Opinion: Olbermann on Insight/O’Reilly on Bartiromo…
Tonight on Countdown, Keith Olbermann will be doing another segment on the Insight Magazine story. Over on FNC, Bill O’Reilly will be doing something on the Maria Bartiromo/Citigroup scandal.
UPDATE: Can’t watch both so I’m watched O’Reilly first (I’ll catch Countdown on the repeat). O’Reilly started out the top of the segment by trying to tie Bartiromo to “problems” at NBC News and NBC Entertainment…
As we reported NBC News has taken a sharp turn to the left. Under executives Jeff Zucker and Robert Wright with elements at NBC News (Translation: Keith Olbermann who doesn’t work at NBC News- Spud) now actually using propaganda from far left websites as primary source material. Unbelievable. In this week’s New York Magazine former General Electric CEO Jack Welch implies that if he were still in charge, he’d fire Zucker.
(section describing the Bartiromo scandal removed to save time)
NBC News denies any wrong doing (what’s NBC News have to do with CNBC? - Spud). But there is no denying trouble at NBC News headquarters in New York city. ABC News may overtake NBC’s newscast and CNBC and MSNBC have major ratings problems.
At that point I stopped watching. This was just too much. If O’Reilly wants to do a segment on Bartiromo, fine. I think CNBC needs to come clean and give an honest accounting of why this isn’t a conflict of interest for Bartiromo or the network. This “try to ignore the story and hope it blows over” approach isn’t serving either the network or its viewers well. You can quibble about the speed with which FNC addressed the Insight story issue, with each subsequent on the record comment going into greater detail about what happened and why it shouldn’t have happened, but at least FNC was trying to address the issue. CNBC is denying that a problem, or even the appearance of a problem, took place. At the very least it’s bad PR because it gives the appearance of impropriety.
But for O’Reilly to try and lump Bartiromo in with other comptletely unrelated issues, issues which are insulated from each other because of the respective divisions and organizations they take place in…which have no overlapping jurisdictions or responsibilities, is just ridiculous. This is O’Reilly in full “get NBC at all costs” mode throwing everything at the wall and trying to make it stick.
UPDATE 2: Even though it was announced via an MSNBC media release (not to be confused with a press release via the NBC Media Village), Countdown didn’t do the Insight article segment.
The problem is, it’s just not BO. You see the same thing at least once an hour on fnc all day long. It’s in the fnc talking points everyday. I once again ask how anybody can constantly put up and listen to this crap everyday. Does it not get on your last nerve?
Comment by Big Dave — January 29, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
KO didn’t do his segment on Insight. Why?
Comment by Goldfish — January 29, 2007 @ 10:33 pm
Your analysis of what O’Reilly was trying to do tonight was spot on, Spud. I’d say it would easily qualify for the winner of his “most ridiculous item of the day”.
Comment by STP — January 29, 2007 @ 10:42 pm
I respectfully disagree, Spud. Once CNBC start to carry Donny Deutsch, they ended their “business only” persona, and became just another news network. A news network, owned and ran by the same people who run MSNBC and NBC news. Therefore, to say that NBC is having problems, is accurate.
Now I don’t think that this necessarily reflects NBC’s bias… but it does reflect some of the management’s poor decisions. Whether it really rises to the cause that O’Reilly is putting forth… well, I guess that’s debatable. But I don’t think it can be really called factually inaccurate.
Comment by ImNotBlue — January 29, 2007 @ 11:32 pm
CNBC is part of the NBC news division, is it not?
Comment by bigred — January 29, 2007 @ 11:51 pm
bigred is absolutely right. O’Reilly correctly went after the Fox Broadcasting Corp. for the OJ Simpson interview. Yet, he/FNC was attacked by KO and company even though FNC has “nothing to do with” Fox Broadcast Corp. They are owned by the same parent company. Enough said. I strongly and respectfully disagree with you, Spud.
Comment by Edward Schatz — January 30, 2007 @ 12:55 am
O’Reilly correctly went after the Fox Broadcasting Corp. for the OJ Simpson interview. Yet, he/FNC was attacked by KO and company even though FNC has “nothing to do with” Fox Broadcast Corp.
Ahhhhhh but O’Reilly and everyone at FNC went out of their way to point out that they have nothing to do with what happens on Fox Broadcast. And they were right. Olbermann was wrong to lump FNC in with Fox Broadcastl.
O’Reilly can’t have it both ways. He can’t on the one hand lump in Bartiromo with NBC and on the other hand distance FNC from what happens on Fox Broadcast. Well he can but he loses all credibility when he does. Either they’re both related or they’re both not. I say they’re not. Olbermann and O’Reilly use the same tactics. And it doesn’t help either of their causes.
Comment by Spud — January 30, 2007 @ 1:16 am
Once CNBC start to carry Donny Deutsch, they ended their “business only” persona, and became just another news network.
Interesting. You cite an interview show as reason why the network becomes just another news network even though CNBC’s bread and butter…it’s charter…still remains covering business news during business hours. I just don’t see the relationship. What goes on CNBC during primetime has as little to do with what goes on CNBC daytime just as what happens during FNC primetime with its opinion shows has little to do with its daytime news operations.
A news network, owned and ran by the same people who run MSNBC and NBC news. Therefore, to say that NBC is having problems, is accurate.
That is not accurate.
1) CNBC has a different management structure from NBC News. MSNBC is more closely aligned to NBC News though.
2) CNBC is definately having problems in as much as dealing with this Bartiromo scandal. But the buck stops at CNBC’s management team for that. They signed off on Bartiromo’s trips. NBC didn’t.
3) MSNBC is not having problems, as O’Reilly defines them anyways. His argument is that MSNBC’s ratings are piss poor therefore they’re having problems. But ratings have continued to rise for MSNBC and I see no outward signs that MSNBC is going in the “wrong direction”.
4) O’Reilly talking about the Jack Welch interview is a total non-sequitur. Welch was referring to Zucker’s handling of prime time programming on NBC broadcast, not regarding MSNBC, CNBC, or NBC News. O’Reilly’s use of the Welch interview was a classic straw man argument.
5) O’Reilly’s argument that NBC has gone left, is mostly a vacuous one. His examples have been pretty weak and sometimes contradictory. He can argue that Olbermann has gone left, but of course he won’t do that because he’d have to name Olbermann. And we know he won’t do that. So instead he attempts to tie a bunch of weak and/or disputable examples of NBC’s alleged turn to the left in an attempt to achieve the same goal. But it doesn’t have the same impact as if he’d just gone after Olbermann.
Comment by Spud — January 30, 2007 @ 1:31 am
What about having Olbermann and Matthews hosting all their big coverage nights, like the election & State of the Union? Olbermann has the most liberally biased tv show on the air, yet they try to present him as some sort of respectable anchor on big nights. And Matthews worked for Carter & Tip O’Neill. They are 2 big-time lefties, and they’re the face of MSNBC. That is definately proof that channel has turned left.
Comment by bigred — January 30, 2007 @ 2:19 am
Yes and brit Hume host alot of Fox Big Coverage Nights too, and so did Tony Snow, both are outspoken conservatives. You should focus less on the anchor and focus on the coverage itself. Every anchor has a bias (since they’re human beings they’re going to have personal opinions and convictions), the problem occurs when that bias is reflected in the reporting. BTW Chris Matthews isn’t left o right he’s just obnoxious.
I find the whole O’reilly, NBC thing fascinating- as we all know this fued is just away for O’reilly to get back at KO and NBC for allowing KO to go after him. Afterall his arguments are rather convoluted and conflicting- on one hand he says they’re a far left outlet, but on the other hand he concedes that they’re fair. He’s provided very little evidence of this great left- wing bias. He continues to put out the whole civil war proclomation thing as evidence, but he fails to recognize that other news outlet has characterize the situation in Iraq as such, but yet we dont see him aggressively attacking those other outlets.
Comment by Sam — January 30, 2007 @ 3:12 am
Using the skewed logic of rightwingers why don’t we create a rule that news broadcasters can’t be registered voters since party affiliation might give the appearance of bias.
Comment by elmonica — January 30, 2007 @ 3:26 am
You guys repeatedly rip FOX for being biased, but refuse to acknowledge that any other medium might have a left-wing bias.
To say Chris Matthews isn’t left or right is preposterous. He was Jimmy Carter’s speechwriter. It doesn’t get much more liberal than that.
I personally don’t think we should be able to tell any anchor’s politcal leanings, whether left or right.
Commentators are one thing, but when they’re also anchoring a newscast, a bias should not exist, but it does.
Comment by bigred — January 30, 2007 @ 8:54 am
Thanks, Big red.
Elmonica: Olbermann has actually said publicly that he doesn’t vote, and it’s for that reason. As if you couldn’t tell where he leans…
Comment by William — January 30, 2007 @ 10:38 am
You all are confusing the issue. What MSNBC suddenly turned left because Matthews and Olbermann are on the air in primetime? Both of them came on board years ago and O’Reilly’s just making an issue of that now? That sets my BS detector off.
And then there’s what O’Reilly did last night. He cited Olbermann…er…I mean “elements at NBC News”…relying on sites like Media Matters for America for information. And then to address that issue who does he have on the air? Someone from the MRC!!! A conservative advocacy site masquerading as a watchdog (just as Media Matters is a liberal advocacy site masquerading as a watchdog). He does exactly what he just complained about Olbermann doing…using an advocacy group to buttress his opinion.
BTW, for the record, I’m not thrilled to be seeing Olbermann anchoring primetime political coverage. He’s doing it because MSNBC wants its star out in front. But I think it makes for bad news judgement. Maybe a year ago it wouldn’t have been as big an issue for me but after all these “Special Comments” I have a very hard time accepting him in the anchor position. Everyone points to FNC not putting O’Reilly on to anchor coverage and they’re right. MSNBC is doing something FNC wouldn’t do.
Comment by Spud — January 30, 2007 @ 11:48 am
Spud, what’s wrong with Keith anchoring special coverage. He’s become a political heavyweight just as Sean Hannity. And FNC does place Hannity & Colmes front and center during FNC Specials.
Comment by Andy Marquis — January 30, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
But when O’Reilly talks about MRC or interviews them, does he not introduce them as a “Right wing media watch dog” or something to that effect? Olbermann uses obviously biased sources as if they were impartial, and never clearly states their bias for the benefit of the viewers.
Spud makes an interesting point about FNC and FOX during the OJ thing. And frankly, I can’t really argue against it. The only thing I can say, is that top management is just that… top of the hierarchy. So the same people watch over all the different divisions of the different networks… and I think that was more or less O’Reilly’s point in the reporting of this story.
If his assessment says that top management is leading NBC down the wrong path, than pointing out problems at CNBC as well as MSNBC is logical, because they derive from the same people… even if it’s not the best argument I’ve ever heard. This does also apply to the OJ thing. It doesn’t mean that each sub-division or network is responsible for the other division… only top brass. Thinking like this may provide insight into the corporate philosophy… but it may also just be nonsense. Who knows?
Comment by ImNotBlue — January 30, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
Spud: Your basic analysis is OK with one exception: until MSNBC starts showing some significant ratings VICTORIES, at least over No. 2 CNN, they must be considered a “trouubled” network.
And Andy Marquis, until Keith Olbermann gets anywhere close to Hannity’s ratings, both on TV and radio, he is hardly a “political heavyweight.
Comment by Ira — January 30, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Andy - FNC only places Hannity and Colmes after a political event to debate and discuss the event from two points of view. KO and Matthews anchoring an event are two partisans, who mostly agree with each other, and proudly present their bias night after night. You know when tuning in, if it’s a Republican event, they’re going to hate it. If it’s from the Democrats, their feelings will range from “It’s great” to “It’s better than the alternative”
If FNC had Hannity and Mark Levin… or whatever… you’d have a similar situation. But on FNC, there is balance… even if people don’t like to admit it.
Comment by ImNotBlue — January 30, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
And Hume isn’t a partisan? What’s his ass doing sitting at the end of that panel each Sunday sucking up to the Bush administration.
Comment by elmonica — January 30, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
But when O’Reilly talks about MRC or interviews them, does he not introduce them as a “Right wing media watch dog” or something to that effect?
No. He doesn’t. Not when I’ve seen them anyways.
until MSNBC starts showing some significant ratings VICTORIES, at least over No. 2 CNN, they must be considered a “trouubled” network.
I disagree with your premise Ira. You’re arguing that to be successful MSNBC has to beat CNN. I don’t think that success for MSNBC’s sake has to be defined solely by that yardstick. Certainly O’Reilly would define it that way since his network is top dog. But there’s lots of ways of measuring success. Profitability being one way. And MSNBC is profitable.
MSNBC isn’t a solo entity like CNN and FNC are. That makes direct comparisons more difficult. It also changes how the goals are measured. NBC doesn’t want MSNBC to eat away at NBC News Division properties. Like the Today show. That’s why Imus is on instead of news. So NBC will only tolerate so much success from MSNBC.
I also dissagree that one has to meausure up with Sean Hannity to be a political heavyweight. For one thing Hannity isn’t a political heavyweight. He’s a political talking head. Talking heads are not heavyweights…unless you mean among talking heads he’s a heavyweight. I’d give you that one…
Comment by Spud — January 30, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
Do you really believe that Hume is as partisan as Olbermann or Matthews? I mean seriously?
Hume was a reporter/correspondent for how long before anyone asked his opinion? He has enough credibility to be able to say that when he’s reporting, his bias doesn’t get in the way of the facts. Besides… whenever he’s hosting a political event, he has a panel of people with him from differing points of view, who provide their opinions. He only asks the questions.
Olbermann and Matthews have the same point of view, low credibility when it comes to being un-biased, and rarely bother talking to people who disagree with them. Come on, be realistic!
Comment by ImNotBlue — January 30, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
Brit Hume is a partisan hack and will be replaced by FNC’s new “golden boy” Chris Wallace!
Comment by Terance — January 30, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
Spud, for the record, O’Reilly introduced the gentleman from MRC as the “conservative Media Research Council’s…” I mean, he could be more explicit but is that not good enough? He had an opposing point of view from the MRC guy. Olbermann just gets people who agree with everything he says. Great thanks.
Comment by Edward Schatz — January 30, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
Olbermann has become an idol to liberals and his special comments have become keynote speeches for Democratic senators. Olbermann is a political heavyweight, end of story.
Comment by Andy Marquis — January 30, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
Payne did not go after CNBC the way Graham did. Furthermore, O’Reilly stated they tried to get other people and were unsuccessful. O’Reilly stated no one wanted to talk about CNBC/Bartiromo thing. Payne was (Seemingly) the best he could do and he was not entirely in the bash CNBC camp a la MRC. Have any other suggestions? Drag people in to be interviewed?
Comment by Edward Schatz — January 30, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
You said O’Reilly had an opposing point of view. He did not. Payne’s not going after CNBC the way the MRC guest did does not an opposing viewpoint make. They both basically agreed with O’Reilly that CNBC’s integrity was compromised. Someone from the viewpoint that Bartiromo and CNBC did nothing improper or that NBC is not liberally biased would be the opposing view. Neither of these guys said that.
Of course, O’Reilly can’t drag people in to do interviews. My comment wasn’t about whether O’Reilly was or wasn’t able to get someone of opposing view to come on. It was about your saying that he had an opposing view when he did not give us one.
Comment by STP — January 30, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
Well, in reference to not having opposition… I believe Bill. I know, “Shocker”… but the reason why is simple. How many times in the past week has Spud or one of the articles put up on this blog mentioned how nobody from CNBC wants to talk about this.
Sometimes you have to question when a host says “nobody”… but in this case, we have evidence from a bunch of other sources that finding someone, may have been harder than it sounds.
Comment by ImNotBlue — January 30, 2007 @ 11:27 pm
If FNC had Hannity and Mark Levin… or whatever… you’d have a similar situation. But on FNC, there is balance… even if people don’t like to admit it.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Colmes doesn’t get a word in. Hannity’s big ass ego dominates the program.
Comment by Andy Marquis — January 31, 2007 @ 12:20 am
Yeah, Colmes never gets a word in. Never! Except for hmm… about half of the program. Drop me the b.s. and actually time it out. It’s equal.
Comment by bigred — January 31, 2007 @ 11:05 am