I've got some worries:: MSNBC. / Keith /

[UTUSN]

Look, flamers, don't even *bother* calling me a freep.



Now, in all the years I e-mailed networks/cable complaining about negative-crap-against-Dems,


I never-ever asked for PREFERENTIAL treatment for Dems. I only asked for an EVEN PLAYING FIELD.


Now, earlier, I got flamed for saying MSNBC is acting like the opposite of Faux----- which, means, TELLING YOUR AUDIENCE WHAT YOU THINK THEY WANT TO HEAR.


Some DUers claimed that Keith would be EQUALLY hard on *whomever* (whatever party). I believe that, but that is NOT *my* point.

[peace13]

1. He admitted on television this evening...

that he was originally for Hill. From what I see the man calls it as he sees it.

[rodeodance]

3. it does not matter who he was originally for. He is NOT objective. That is the point

[Selatius]

6. I think that's the reason why his ratings have spiked upward. He has a clear position.

I could be wrong, but I think some people out there are wanting a source of news that at least tells the viewer where they are coming from.

[peace13]

13. You can decide for yourself.

The balance from the media is heavily weighted as you well know. If it weren't for KO there would be no information at all from whatever position you think it is that Keith takes. You are opting for the rethugs and the media that was weighted so heavily for Hill early on. I say if they can't be objective then at least let our message get out somewhere.

[Fearless]

4. Agreed... and he saw the writing on the wall earlier than most.

[ConsciousIgnorance]

2. Huh

Huh

[orleans]

17. fastest tombstone in the west. 1 post?

sorry i missed the profile. must've been a doozy.

[Fearless]

5. Are you saying that MSNBC is being too liberal?

I didn't know that the truth lay somewhere in the middle.

[UTUSN]

8. Hardly. n/t

[Fearless]

18. Then what are you trying to say?

That they are not giving the Rethug side too?

[UTUSN]

7. I luerved him when luerving him wasn't cool. I also have criticized SHUSTER.

Do we want slanted/preferential/Faux treatment (from the opposite direction)? I don't.

[frogcycle]

9. what IS your point?

[UTUSN]

10. Why is there ALWAYS such a question?!1 (as opposed to following the posts?!1) n/t

[frogcycle]

16. I reread your post twice before asking

and read it again twice just now.

It does not make a point.

Maybe there is "always such a question" because you post obscure ramblings with no point.

[Beregond2]

11. I have no problem with

news programs having an ideological slant, provided, 1., they are upfront about their POV, and 2., they tell the truth. I would say Olbermann and O'Reilly both meet the first criterion, but only Olbermann meets the second. There is also the fact that O'Reilly is a hypocritical wack-job, but that's another issue.

[LeftCoast]

12. In any other cycle, this race would have been called a month ago

By virtually every yard-stick, Obama has won the contest. It's time to move on.

[wurzel]

14. KO gives us the NEWS we want to hear!

He is not telling us what we want to hear. There is a difference.

[Poiuyt]

15. I think there's room for both unbiased news and liberal commentary

I have no problem with Keith being a liberal commentator since he's the only one on the MSM that I can think of. There are plenty of conservative ones as you know. I would like to see more unbiased news though.

[Fearless]

19. I think in the end you have to realize that KO isn't a news reporter, he's a political satirist.

The same as Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert.

[EFerrari]

20. This is a weird year. Imho, it'll pass. n/t