I guess every station wants to out-Fox each other, but hey, why have any political partisan TV show on TV unless they are paying for it and it contains the prerequisite political disclaimer.

I'm sick of these so-called cable stations masquerading as "news" when they really pick and choose which sensational

piece of crap to feature next - including their own parent corporations' celebrities ad nauseum.

It is an "analysis" channel. If you want news, watch CNBC or CNN. Olbermann has never been about being a "news" show; Olbermann is a pundit, a commentator ON the news, more than a reporter OF it. He really doesn't do any original reporting; he passes along a number of news stories reported elsewhere, accompanied by his and his guests' commentary on them.

I never did like his "special comments" and I'm glad he's seemingly backed off from them a bit. He took too much relish in hammering away at his targets with caustic rhetoric rather than just presenting the facts and letting them speak for themselves. Nor did I like his trying to adopt the mantle of Edward R. Murrow ("Good Night, and Good Luck" being the most obvious "homage") without having earned the right through journalistic stature and experience. Compare Murrow's attacks on McCarthy with Olbermann's "special comments" directed at the President or Hillary Clinton and the difference in tone and content is stark. I'm glad Olbermann was inspired by Murrow's willingness to speak truth to power and put his reputation and career on the line when he thought his principles demanded it; all journalists would do well to imitate Murrow's example (and I think Glenn is well on his way). But those "special comments" were very pale imitations indeed of Murrow's style as well as substance, and I hope (against hope, I'm afraid) that at some point Olbermann will realize that and make some changes in future.

The New Republic hasn't been liberal in over 20 years so it should hardly be a shock to you or anyone they are lamenting Maddow's hiring as troubling. I think liberals should be on tv but she was a complete and total water carrier for Obama with no restraint. And what have you and the left got for its trouble. A candidate who by nuance has skated by the fact that on issue after issue that liberals actually care about, he is to the right of Clinton. Abortion, FISA, health care, energy policy, social security and even more disgusting affirmative action. There's going to be a lot of gnashing of teeth come January 21st when reality sinks in. By all means television needs more liberals but they also need couragous ones who will not drink the kool aid of the moment.

Re: Glen G., Sascha Zimmerman and TNR's personality-ism

You managed to touch on a number of thoughts that had been rattling around (rather loosely) in my mind.

Among the things that have concerned me are TNR's penchant for hiring young, inexperienced editors and columnists and its favoring of style over substance. Suspect the weak editorial control has been partly responsible for numerous scandals. In a sense, TNR seems to be attempting to rest on its (remote) laurels while attempting to be "hip" and staunch the hemorrhaging of subscribers (at least a 40% decline since 2000). At this point, it may be difficult for them to attract mature writers who actually have a point of view, the experience to back it up, and the means to express it. Of course, they may also be too anxious to hire such writers if they were available. Settling for the murky "center" seems to be the zeitgeist of our era -- reflected in our politics, popular culture, and print media.

In this context, guess it's not too surprising to encounter criticism of a Maddow -- in comments here or elsewhere. She's not neutral, she evaluates, she expresses opinions, she criticizes incisively, she takes sides. She's even informed. Horrors! A blatant challenge to the zeitgeist.

It seems that the folks who plead for "neutral," "balanced," "straight news" coverage are missing an important point. There is no such thing! Reporting involves making decisions about what to cover, where to cover it (A-1 or 16), and how to cover it (with or without transparent analysis). Glaring examples of the failure of our current neutral, "he said, she said," stenographic approach to reporting can be seen in the run-up to the Iraq invasion and, more recently, in the reporting on the anthrax case.

Well, to be a "smear machine", you have to actually smear people. That would imply spreading falsehoods about them. Please elucidate as to exactly what falsehoods MM has been spreading.....

"If they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them." -- Adlai Stephenson (link at sig)

Cheers,

I only use the phrase 'smear machine' to portray one of the false dichotomies that the right often presents, where a satirist like Al Franken is "the Limbaugh of the left" and dailykos is the new KKK.

To make my question more clear, is an entity like Media Matters what Glenn considers a legitimate media watchdog, or does their partisan origins disqualify them from being such?

Got to say I've been impressed by the ingenuity of Clinton supporters in their quest for someone on whom to lay blame for her failure -- ABH (anybody but Hillary). What about the numerous factors that may have contributed to her loss? A small sample: running on the belief of her inevitability, mismanagement of finances, bad advice from money-grubbing consultants, poor management of a contentious campaign staff, her vote on authorization for war in Iraq (that she never admitted was a mistake), appealing to centrist older, less educated women and blue collar males (while ignoring and at times demeaning the more educated liberal base), Bill and other baggage she was carrying, running on "experience" when people wanted change, running a very nasty campaign that not only bashed her opponent but elevated and gave support (and ammunition) to the candidate from the opposing party.

Not sure how you decided she's more "liberal" than Obama. I think if you do a careful comparison of track records and policies, you'd find they're both centrist pragmatists -- as was Bill Clinton. Do you think a truly liberal candidate would have a prayer of getting the Democratic nomination in this country?