Is "Liberal" Cable News Being Censored and Used To Undermine Obama? Ed, Maddow, Olbermann

[Median Democrat]

The media always tries to use false equivalency to justify the bias of Fox News and right wing talk radio. However, did these news programs ever seriously challenge George Bush prior to 2006? No. Instead, these news programs essentially provided a completely un-critical platform to spread and GOP talking points. Worse, Fox operatives actively participated in the development of such talking points. Indeed, in addition to providing a platform for the GOP to spread their message, Fox would often respond to attack critics of President Bush.

In sharp contrast, we have "liberal" shows like Ed, Maddow, Olbermann that have grown increasinly criticial of Obama in recent weeks and have attacked Obama from the left while Obama gets attacked from the right. Indeed, these shows have sometimes been expressly censored by General Electric such as the time that Jim Cramer was evicerated on The Daily Show, but Olbermann and Maddow barely mentioned the incident.

While Fox News continues to attack from the right with increasing hysterical right wing rhetoric, Ed, Maddow, and Olbermann have raised the volume of their attacks from the left, and have sometimes echored right wing talking points, by repeating right wing talking points without really offering a countervailing explanation of the liberal response. The most recent example is Rachel Maddow's second day of coverage of "Teabagging" without any really explanation or defense of Obama's policies that are under attack.

Lost in the so-called "liberal" attacks on Obama is any mention of the policies or programs that Obama is trying to adopt, which are clearly liberal. For example:

1. Obama is meeting opposition from Republican and conservadems who are trying to repeal an estate tax that only affects less than 1 percent of the wealthiest estates. Where's the outrage?

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik13-2009apr13,0,3633165.column

2. Obama is trying to offer federal directly to students, rather than by giving a subsidey to private lenders to extend such aid to students. Again, here is an opportunity to get in front of an issue. Where is our so-called liberal cable news? Where is that overheated outrage at private lenders trying to make risk free profits?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/us/politics/13student.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

3. Obama has been under constant right wing attack regarding the pirate situation. Over the weekend, the captain was rescued. Yet, where is Maddow and Olbermann calling right wing pundits on their attacks on Obama? Sure, I would not give Obama credit, because a lot of the success was due to luck, BUT shouldn't the liberal cable shows at least point out the hypocrisy of right wing media as noted below regarding Fox's efforts now to minimalize Obama's role after blaming for the ongoing crisis:

http://www.newshounds.us/2009/04/12/fox_news_buries_obama_role_in_pirate_rescue.php

The fact of the matter is that Ed, Maddow, and Olbermann are all sponsored by corporations AND they work for one of the largest corporate parents in the world, General Electric. Thus, it is a false equivalency to argue that MSNBC presents the other side of coin to Fox News. This is far from the truth. Instead, these news programs are being used to undermine the progressive elements of Obama's platform from the left. General Electric is not your friend. Go ahead and enjoy "liberal" cable news, because it is much better than Fox News, but it is hardly a mirror image of Fox News and right wing radio, which actively supported Bush's agenda. In sharp contrast, liberal cable news may actually be trying to undermine the President to the same extent as their right wing counterparts.

[AtomicKitten]

1. IMO they are covering government.

They are doing exactly what I would want them to do and I think are doing a fine job, each in their own way. I may not agree with them on everything but damn I support them and then some.

[Median Democrat]

2. "Liberal" Media Only Offers A Caricature Of Paul Krugman ...

When, in truth, he generally agreed with the outlines of many of Obama's policies even though he believes that they should be even bigger. Yet, rather than be portrayed as a diffrence in degree, Krugman was portrayed as a raving critic of Obama such that folks on this board attacked Obama by citing Krugman while ignoring the Krugman articles that were supportive of the President. Also, how often does cable news allow Paul Krugman to attack Republican and conservative policies, which he thinks are insane.

Did you see the recent article by Krugman about how Republicans are a sad lot? Do you think "liberal" cable news will give him the time to unload on Republicans on the air? Instead, he only gets air time if he attacks Obama.

[AtomicKitten]

7. Krugman is much more snarky in print.

Maybe they're hoping he'll get ugly when they invite him on to elaborate on a particular column he's written.

[Thrill]

3. MSM only use liberals when they criticize Obama. They ate that Krugman shit up.

Funny they didn't mention Krugman criticizing these stupid Tea baggers

[Median Democrat]

6. Here is Krugman Saying " Republicans have become embarrassing to watch." - Where's Cable News?

Here is Paul Krugman destroying Republicans and almost defending President Obama. Yet, where is cable news? Why isn't he getting a televised soap box to rip on the GOP with the same gusto he has attacked Obama. Coincidence?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13krugman.html?_r=2

/snip

Today’s G.O.P. is, after all, very much a minority party. It retains some limited ability to obstruct the Democrats, but has no ability to make or even significantly shape policy.

Beyond that, Republicans have become embarrassing to watch. And it doesn’t feel right to make fun of crazy people. Better, perhaps, to focus on the real policy debates, which are all among Democrats.

But here’s the thing: the G.O.P. looked as crazy 10 or 15 years ago as it does now. That didn’t stop Republicans from taking control of both Congress and the White House. And they could return to power if the Democrats stumble. So it behooves us to look closely at the state of what is, after all, one of our nation’s two great political parties.

/snip

[HughMoran]

25. Rachel did use the Krugman statement

So, there's the truth...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

27. They did the same for Hillary: used her because they'd rather have her in office

than Obama. I could not understand why she seemed to naive about what Faux News was doing. They pretended to love and respect Hillary because they could use her to divide the Democrats. And she took the bait. They're now doing the same with this Alex Jones character, using him when it's convenient to attack Obama. They used Krugman as well.

[Zodiak]

43. In fairness, Hillary was in financial trouble

I think she embraced FAUX news because they offered her air-time for free. Desperation is what made for those strange bedfellows.

[Uzybone]

4. They are still corporate media, the best of corporate media

but corporate all the same. Considering who they work for I think they are doing a damn fine job.

[drm604]

5. Teabagging

I'm still trying to figure out which of his policies the teabaggers are trying to attack. The tea party symbolism is about taxes but I'm pretty sure that Obama hasn't raised anybody's taxes. So what's she supposed to be defending?

[Median Democrat]

9. Good Question - Why Not Cover The Heavy Role That GE and Other Corporate Types Played

Jon Stewart on the The Daily Show did a great job of being funny AND exposing how Fox News and Rick Santelli played a prominent role in helping to organize and draw attention to this "grassroots" protest. Indeed, the anti-war movement had much bigger grass roots following, yet the media did not give such protests a fraction of the coverage being given to this corporate sponsored tea-bagging protest. John Stewart told the truth. Here's Thing Progress:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/09/lobbyists-planning-teaparties

Where's Rachel Maddow? Rather than just snickering like Beavis and Butthead about "teabagging," why not point out the role of the GOP and corporate media in promoting this so-called "grassroots" protest? Why not contrast this coverage with coverage of anti-war protests during the Bush years?

[drm604]

11. Didn't I see that being discussed on her show tonight?

Or was that somewhere else? I had on MSNBC and was half watching while working on my computer.

[drm604]

17. I'm watching the repeat right now

and she's calling the tea parties astroturf.

[Median Democrat]

19. Okay, I Just Saw Countdown Tonight - Thank You!

My god its about time to nail the folks who are backing this.

[apr09]

8. I think you may be reacting to Olbermann's and Maddow's criticism of Obama's state secrets position

Which is not an unfair criticism, given that even independent critics agree that he is mimicking Bush in that regard:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/expert_consensus_obama_aping_bush_on_state_secrets.php

[MarjorieG]

10. We tend to be knee-jerk piety about complicated stuff. This position until more cases reviewed, or

need to defend the US, against Spain, for instance, despite wanting to be more open.

Just saying governing is often beyond what we can know, and Rachel does a fair job, usually, but on secrecy, torture issues, same old lefty righteousness. Turley and Isikoff not always fair in discussing possible conflicts Admin is facing.

[Median Democrat]

14. My Bias (See #1 and 2 In OP) Is More Coverage Of Economic Issues That Affect Us

The tax breaks to the rich will not stimulute the economy or help the middle clas, and may diminish revenues needed to pay for programs benefitting most Americans. Likewise, college students are having to foot the bill of fees paid to private lenders. It would be nice to have "liberal" news programs get ahead of an issue being debated in Congress, rather than expressing outrage after the fact.

[apr09]

15. The intention to toss lawsuits had nothing to do with reviews

If the goal had been to wait for the reviews, the State Dept. would have asked for more time.

And did you just say that we invoked state secrets in order to protect the US from Spain?

[Luminous Animal]

16. Most critics will freely concede

that states secrets is a legitimate reason to withhold info from the public. It is not a legitimate reason to withhold information from the judiciary. The judiciary is, after all, an equal branch of our government and it has adequately addressed "states secrets" in the past.

[Median Democrat]

13. John Turley Is Being Used Like Paul Krugman As Noted Above

Your example is perfect because it illustrates what I am talking about. Like Krugman, "liberal" cable news gives liberals a platform if they attack Obama, but where is Krugman calling Republicans "embarassing." Also, are you saying that you don't find it odd that there is no coverage of:

1. Obama is meeting opposition from Republican and conservadems who are trying to repeal an estate tax that only affects less than 1 percent of the wealthiest estates. Where's the outrage?

2. Obama is trying to offer federal directly to students, rather than by giving a subsidey to private lenders to extend such aid to students. Again, here is an opportunity to get in front of an issue. Where is our so-called liberal cable news? Where is that overheated outrage at private lenders trying to make risk free profits?

3. Obama has been under constant right wing attack regarding the pirate situation. Over the weekend, the captain was rescued. Yet, where is Maddow and Olbermann calling right wing pundits on their attacks on Obama? Sure, I would not give Obama credit, because a lot of the success was due to luck, BUT shouldn't the liberal cable shows at least point out the hypocrisy of right wing media as noted below regarding Fox's efforts now to minimalize Obama's role after blaming for the ongoing crisis:

I mean I have seen John Turley attacking Obama from the left a lot more than I've seen coverage of the above issues. Why? Because Turley ripping into Obama and comparing him to Bush does not hurt corporate profits, and does not anger Maddow and Olbermann's sponsors. They might comment AFTER a decision is made, and outrage ensures, but will they get in front of an issue?

[Luminous Animal]

22. Turley has been on Olbermann many times

calling for impeachment of GWB over the same issues that he is now criticizing Obama. To use your logic, in those days, Olbermann and Turley were tools of the corporate media bent on destroying Bush. By the way, Turley is not "from the left" he considers himself a libertarian more allied with the thinking that comes from the CATO institute but he's been a consistent critic of civil liberties under Bush and now Obama.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

28. He called for the Impeachment of Clinton as well.

[Cha]

12. Of course, it is..it doesn't take a brick

wall, 8 years of bushit/the War On Iraq and the corporatemedia's manipulation and manufacturing the news to fall on the American Public.

[Luminous Animal]

18. It appears

that it is you who is trying to tarnish the reputation of the 3 by promoting a baseless accusation. You've given no evidence that any of them have been censored and all 3 have been quite scathing of their criticism of Bush over similar events. Why would you expect that they would drop their principals at the Democratic door?

In a discussion that I am having on another board, the point was made that we in the U.S., in political discourse, have become unable to apply rational judgment on statements. I find your theory in regards to Maddow, Olbermann, and Ed irrational. They have been, for years, unwavering in their critique of the notion of an imperial presidency and they are unwavering still. That is, they are doing their job as journalists which, as it should, speaks truth to power for the benefit of the people.

[Median Democrat]

20. Remember MSNBC Producers Censoring The Jim Cramer Smackdown By John Stewart, ABC Memo?

Irrational?

Think about it. I think that there critiques of Bush were great. I also think that there discussions of social issues, like Proposition 8, is also great. However, corporations largely receive a free pass until after the fact. MSNBC has corporate advertisers. Are you seriously suggesting that corporate sponsorship has no impact on the news content? Remember the ABC memo regarding an advertiser blacklist of Air America:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610310008

Also, look at MSNBC itself in connection with the Jim Cramer smackdown:

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/nbc/msnbc_producers_asked_not_to_highlight_cramerstewart_111307.asp

/snip

MSNBC Producers Asked Not To Highlight Cramer/Stewart
A TVNewser tipster tells us MSNBC producers were asked not to incorporate the Jim Cramer/Jon Stewart interview into their shows today. In fact, the only time it came up on MSNBC was during the White House briefing, when a member of the press corps asked Press Secretary Robert Gibbs if Pres. Obama watched. Gibbs wasn't sure if the president had, but Gibbs did. "I enjoyed it thoroughly," the Press Secretary said.

On Cramer's network, CNBC, the subject has only come up twice today, including when master marketer/CNBC personality Donny Deutsch brought it up briefly around 1pm on "Power Lunch." "I'm a huge Jon Stewart fan," said Deutsch, "He does what he does he does his job. But I'm also a huge Jim Cramer fan. He sticks up for the little guy, he cares, he puts his neck out, and I respect that. I respect both those guys."

/snip

My point is that it is okay to enjoy watching Maddow and Olbermann. However, don't fool yourself. Their advertisers and corporate parent have an impact on their programming. This is why it is okay to cover foreign policy and social issues that have no direct economic parent on sponsors, but on something like student lending that affects millions of people AND private lenders, you really are not hearing squat.

[Luminous Animal]

21. Your evidence is an unnamed source

from a reporter with whom there is open enmity between Olbermann and him... an ex-Fox News employee whom Olbermann characterizes as a Fox News stenographer. Olbermann flatly denies the accusation and calls it bullshit. You are going to have to come up with a far more credible source than than Steve Krakauer to support your accusation that Maddow, Olbermann, and Ed are undermining "the President to the same extent as their right wing counterparts."

[Median Democrat]

32. Well, Aside From The Isolated References, Where Is The Cramer Story Listed As A Lead In?

You say that the story is bullshit. The story says that MSNBC producers directed that there should be no lead ins or highlights of the John Stewart smackdown. Prior to the smackdown, MSNBC and NBC were featuring Jim Cramer. Even Martha Stewart had Jim Cramer on a few days prior to Cramer's appearance. It was being hyped as a big story.

However, aside from a few isolated references, where was the big lead in on either Olbermann or Maddow. Was it on countdown? Did either Olbermann or Maddow feature it aside from an isolated references without introduction at the start of the program like they usually do? There wasn't. You can search for a link to the lead-in to the program, but you will find nothing except isolated references in the middle of the program. Coincidence?

Finally, are you seriously arguing that Maddow and Olbermann operate in a world where sponsors don't matter? Look at the ABC memo on media matters. These are businesses. They exist to make money, and money is made from sponsors. Are you suggesting the GE has the Maddow and Olbermann show out of charity?

[Luminous Animal]

34. Again, you are offering conjecture...

Olbermann explained his position on DKos.

"D) Back to one of my original points: we do in fact give weight to stories based on how much they are covered by the older newscasts and organizations. In other words, if it's going to be on ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, etc., that brings it down a notch in our evaluation of its worthiness in our show. Our show is primarily about trying to give airtime to stories that are not on ABC, CBS, CNN, and Fox."

That is, he isn't apt to cover stories that are already saturated in the news. And as Rachel mentions in the clip below, a google news search of Stewart/Cramer revealed thousands of news reports.

Here is Rachel's two minute report on the dust-up between Stewart and Cramer
http://vodpod.com/watch/1431117-rachel-maddow-does-a-process-postmortem-on-the-stewart-cramer-takedown


GE has the Maddow and Olbermann shows because they make money. They made money when the criticized Bush (Olbermann savagely) and they will make money when the criticize Obama. Are you also prepared to make the argument that GE, by allowing Olbermann to advocate for impeachment that they had a vested interest in removing Bush?

[Median Democrat]

35. Teabagging Ring A Bell? Also, Stewart Provided Better Commentary

You write:

"That is, he isn't apt to cover stories that are already saturated in the news. And as Rachel mentions in the clip below, a google news search of Stewart/Cramer revealed thousands of news reports."

First, don't you think teabagging is a bit over exposed? No pun intended.

Second, like much of the coverage of "teabagging" the coverage of Stewart/Cramer was extremely superficial, except by Stewart himself. What I would have liked to have heard from Maddow and Olbermann, our "liberal" cable news is an examination of the cozy relationship between the financial news media and the companies they cover, and how this creates a strong bias in the financial news media.

Most media outlets were portraying the Stewart/Cramer incident as a personality conflict. However, except for the little snippet you include, there was no real discussion of the role of media in the current economic crisis, and how CNBC was asleep in coverying the impending crisis.

This is the real story that needed to be covered. Sadly, Stewart, a comedian, is the only person who really addressed the core issue. Even our "liberal" news shows did not, or could not, cover the real core issue.

[HughMoran]

26. One particular issue does NOT a trend make

You're accusations are baseless if this is all you got. You need multiple examples before you can even think of accusing MSNBC of bias.

[Egnever]

37. Do Joe scarborough, or David gregory or Chuck Todd

Count? Sure they have Rachel and Kieth and now ED but those are the only shows they have with any kind of market share. Gregory as host of meet the press is a travesty. They are making concious choices to retain people like joe and buchannon and they dont do that because they are trying to tell the liberal side of things. The conservatives still far outnumber the progressives on msnbc and the incident with cramer is an easy example, the other are far more subtle.

[Orsino]

23. *All* cable news is being massaged and filtered...

...to ensure that liberal reform never gets much traction.

[HughMoran]

24. The reason they're NOT Fox is due to their willingness to criticize when necessary

You want MSNBC to be like Fox? I don't. I think you're way, way way off base here.

[Median Democrat]

33. Agree - Right Wing Media Supports Right Wing Leaders. "Liberal" News Gives Corporations A Free Pass

Fox News is always out pounding on liberal critics and interest groups. However, how often does Maddow and Olbermann confront corporate America, except long after the fact. I gave some examples of issues that they can get out in front of, but you hear nothing. I am sure that after the vote is complete, they will then express outrage, but god forbid that they upset their corporate advertisers.

In other words, Maddow and Olbermann are free to raise liberal issues, so long as it does not offend their corporate sponsors. Where is Maddow and Olbermann talking and educating about the things that taxes buy such as:

1. Social security.
2. Police.
3. Teachers.
4. Firefighters.
5. Navy Seal snipers.

Why not go out and challenge the teabaggers and ask what they want to cut?

So, you are right. Fox News often supports right wing leaders. Liberal news, just like mainstream news, and right wing news, is just as willing to tear down liberal leaders while giving corporate America a free pass. Thus, Democrats are in a three front war.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

29. Absolutely not.

I love Rachel and Keith. Ed is on too early for me and I haven't seen it yet. But both of those shows criticize when necessary and praise when deserved.

[apr09]

30. but I ask. why didn't MSNBC push Olbermann and Maddow to cheer for McCain?

For the conspiracy to be true, wouldn't the channel have to have promoted McCain over Obama?

[Egnever]

38. They did

or have we already forgoten all the crap spewed in the run up to the election like is obama a celebrity blah blah. They did plenty to prop up mcsame throughout the election.

[MessiahRp]

39. What drugs are you on?

Olbermann and Maddow NEVER propped up McCain.

Now we're stretching these attacks into insanity.

Rp

[biopowertoday]

41. LOL it was

boards like this that propped up the celebrity status.

[Laelth]

31. Interesting argument. k&r

:dem:

-Laelth

[genna]

36. whoa

:tinfoilhat:

[MessiahRp]

40. All of those issues are small

And in comparison to Obama's protection of Bush Wiretapping or having Corporatist Tools like Geithner and Summers complete the Bush attempt to hand over all of our tax money as a giveaway to corporate elites those issues are much smaller and won't get the coverage.

Rp

[pat_k]

42. Obama appalling duplicity on torture undermines all his works.

Obama's refusal to demand the prosecution and punishment of government officials who proudly ordered Americans to torture is a violation of core and inviolable American principles. As long as he continues to protect the torturers from prosecution the USA is a War Criminal Nation.

Our treatment of any person in state custody, and the process by which they are committed to state custody -- whether that person is captured in the field of battle; an orphaned child, a convicted prisoner, an illegal immigrant; a criminal suspect; or suffers from mentally illness -- define a our identity as a nation. A government that employs arbitrary or unjust processes, is unjust. A government that subjects those in its custody to inhumane treatment is inhumane. A government that refuses to enforce the law by prosecuting those who commit such atrocities under color of law is a fraud.

Those who commit crimes can't destroy us -- we designed our government to deal with criminals. Only the corruption and dereliction of those we charge with enforcement can take us down. Bush and Cheney didn't turn us into a War Criminal Nation. Pelosi and those who tolerated and tacitly endorsed torture by refusing to demand impeachment did that; the high officials who refuse Act to prosecute the torturers are responsible.

The battle for the soul of the nation is not between people who label themselves "liberal" or "conservative," it's between those who tolerate the harboring of torturers and those who refuse to; those who are willing to continue as a War Criminal Nation and those who are not; and those government officials who are acting in accord with their oath of office and those who aren't.

With our foundation in ruins, anything our so-called "leaders" manage to build will be as lasting as a castle built on quicksand. There can be no real progress toward "a more perfect union" until we confront the truth, admit that the failure to impeach is a stain we can never erase, and Finally Do what duty demands and prosecute Bush, Cheney, and their co-conspirators.