It is understandable for right leaning pundits (ok, they’ve actually fallen over) like Zimmerman, et al, to scream that the pendulum of opinions should stop in the middle when it starts to swing in the opposite direction. What galls me is that so many progressive voices, including so many of our so-called Democratic leaders, agree to throw on the brakes and stop “in the middle” so there are no real offsetting actions to create real balance. Meanwhile those “all we want is a nuanced, balanced discourse” devotees are feverishly working to tip the table and get that pendulum swinging in their direction again.

Kudos to Rachel, here’s wishing you all the momentum you can generate.

'These are not called "shows" for nothin'. It's ostensibly smart entertainment. Period.'

These network decisions should not be treated with the seriousness we find here. To do that is to give them credit they don't deserve (perhaps) or simply to wildly miss the mark about their decision-making formula. And we should not allow ourselves to think there is some broad-minded pursuit of cross-spectrum balance going on here. We are simply seeing a profit-maximizing org make rational decisions based on performance expectations. Fox News shifted the long-term market for political information and opnion starting a decade a go. It's competitors initially responded by attempting to protect their viewership in Fox's ideological terrain, but found that Fox's jump on them for that slice made that a losing battle over the long term; widespread public dissatisfaction with Iraq and other Bush policies then created a possible opening for a self-consciously liberal perspective to bring viewers. In MSNBC's case they acquired a proven broadcasting brand (Olbermann) and tested the extent of the opportunity; finding it fertile they now seek to expand their gains. Maddow is apparently their bet; I believe her chances for long-term success on the level of Olbermann's are slim because she lacks the established following in mainstream broadcasting that he brought. When interest in politics craters after the election you can bet she will be replaced with more general interest content. Olbermann may have a hard time transitioning then too, but again he retains the advantage of experience in drawing the general viewer that she has not shown. We shall see.

1. Why were you angered at her RFK comment? Do you have something against the month of June?

2. If you are concerned that "her comment, whether intentional or not, seemed to me to paint a bull's-eye on Obama's back" perhaps you should direct your outrage at the media and the Obama operatives who made a massive national news story about a completely innocent* comment uttered in an obscure Midwestern newsroom. No one would have heard this oh-so-dangerous quote if it weren't for the gigantic fauxtrage.

Once again an important matter -- the safety of the first viable black presidential candidate -- gets trivialized by bogus news/campaign manipulations.

_______

* Completely innocent per: the journalists it was said to, the Politico guys who were "deflated" when they realized their big story was a tempest in a teapot, and RFK's own son. So, you don't have to take the word of racist assassin Hillary Clinton on it.

Sorry, you were played by the news media and the Obama camp, just like you may have been about "as far as I now," "fairy tale" = racism, praising LBJ=dissing MLK, sleeping kids = "Birth of a Nation," and the Drudge Muslim-garb photo.

The liberal echelons of the media (such as they are) and the liberal blogs didn't give a shit about separating fact from fiction, because the false narratives favored their preferred candidate. And thus, the media critique was abandoned.

I find it laughable to read how troubling the right wing pundits are over the fact that Rachel Maddow is a libral. I've only had Keith Olbermann to watch for quite some time now. I love him and will continue but I absolutely love Rachel. I never missed when she guest hosted Keith's show. She is calm, polite, witty and most of all she actually does her homework before she gets on camera and leaves those right wing pundits like Pat Buchannan in the dust. She is the most intelligent person I've seen on a news show for so long and it's about time she got her own show. I'm glad they're worried. They should be. Once people start watching Rachel they will see what news shows should be, not some Right wingnut screaming at their guests without letting them get a word in edgewise. Viewers will see people having actual discussions, listening to one another without the insults and name calling that you hear constantly on Fox and the other stations. I can't wait. They may be worried but they are talking and that's what gets people watching. Good for Rachel.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/08/hbc-90003447

The liberal echelons of the media (such as they are) and the liberal blogs didn't give a shit about separating fact from fiction, because the false narratives favored their preferred candidate. And thus, the media critique was abandoned.

-- vastleft

You must have neglected to click onto dailykos during the primary. There were a number of comments and diaries from posters who - in their view - "gave a shit about separating fact from fiction". Same thing at Digby's. Same thing at Firedoglake. The battles raged on and on, day after day. Where were you? Maybe if you had gotten your ya, ya's out back then you wouldn't be grumping sour grapes all day long at this stage of the proceedings.

Have you watched Olbermann's report on RFK-gate?

http://www.correntewire.com/everything_old_is_new_again_0

It's truly remarkable, a real contender for the 10 most scurrilous minutes of news journalism of my lifetime. That report (which, disturbingly, the Obama camp found worthy enough to send to the entire Beltway media pool) rivals anything I've ever seen from Fox News for sheer blind, dishonest, firebreathing hate.

Maddow was an active contributor to msnbc's slanted coverage of the campaign, scoring similar points if with a little less bravado than some of her colleagues.- vastleft

You are right on the money with this comment. Keith is now parading Maddow around like she is the shining exemplar of his newfound power at MSNBC: he couldn't wait to drag her out on Countdown the night her new show was announced and make her say that, yes, indeed it was Keith himself who got her the gig. He also got right on dailykos and huffed and puffed about it there. It isn't a big stretch to say that Maddow knew what was on the line when she smiled, nodded, and chirped along with Olbermann's nightly defamation of Senator Clinton, which hit its nadir with the ugly RFK-gate "Special Comment." This doesn't make Maddow Satan incarnate, but it doesn't make me admire her very much, either. Maddow seems a run-of-the-mill careerist, and it's hard to get excited about another one of those clogging up the airwaves, no matter the political persuasion. I will miss the departing Dan Abrams, who did a nice job taking on Rove and in helping Don Siegelman get out of jail. Abrams seemed as if he didn't take himself too seriously, and he wasn't as easily categorized as either "right" or "left" politically as someone like Maddow, who will no doubt dutifully play her prescribed role in the binary equation. But will she ever dare to disagree with KO, or will she continue to be an Olbermann sockpuppet? So far she has shown no inclination to bite the hand that feeds.