Opinion: The Big Story on the EP change at NBC Nightly…
Today on The Big Story, John Gibson devoted a segment to the EP change at NBC Nightly News and ABC beating it in the ratings. Gibson had on to “analyze” the whole thing someone from….wait for it…the MRC. Why not NewsMax? or TownHall? Would have been the same result. The MRC pundit Rich Noyes jumped through his hoops on how MSNBC being so far to the left caused it to “contaminte the mothership” at NBC. His evidence was that because correspondents at NBC are ” permanent fixtures at MSNBC during the daytime” and MSNBC’s analysts are over at NBC.
First of all who, outside of Norah O’Donnell, is an NBC correspondent who is a permanent fixture at MSNBC these days? Andrea Mitchell was for a short time but that’s apparently ended. But neither O’Donnell or Mitchell has been used as an an example of NBC’s leftward turn. Bill O’Reilly went to great lengths to exonerate Mitchell from that mess when she was on The Factor. Furthermore NBC talent appearing on MSNBC has been going on to one degree or another since its inception. And just now it’s contaminating the mothership? Doubtful.
Second of all, which MSNBC analysts have been appearing on NBC that would count as contamination of NBC to contribute to its “leftward turn”. Dan Abrams? Joe Scarborough? Chris Matthews, maybe. But Matthews has been on NBC for years and years. Remember, Olbermann has not appeared regularly, if at all, on NBC as of this point.
William Arkin came up of course. On this point Noyes, his ideological bent and motives nonwithstanding, scored a bullseye because Arkin is still with NBC apparently when by rights he should have been dropped like the hot potato he now has become.
Noyes ended up basically taking the air out of the whole segment by admitting that there’s not that big a difference between NBC Nightly’s newscast and ABC’s Newscast in terms of how “liberal” it is. Which just begs the question, if there’s no significant difference in the ideology of the two newscasts then how the heck can anybody claim with any credibility that an alleged leftward turn by NBC News is the reason why it’s now in second place? Noyes tried to dig himself out of the quicksand he stumbled into by saying that ABC had started addressing stories of interest to Conservatives. The problem with this argument is that it undermines Noyes original point that ABC is liberal. You can’t be liberal if you’re addressing issues important to conservatives, I say. Furthermore if NBC already was liberal, then how can it be more liberal to the point that it tunes out conservatives, who likely wouldn’t be watching in the first place because it already was liberal in their eyes?
So in the end we had a segment where it was established that NBC News correspondents, who haven’t been part of the evidence for NBC’s “leftward turn”, were contaminated by being fixtures on MSNBC, MSNBC analysts, who have been appearing on NBC for years, now suddenly contiminating the network to the point that it goes liberal, and NBC News, already a liberal network, is losing share to ABC, which is just as liberal. Except when it isn’t. Cue the Twilight Zone theme…
If Gibson or O’Reilly or anybody else wants to point out that MSNBC is making Keith Olbermann the face of the network and point out that Olbermann has gone left, I’d have no problem with that. The day Olbermann puts a conservative on to talk about a conservative issue, I’ll change my tune. If they want to point out that Olbermann is now going to be appearing on NBC Nightly in a comentator role, I’d have no problem with that either as long as they acknowledge that his role on Nightly will be different from that on Countdown. If they want to point out that Olbermann’s ratings have gone up because he’s the darling of the blue blogs, I’d have no problem with that as well. I readily conceed all those points because they seem self-evident.
But to extrapolate all that as some sort of damning indictment of NBC News as a whole, is ridiculous. Day in and day out the news operation of NBC News and MSNBC News has not changed much with regards to the stories it has covered, particularly where ideology is concerned. And nobody has made a convincing case to me yet that that is still not the case. Segments like these are about as convincing as when Olbermann has the guy who did OutFoxed on to analyze FNC…
“Segments like these are about as convincing as when Olbermann has the guy who did OutFoxed on ” The thing is that Olby has been doing this on every single segment, every single night for years. You get outraged when Gibson does it even once. I hope you start to critically analyze every story that Olby does where his guest has a bias in favor of Olby’s slant.
Comment by Jim — March 1, 2007 @ 11:25 pm
Spud… you make some good points… and I say that as a FOX fan, and someone who thinks NBC has taken a step left.
Having the MRC folks on, always brings down credibility… the same way having someone from the lefty blogs (HuffPo, TP, KOS, etc) brings down the debate.
I disagree, that using reporters to crossover for years, negates a step to the left. As NBC recognizes their is a market for news with a liberal slant (somewhat like FNC with a conservative slant) their emphasis on impartiality, might have become less of a priority… and reporters/anchors follow suit. Not going to make the argument that that’s what happened… there’s not enough time or space… just saying that it’s far from improbable.
Bottom line… (IMO) there is plenty of evidence to suggest that MSNBC and NBC has consciously decided to take a step to the left. Whether this has been done for reasons of profit or actual ideology, is unclear. However, this (and frequent other reports on the same topic) fail to do a good job presenting the argument… and often wind up shooting themselves in the foot before making their point.
Comment by ImNotBlue — March 1, 2007 @ 11:37 pm
If there is so much numerous evidence why dont you present them INB.
Comment by Sam — March 1, 2007 @ 11:49 pm
A liberal would not recognize a shift left. Even the MSM don’t think they lean left. So any examples one could give would never convince you.
Comment by Jim — March 1, 2007 @ 11:56 pm
I read another theory today about the swing in the nightly news ratings. Many viewers who have sampled Katie Couric for the last few months are coming home, apparently to ABC.
Comment by Ira — March 2, 2007 @ 12:04 am
Spud, you should take a look at David Shuster’s almost nightly segments on Olbermann’s show. They parrot every single thing Olbermann says. He often quotes “unnamed sources” and then gets stories completely wrong, e.g. Karl Rove will be indicted, Dennis Hastert will step down, etc.
Shuster’s coverage for instance, of the Libby trial on Olbermann’s show has been as one-sided as it can possibly be. His credibility takes a serious hit everytime he appears on that show.
Comment by bigred — March 2, 2007 @ 12:12 am
Spud,
The whole point is that NBC didn’t used to trend so far to the left. I (one who despises the MSM) used to watch NBC. Now they’re lock-step with the rest of the Big 3 which is why they’re numbers have fallen to mirror those of ABC. People like me have abandonded them. I think all 3 of them are left leaning to say the least but I used to have a bit of respect for NBC which, like I said before, is why I watched them. I agree with Jim, a liberal would not recognize a shift left. I do. And I say no mas!
All in all, spud, you had some valid points but you missed the basic reason for the decline in viewership. Thank God those of us on the right finally have a voice. Of course, the all inclusive libs (tongue in cheek) want to shut that voice down
Comment by ChrisM — March 2, 2007 @ 12:14 am
It - the decline in NBC Nightly News’ ratings - probably, as Ira says, has more to do with Katie Couric than any left turn at NBC News.
This was truly genius from Bill O’Reilly himself. Olbermann threw O’Reilly for a loop when he took plays right out of O’Reilly’s playbook to get things rolling for his show; but now O’Reilly is taking plays out of Olbermann’s playbook.
Last year Olbermann made a big deal out of the way he was punching up. O’Reilly discovered he couldn’t “punch up” at Olbermann. Then he realized he couldn’t “punch up” at MSNBC either. So over the holiday he decided to group it all into “NBC News.” The entire mainstream media was too big, and is really a no-win. Both Olbermann and MSNBC are too small; they’d be punching down, especially when John Gibson and others get involved in the punching. But, as Goldilocks would say, NBC News is juussstttt right. Genius!
And O’Reilly is on fire again. And there’s no stopping his momentum. And all is well with the world and Fox News…
Comment by erljr — March 2, 2007 @ 12:31 am
basically it amounts to the right wing nuts not agreeing with the way a legit news organization reports the news…therefore they label that news org LIBERAL. BUT it’s very very very obvious that fnc is sharply right leaning and they dont hide it. Even runnin’ promos promoing the fact that there’s no left wing bias here. im just simply amazed at the amount of BO kool-aid drinkers there are out there. I thought people had more sense than they do.
Comment by Me — March 2, 2007 @ 12:44 am
Lots of good points here, and a couple not so good points. First of all the notion that you can’t be liberal or conservative and still recognize conservative or liberal bias (if there really is such a thing and I dispise the term because it has been beaten up so much it holds almost no significance as a definition anymore, but I digresss) is not true. If you’re intellectually honest you can. There are plenty though who either can’t or won’t. As I’ve said before, it all boils down to proving intent. If you can’t prove intent you don’t have a case, you have supposition. There are some who say there’s bias but it’s accidental. I consider that to be a cop out because the way the term bias is used now against the media, be it liberal or conservative, is most commonly associated with deliberate intent. For me, my politics are all over the map. I’m liberal in some ways, conservative in others. But I can still spot liberal and conservative slant.
A good point about Shuster. However Shuster doesn’t fall into any of the categories mentioned by Noyes. He’s not an NBC News correspondent who’s a fixture on MSNBC. He’s an MSNBC correspondent who has had reports appear on NBC. He’s not an analyst though. Also Shuster has not been mentioned in any of the examples used to “discredit” NBC News in its “leftward turn”. And Shuster’s shtick has been self evident for years. The timeline is the key point here. All this “stuff” about NBC “going left” goes back to about 3/4 of a year ago. Shuster predates that. So does Matthews. So using them as examples doesn’t wash with me because it doesn’t fit with O’Reilly’s timeline.
Erljr nails it. O’Reilly is now using the Olbermann playbook. He’s punching up at NBC.
My main problem with the whole NBC has gone liberal thing is the conservatives that are screaming about it keep talking about how the media is tough on Bush (true) and critical of the war in Iraq (also true). But this is not necessarily proof that it’s because NBC has gone “liberal”. There are other explanations just as valid like Bush’s poll numbers have tanked and the media in general loves to pile on anybody when their poll numbers go down whether they’re conservative or liberal. Another factor has to do with payback for the way the Administration ran an extremely light lipped ship the first few years with regarding how it handles the press. This sort of thing doesn’t happen in a vacuum. You take a hostile position, you’re going to wind up with a more aggressive press corps looking to get around the wall you’ve erected. I do feel that a lot of conservative angst over media coverage of the administration is a somewhat mistaken belief that it’s all about ideology when it’s due at least in part to how the Administration handled the press the first few years. And there’s also the belief, seen numerous times regardless whether the Administration and its supporters are Conservative or Liberal, that the media is out to get them. I consider this to be just part of the way things work. I don’t like it, but it’s the way politics works in the world. Real Conservatives are never happy with the majority of the media coverage. And neither are the real Liberals. Which is why you get Media Matters saying that the media is biased towards conservatives and the MRC saying its biased towards Liberals. I consider that to be a bunch of background noise. The media is what you make of it. It’s wide and it’s diverse. You can pick and choose which stories you want to read about. Certainly the “big three” tend to cater to a narrow band of coverage. But the reasons for that are far more complex than simply distilling it down to mere ideological bent.
Comment by Spud — March 2, 2007 @ 1:03 am
Bottom line is: Fox covers EVERY story that the MSM covers. Absolutely!! But the MSM does NOT cover every story that Fox does. Why is that??
Comment by Jim — March 2, 2007 @ 1:15 am
“I hope you start to critically analyze every story that Olby does where his guest has a bias in favor of Olby’s slant.”
I don’t have that kind of free time. The reason I don’t spend time covering every single story that Olbermann does is because 1) it has to concern cable news in general, and 2) I have taken a more critical look at Olbermann’s comments about FNC, particularly his over the line shots at Roger Ailes and Chris Wallace. At some point Olbermann’s war with FNC began to lose interest with me as he hasn’t had anything new or different to say. How many different ways can he beat O’Reilly over the head with “Malmedy” before nobody cares outside of blue bloggers?
The reason I’m still on the NBC has gone left story is because 1) it’s still evolving, and 2) William Arkin. While Olbermann has become rather redundant with his shtick vis a vis FNC and O’Reilly, and therefore not very interesting to me, this “NBC has gone left” thing hasn’t. It’s still evolving and is still interesting, partly because of the effect it’s having over at NBC and MSNBC and the way they’re reacting to it. I spent some considerable space early on in the Olbermann/O’Reilly feud chronicling the way it was playing out. But as I said, that particular horse is rather dead even though it’s still being beaten on. The “NBC has gone left” subject is teetering towards a similar fate and it’ll probably lose my interest as well.
Comment by Spud — March 2, 2007 @ 1:24 am
Bottom line is: Fox covers EVERY story that the MSM covers. Absolutely!!
Absolutely not. Nobody covers every story and Fox does not always cover every story the “MSM” covers. Even “MSM outlets” don’t cover every story that other “MSM outlets” cover. There are stories that the MSM didn’t cover enough in my opinion that FNC covered. Two I can think of right off the bat are Oil For Food and the Klamath Basin Water fight. But there are also stories that I thought FNC covered too lightly that the “MSM” covered more. I don’t really have a problem with that though. If everybody covered the same stories to the same degree, there’d be no diversity, and, I suspect, fewer news channels.
Comment by Spud — March 2, 2007 @ 1:31 am
I still don’t think it has been really hit home that most of Olby’s attacks were childish and personal, and always by name. And any mention by BO regarding these attacks were about why in the hell Olby was so obsessed with attacking him, and that BO never mentioned him by name. It has ALWAYS been characterized as a feud, when it all started as Olby constantly attacking BO, and BO just reacting.
Comment by Jim — March 2, 2007 @ 1:35 am
But I really do appreciate your fair handling of this NBC story. I think there is something there. But I still contend that a liberal would not recognize a left leaning story. Because very few liberals can even realize that the MSM is left leaning. Goldberg’s book Bias outlines this extremely well. Probably no liberal ( or conservative ) really considers themselves to be biased. So any left leaning story a liberal sees on the news considers it to be mainstream. And so it goes.
Comment by Jim — March 2, 2007 @ 1:42 am
I fully acknowledge that Olbermann’s attacks were childish and personal. I’ve also mentioned my theory that, excluding O’Reilly, most of the FNC attacks by Olbermann had little to do with FNC and more to do with Rupert Murdoch and what happened with Olbermann while at Fox Sports (Note: I’m not taking a side in that spat since I don’t know exactly what really happened over there during Olbermann’s time at Fox Sports). And you’re right it wasn’t a feud until O’Reily responded.
I fully realize I can’t please everyone all the time with the blog. My readership is far too diverse to make that possible. So I try to srike an even tone but I’m sure I’m not perfect about it.
Comment by Spud — March 2, 2007 @ 1:59 am
Goldberg’s book Bias outlines this extremely well.
I haven’t read Goldberg’s book but I will say that the times I’ve seen Goldberg on the air I haven’t cared for his tone as it strikes me frequently as too partisan. But I’ve seen that with a lot of talking heads where in some instances they sound perfectly reasonable and other times they sound like they’ve lost their heads…
Comment by Spud — March 2, 2007 @ 2:02 am
People keep saying NBC/MSNBC’s gone to the left but the only thing they point to is Keith Olbermann. I have yet to hear how Amy Robach is biased, or Chris Jansing, or Alex Witt etc. No one has said what is so biased about Brian Williams and the Nightly News team. This claim is long on rhetoric, but incredibly short on facts.
Comment by Steve — March 2, 2007 @ 2:55 am
Can Gibby stir up the pot, or what? He makes even a slow newsday worth hearing about and that’s what a TALENTED reporter can do. He brings out the best and worst in his guests or topics and peppers it all with appropriate humor. He’s the ANTI-Britt Hume. As far as Olby goes….it ain’t far enough for me.
Comment by Roger — March 2, 2007 @ 10:31 am
Okay, My spin is that because BOR keeps talking about it he got his viewers who also watch NN to tune to ABC instead =)
Comment by Lurker — March 2, 2007 @ 10:51 am
There really is no real evidence that NBC has made a “sharp turn to the left” other than allowing Olbermann to speak his mind. That is just one guy. I watch Olbermann and I’m a fan (and I don’t resent the term “liberal”… thank you), but looking at it logically, why don’t they at FNC stop talking about NBC? Don’t they know that there is no such thing as BAD PRESS? Stop talking about it and their millions of viewers won’t be curious to watch it. Simple. Out if sight… Out of mind.
Comment by Keyser Soze — March 2, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
How exactly do you propose to keep NBC “Out if sight… Out of mind” Keyser? And what are you responding to? Have you read the post or any of the comments?
Comment by erljr — March 2, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
Klamath Basin Water fight
Spud: Wow, that’s a golden oldie, from the Clinton Administration!
Part of the reason that the mainstream media ignored that story is more of an East Coast bias than a liberal bias.
Comment by Ira — March 2, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
It is interesting that NBC’s nightly news ratings have taken a downturn recently, and are now losing to ABC. BO has to loving that.
Comment by bigred — March 2, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
Ira, I wasn’t referring to that one. I was referring to the drought going on a couple of years ago which led to another fight over the water.
Comment by Spud — March 2, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
Spud: My point remains the same: unless there is an extreme environmental angle involved, the mainstream media is not interested in any water rights story. Fortunately Fox has some good west coast reporters such as Dan Springer and Adam Housley who are familiar with these issues.
Jim: Although I enjoyed “Bias,” the book has one glaring ommission: Goldberg completely ignored the network morning shows, probably because he still works on Bryant Gumbel’s HBO show.
Comment by Ira — March 2, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
LOL Roger i think its hilarios how you referred to John Gibson as a “talented reporter”. Shows just how twisted your vision of good journalism is.
Comment by Sam — March 2, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
“i think its hilarios how you referred to John Gibson as a “talented reporter”. Shows just how twisted your vision of good journalism is.”
Yeah, Sam, and you’re the twisted one who referred to most of Olbermann’s guests as “moderates” and that most of his segments are not “opinion”. We’re still waiting on that extensive lists of “moderates” KO invites on his show.
Any day now….
Comment by bigred — March 2, 2007 @ 8:54 pm
If you google countdown & guests bigred, the second link will bring you to a fan page with a comprehensive list of Countdown guests. A quick 30 second glance by me found at least 600 appearances by guests who could be considered moderate. Certainly enough to be considered most.
Comment by Steve — March 5, 2007 @ 5:34 am