Obama, cutting the guest off. No impartial coverage by her. I've quit watching until Joe gets back.

- WEEZER

May 29, 2008 at 10:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey, c'mon now...stop picking on Keith Olbermann. Just as his hero Edward R. Murrow confronted the monster Joe McCarthy in the witch-hunting 1950s, Keith has courageously squared off against the face of evil in our own time...Geraldine Ferraro.

- Raconteur

May 29, 2008 at 1:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is interesting - though a little too late. As a Clinton supporter, I've endured the disgusting misogyny of every talking head, which turned me off completely and irrevocably Obama. Keith Olbermann speaks for Obama; Chris Matthews speaks for Obama;Randi Rhodes speaks for Obama; the 527 'C.U.N.T' speaks for Obama. The list is endless. Clinton needs money 'run a bake sale' (Jonathan Alter on Olbermann); Clinton wants debates - she is mocked - diverting the fact that Obama stinks in any one-to-one. The anti-Hillary blogs (you cannot post at Daily Kos without being attacked if you are a Clinton supporter) are a bunch of violent thugs They barked at her to quit in February for god's sake! Bill makes a stupid remark - it sinks her campaign, Michelle opens her mouth to change feet - she's 'understood'. When Billy Jean King said (reacting to the murderous slander - t-shirt 'too bad Hillary didn't marry OJ') she said she felt that all her achievements now meant nothing. You have made us feel that way as well and it's obscene for Obama (con man to the end) to croon about the benefit to his daughters (to be called 'whore', 'slut', when they cry to be mocked - no Barack - this was a national forum and you chose to benefit from the hatred). Obama rode in on the tsunami of women-hating and never addressed it or denounced it - it worked for him, don't kid yourself, it continues to work for him. The latest diatribe from Keith Olbermann - the Obama mouth machine - vilified Clinton in his typical battering mode - then the never 'negative' Obama campaign sent copies of his rant to the press verbatim - to spread the madness. This was clearly to make sure that everyone - even those who don't exclusively get their dirt from msnbc - could wallow in one more excretion of venom. There is a strong movement in this country demanding payback. We will not vote for Obama - some of us will vote for McCain, others will stay home. A recent petition has 100k signatures. I know because I signed it.

- Susan

May 29, 2008 at 10:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

the sexism from matthews is slimmy and disgusting. also, obama knows exactly what his campaign is doing. trustworthy, honest and above the games is just a pose.

- mac

May 31, 2008 at 7:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

get olbermann and rachel off the air no wonder your last in ratings

-

December 2, 2008 at 6:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close