The Evening News With ABC, CBS, and NBC

The thirty minute Evening News from the above networks is a welcome from the beat of the cable news networks who repeat the same worn out stories over and over.

 

Thirty minutes is just right and is filled with several different news stories which keep people up to date.  The people learn more on the evening news because it is not dominated by journalists who harp on their favorite subject like the cable news journalists. 

 

Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, and other shows are repeated at different times every day and is used to fill up air time and not to educate the people as to what is going on.  ABC, CBS, and NBC also have a Sunday show that views various topics and guests that prove more informative than cable news.

 

Cable news coverage concerning the Presidential campaign is laughable.  The Networks have already chosen sides and drawn the line and are trying to undermine the people's thinking.  I have always followed politics and the news but cable has been a turn off for me for some time.  I am now giving serious thought to give up my cable service since I hardly watch any more and go back to the basic service we had before cable came about.  I certainly can not justify subscribing to cable TV any longer. 

 

It is a pretty sad situation for America when two of its fundamental tenets, politics and the news media, can not be trusted.

Breaking News Concerning MSNBC Anchors

Besides the fact that I personally will never watch MSNBC for election coverage again, considering Olbermann's constant whining and bad mouthing of Hillary Clinton, her supporters, anyone who offers even semi-positive analysis of her campaign, or anyone who utters one thing that could be construed as a tiny bit critical of Obama, Taylor Marsh, over at her blog, is breaking some news concerning Olbermann and the MSNBC crew:

____________________________________________________________

Keith Olbermann just broke down in tears.

Russert went running from the building.

Chris Matthews can't feel his legs.

UPDATE: Breaking... Keith just stopped crying, and Russert just ran back into the building. They're now tag teaming on numbers and every time a new number comes up Keith pleads this is the number that will push Hillary out. Uh-oh... What's this? Keith just fled from the set screaming... Russert is now talking to Matthews. Stay tuned... ...

My Special Comment To Keith Olbermann

Keith, you have crossed the line.  Gone are the days of you being a commentator who provided an alternative to Fox News.  You have now become just another Bill O’Reilly---someone so obsessed with himself and his ego that he must go after individual politicians who he personally dislikes.

Keith, you say that you don’t endorse Barack Obama.  Exactly who do you think you’re kidding?  For the past 2 months, you have gone after Sen. Clinton night after night while providing glowing commentary on Obama.  Your disdain for the Clintons is evident and your love for Barack Obama is well-known.

Keith, you indeed  need to apologize to Sen. Clinton.  You, last night, implied that she is a racist and compared her to David Duke.  That is absolutely disgusting.  The Clintons have done more for the African American community than any other politican in the last 35 years.

Secondly Keith, you and everyone else in the media should be ashamed by the way you've spun Geraldine Ferraro's comments.  Did you bother to read them?  Did you bother to look at the facts on which Ferraro based her remarks?  Why do you think Obama has done so well in South Carolina, in Georgia, in Alabama, in Louisiana, in Mississippi?  What do you think proved to be the deciding factor in the extremely close primary in Missouri?  I’ll tell you Keith: the African American vote. 

Why is it suddenly taboo to say the truth?  Is it that you truly think that Obama, if he weren’t African American, would get 85-90% of the black vote?  Are you that blind Keith?  

It’s not that I or Ferraro, as she has explained, finds any fault nor is it degrading for African Americans to vote for their own.  I, as many, understand the pride African Americans must have voting for one of their own.  As do women concerning Sen. Clinton.  Is it racist to say that the only reason Obama is getting such a large chunk of black votes is because he himself is black?  Is it racist to say that Obama would have not likely won South Carolina, Missouri, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi if he were indeed white?  Of course it isn’t.  It’s not that Obama has a message that is so overly appealing to African Americans as compared to Sen. Clinton's.  

Again, I stress that it is not a bad thing for African Americans to vote for Obama.  But, Keith, it is a bad thing, no, a horrible thing, for you to say that anyone who says what I've just said is racist.

No one has said that the only reason Obama is where he is is because he is black.  But it is undeniably one factor.  We shouldn’t be so politically correct and censored that we can’t say that.  Obama has run a terrific campaign.  He is a great speaker.  He has energized people of all races, men and women.  But he has won many contests because he is black.  That is a fact backed up by the exit polls.

So, Keith, get off Ferraro’s back for stating the truth that others are simply afraid to say.  I'm not sure why they're afriad, since she didn’t say anything degrading or anything to belittle Obama, but whatever.  She simply stated her analysis---which happens to be backed up by the exit polls.

And lastly, Keith, you say that Clinton is dividing the party?  Excuse me?  Who injected race into the battle for South Carolina when his campaign released memos accusing the Clintons of racism?  Who dug up this Ferraro comment?  Who refused to rise above the fray and won’t let this harmless story rest?  Who has spun this quote from Ferraro from a simple analysis of the race at hand, into a sign of racism?  You know the answer Keith---the Obama campaign.

And you, by posting your disgusting special comment and continuing your daily bias coverage of this campaign, are dividing this great party.  

Not only should you apologize, but you should be removed from MSNBC’s election night coverage.  You have let your personal opinions get in the way of what you’re supposed to be doing---covering a particular election.

I once though you were going to bring a voice for progressives to the world of cable news, but instead you brought a voice for one candidate----Barack Obama.  You have implied, as recently as last night, that Clinton should not be considered a Democrat and neither should her supporters.  Well, Keith, I am a Clinton supporter and I am a Democrat.  What are you, though, Keith?  I’ll tell you: just another pundit who can’t give fair coverage or analysis of anyone or anything for anything.  If it doesn’t help your candidate, Barack Obama, it doesn’t get on your show.  But if it does help him, you’ll spend days on it.  

My request: stop thinking and reporting as if only Barack Obama is right on everything and everyone else is scum.  Hillary Clinton is not scum.  Bill Clinton is not scum.  Geraldine Ferraro is not scum.  For that matter, Barack Obama is not scum. But you, Keith, might just be.---

Keith Olbermann: today’s worst person in the world!!!

MSNBC's New Line-up & A Review Of Their Current One

MSNBC will be changing up it's line-up as of next Monday.  Tucker Carlson's show will be getting the ax, replaced by a show hosted by David Gregory.  Andrea Mitchell will now be anchoring the news everyday from 1-2 p.m.  Live with Dan Abrams will be undergoing a name change.  Other than that, MSNBC's current programing line-up will, for the most part, stay in tact. With that said, he are my hopes and reviews of the current and future programming on MSNBC.

Morning Joe

I start off every morning watching Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski on Morning Joe.  Despite my opposing views with Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, I must say, I do enjoy the show.  They usually have a great variety of guests on the show and the exchanges between conservative Scarborough and liberal Brzezinski are priceless.  The one thing I must complain about, however, is Brzezinski's new found bias for Barack Obama.  I enjoyed the show, and her, much more when she was simply the liberal and Scarborough was simply the conservative and broad topics were discussed in relationship to the two parties.  Now, Brzezinski finds a way to make everything about Obama, even if the topic does not involve him or his campaign.  You get the feeling she is pushing him down your throats, and after a while, it gets really old.

MSNBC Daytime News

Not much to say here.  I don't hate MSNBC news, nor do I love it.  Truthfully, the only time I actually find myself tuning in to MSNBC daytime is when it's what they call "Super Tuesday", their all day political coverage, which is actually quite good.

Hardball

I used to be repulsed at Chris Matthews and his blatant bias, but he has been getting better.  He rarely takes sides any more in arguments and debates, and thats a huge improvement  And when you tone down Matthews' bias and listen to what this man actually has to say, you realize that he is a fascinating guy who knows more than most will ever know about politics.  For that reason, I have once again found myself a fan of Hardball, and if Matthews keeps behaving the way he is now, I will remain a fan.  It's so much nicer to hear Chris give his insights and analysis of politics in general and it's mechanics, rather than gushing over one candidate while constantly demeaning and degrading the other.  

Countdown

Keith Olbermann, to say it simply, has become the liberal Bill O'Reilly.  Keith used to be objective and would offer a straight forward analysis of the top stories of the day based on facts.  Now, it's the Keith loves Barack show.  Keith has recently, in essence, accused everyone who supports Sen. Clinton of being a racist and a Republican in disguise.  He appears amazed every night that the entire nation doesn't bow down and worship Obama as he has apparently become accustomed to.  And some would say that the "liberal Bill O'Reilly" is exactly what the Democratic party needs.  I counter by saying absolutely not. We need someone in the media who doesn't take the side of one candidate over the other, but rather challenges the conventional wisdom.  Keith used to be that person.  But now, he has let his ego get the best of him.  His show has become more focused on attacking the Clintons and tearing down their supporters than anything else.  The vibe Keith now puts out, rather than standing up to convention wisdom, is that you're only right; you're only a Democrat; you're only an America if you love Barack Obama and hate Hillary Clinton.  It has become painful to watch Olbermann degenerate as he has.  He used to be the best on MSNBC; now he's the worst.  

Live with Dan Abrams

Starting on Monday, Live with Dan Abrams will become Verdict with Dan Abrams.  Hopefully, despite the name change, the show will stay the same since Dan is now my top guy to watch on MSNBC.  Why?  Because, when I watch him, I feel like I'm actually getting a fair, balanced view-point, without any political bias.  His "On Their Trail" segment is one of the best in television.  He takes on Obama as much as he does Clinton and vice-versa.  And although I don't always agree with his calls on who's right and who's wrong, I will admit that he calls them as he sees them.  Many nights Obama has come away with more "X's" than Clinton and vice-versa.  Also, his two most frequent guests, Pat Buchanan and Rachel Maddow, also make for great television as they argue and debate the issues.  I just hope that with the new name, Abrams keeps up his fairness and objectivity.  It does this country a great deal.

Tucker

Thank god Tucker got canceled.  Admittedly, Tucker's show was good at times, but only good when he had a good panel on to access the day's political headlines.  Tucker Carlson himself added nothing substantive to the show.  The show was only good if the panelists made it good.  And although the key to any good political show is a good variety of guests, the host has to bring something to the table as well.  Tucker didn't.  Let's hope his successor does.

Race to the White House

Yup, thats the name of the show, hosted by David Gregory, that will succeed Tucker.  I'm interested to see how Gregory will do.  Will Race to the White House be a more serious toned show, like Meet the Press, or more loose and free formed like Hardball and Live with Dan Abrams? I'm not sure, but I would be happy with either.  The political junkie in me loves the serious toned, old school political discussions (even though I'm quite young) that take place on Meet the Press and like shows, but I also love the arguments and heated exchanges that are allowed to develop on the more free-formed shows.  I will say that they probably could have found a better host if they were going for a free-formed show, such as picking Rachel Maddow or Pat Buchanan. If it's a serious toned political discussion type show, Gregory should do well.  

On a side note: I'm still begging for MSNBC to get a Crossfire-like program with two hosts from opposing political views. They need to have a Buchanan vs. Maddow show. That would be gold.  But until then, we get David Gregory.  I hope he does good, but honestly, it's not as if Tucker set the bar all that high.  

MSNBC---Becoming the Next Fox News?

I have commented in the past how certain people in the main-stream media try to pass their individual opinions off as fact and distort what people say in order to push their own ideology in an attempt to influence the American people.  The nation is already well aware of the neocons at Fox News, who revel in their own schemes.

 

Now we find out, during this Presidential primary season, that MSNBC's Chris Mathews and Keith Olberman have been emulating the Fox News crew in trying to shape people's opinion concerning the candidates who are seeking their party's nomination.  It is growing more and more obvious concerning the Democratic candidates.  They have already chosen sides and stack the news with inaccurate and one-sided stories about the candidate they have decided is not worthy of their party's nomination. 

 

Many of their journalist friends, who appear on their shows as guests, just go with the flow of the host and offer nothing in the form of true journalism or an opinion of their own.  Facts and truth have escaped Mathews and Olberman.  Their time is spent wallowing in their own vomit and their chosen candidate.

 

David Shuster has been suspended because of a crude remark he made concerning a candidate's daughter, instead of living up to his responsibility as a news journalist.  Olberman had to apologize on air not to long ago for an inaccurate quote, and Mathews has had to do the same thing.  If MSNBC had any respect for the people's right to know the facts, they would order Olberman to put himself, Mathews, and Shuster on the screen next time he shows the segment dealing with the world's worse, worser, and worst.  These 3 supposed journalists have no shame.  MSNBC needs to step up to the plate and provide the American public with fair and balanced coverage of this election so that the American people can make an educated vote concerning whom our next President will be.  

My Letter To Keith Olbermann

This is a letter that I am emailing to Keith Olbermann, asking him to end his bias reporting and commentary in favor of Sen. Obama and against Sen. Clinton.  I encourage all of you who read this and feel the same way to also write Keith.  

_____________________________________________

Mr. Olbermann,

I have, for a long while now, been a huge fan and supporter of Countdown and your political commentary, but you have, as of late, been taking it too far, and I'm getting sick of watching.  Could your bias in favor of Sen. Obama be any clearer?  Could your disdain for Sen. Clinton and President Clinton be any more obvious?  

By coming as close to endorsing Obama as one can without actually doing it (obviously NBC wouldn't allow that),  you are hurting not only your audience, whom many are Clinton supporters, but you are also damaging the Democratic Party.

I myself am for Sen. Clinton, but I don't consider myself against Sen. Obama.  On the other hand, you are for Sen. Obama, but overly against Sen. Clinton.  You and your show were best when you stood up as a voice for the progressive movement; when you stood up to and challenged the warped ideology of neoconservatism.  Your show is at its worst currently, as you misrepresent and demonize Sen. Clinton, who has done more for the progressive movement than many would like to admit.  

Night after night now, I see you only give one side of the story----Obama's side.  I wouldn't be surprise if you're paraphrasing lines straight off Obama's website.  It truly is uncalled for, sir.  You and other journalists would do a great deal of good, both to your own reputations and on behalf of your viewers, if you look at this race objectively.  Sen. Obama has become the media-darling; you all can't get enough of him, and in the end, that's not good for America.    

As of late, you have made the target of your criticism Sen. Clinton and her campaign.  I don't think that you believe Sen. Clinton is the real enemy, more so than the Republicans, but that is sure how you've been reporting it.  So, what I'm asking for, Mr. Olbermann, is an apology for the mischaracterizations of Sen. Clinton and the one-sidedness of your recent commentary.  But first and foremost, I'm asking for a return to the old Countdown with Keith Olbermann.  The one which unites the Democratic party and progressive movement and challenges the lies and hypocrisy of the right.  

Thanks and I hope to see the old Keith back on Monday,

J. Patrick

Scott McClellan Speaks Out

Just when everybody thought the White House couldn't possibly come under any more scrutiny, it does. In a book to be released next April, former Press Secretary Scott McClellan is supposedly going to tell "what happened" concerning his and others' involvement in the Valerie Plame-CIA leak case. In an excerpt released yesterday, McClellan wrote,

"The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. There was one problem. It was not true. I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the Vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the President himself."

So there you have it. McClellan clearly states that indeed Cheney and Bush were involved. Today McClellan came out and said that he did not intend to imply that the President lied.....yet he DID imply that in the excerpt. In fact, not only did he imply it, he wrote it. You can go through and parse the excerpt however you like, but McClellan undoubtably did state that Bush and Cheney were involved in the cover-up.

My only question for McClellan is why did he not come out with this sooner? Why when the Libby trial was going on did he not come forth with this important piece of information? As far as I'm concerned, it was his duty as an American citizen to let the truth be known. If we have a criminal as a President, and I'm convinced we do, then the American people deserve to know. Justice deserves to be served.

One theory that many have come up with is that President Bush was lied to by Vice-President Cheney and hence that is why Bush "passed on misleading information" to McClellan. There is one flaw with that theory however. If Cheney did lie to the President, and its Cheney who is the criminal, not Bush, then when the truth came out, why didn't Bush get rid of Cheney. I know Bush is loyal, but I couldn't even imagine Bush keeping Cheney around if Cheney lied to him. That leads me to one conclusion: Cheney AND Bush were knowingly involved in the cover-up. Any sensible person can look at this situation and see that the pieces of this puzzle just don't match up unless Bush himself was knowingly and willingly involved.

So today when the editor of McClellan's book says that McClellan didn't "intend to suggest Bush lied to him," but also says that the reader can make up his or her own mind concerning Cheney's involvement, I would argue that there is no way one could be involved without the other. And by saying (to Chris Mathews) that the reader can make up his own mind concerning Cheney, the editor and McClellan are by default saying that Cheney was involved. And as I said earlier, if Cheney was involved, so was Bush. Its also interesting to note that although given the opportunity, McClellan did not come out and say that Bush wasn't involved, he just said that he didn't intend to suggest that he was involved.

I'll close by saying that I am very disappointed in the mainstream media for not covering this story the way it should be covered. Many are claiming that this is just "old news". Well I have news for them, this is not "old news". This is extremely important news that points toward our President, the leader of the free world, being a criminal. I urge the media to get this story out there to the American people. By standing by and decreeing this as "old news", the media is letting the Bush administration get away with a potential crime. I would, however, like to commend both Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman of MSNBC for giving this story proper coverage. I hope to see the rest of the media follow suit in the coming days.

The battle for prime time: a Review of cable opinions shows

The top 3 cable news channels all have their pluses and their downs. Then there is Fox News, or as Keith Olberman and myself like to say, Faux Noise. Here is my reviews of their prime time opinion shows and the network overall.

-CNN: CNN itself doesn't really have an "opinion" show, but rather shows that have guests who talk their opinion. Their best program has to be the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. Its features quick segments on the top news stories of the day while also featuring segments where political experts such as Carville, Huffington, Crowley, and more give their views on the hottest political news. Lou Dobbs is a terribly boring host. To be honest I could never watch his show for more than 5 minutes. Speaking of boring, Larry King needs to retire. His show brings nothing to CNN. While his interviews used to be sharp and crisp, he rarely follows up on anything his guests say and to top it all off, he rarely remembers their name. Then is Anderson Cooper. While an okay host, again he just doesn't add any spice to the mix. His monotone voice and needless stories just aren't what today's audience needs. CNN is like the CBS evening news, obviously catering to the older, traditional crowd.

-Headline Prime: Well there are really only two opinion shows on Headline Prime. Glen Beck is a bumbling right-wing idiot who sucks up to the base of his party like no one else's business. I'm surprised he hasn't been offered a contract by Faux Noise. His fear tactics are right in line with those of the GOP, in fact, a few months ago he and his guests talked about this current Iraq/Iran conflict causing the end of the world if we aren't careful. Than there's Nancy "Good Night Friend" Grace. What can I say about her? Comedy, pure comedy. Good for a laugh. Especially her frequent guest Susan "I rhyme everything I say" Moss. I would assume these two shows appeal to crazies.

-Speaking of crazy, we have Faux Noise. To be honest its kind of hard for me to review them based on opinions, because there is no opinion with them. Its "I'm right, you're wrong". Its right-wing bias taken to the extreme. And the kind of Faux Noise...the "Worst Person in the World" himself, Bill O. I really don't know how people watch this and make this the #1 "news" channel.

-Then there is the fastest growing news channel, MSNBC, my personal favorite. It has opinion shows, yet has diverse opinions. Tucker Carlson provides the conservative view. Chris Matthews provides the moderate view, and Keith Olberman gives his liberal opinions. Its a good mix and not to mention there is even further diversified opinions within the shows. Tucker usually features one republican and one democrat on the panel. Hardball with Chris Matthews has the daily Hardball Debate between a democrat and republican, similar to the crossfire days, and Countdown with Keith Olberman usually has all moderate guests, some leaning right, others leaning left. And then we have Dan Abrams, the male Nancy Grace. Easily MSNBC's worst show, they should give Allison Stewart or David Shuster their own show in that slot.

So the verdict:
1) MSNBC for its diverse opinions and sharp, energetic, and passionate commentators.
2) CNN by default. Not as bad as the following two, and if you like more calm, traditional shows, then CNN is for you.
3) Headline Prime's Glen Beck is enough to make this network go sour quickly, add in Nancy Grace and you have a network
thats would finish last on this countdown if I didn't have to rank Faux Noise.
4) Faux Noise, the reason should be clear.