NBC/NYT: A jilted lover pouts: Update
TVNewser writes about the question of the Washington Post’s situation in the wake of the NYT/NBC deal…a question I asked yesterday…
The Campaign 2008 partnership announced Monday by NBC News and The New York Times, is raising a lot of questions about media collaborations. What does it mean for the NBC News/MSNBC relationship with The Washington Post? (Although, ABC’s polling deal with The Post seems to have weathered the NBC partnership)
There’s a big diffference between having a poll collaboration as in the ABC case and having your talent featured on the network pominently and regularly as in the MSNBC/NBC case. If we look at what happened yesterday, with a New York Times reporter getting prominent feature throughout the day on MSNBC with a nice little “Campaign 2008″ lower third with her hame on it, one wonders what that means for The Post’s reporters who used to be regularly featured on the network.
How does this really play out? The New York Times gets preferential treatment by NBC for Campaign 2008 stories. But what happens the next time Post reporter Dana Priest gets a big scoop? Will she still get on the air on MSNBC as she has in the past? What happens with MSNBC fixture Dana Milbank? And so on.
None of this is clear. We will have to watch how this shakes out over the coming weeks to get an idea of what the new lay of the land is at MSNBC vis a vis The Post.
What does it matter? They are all mouthpieces for the Democrat party anyway.
Comment by PF — August 1, 2007 @ 11:40 am
Who cares how it affects each of these media outlets? Instead, we should be VERY CONCERNED about the message that these people put out; that they may act in collusion to put out one predominant spin on the story, thereby likely influencing how people may vote. That is the real problem here.
Comment by Missy — August 1, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
Missy you are right. People watch snipits of news and believe everything they hear and don’t realize the bias.
Comment by Cathy — August 1, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
Spud, I know you don’t want to believe it, but there should be little doubt that NBC, and particularly MSNBC, are moving hard to the left, and this move further solidifies that.
Under publisher Arthur Salzberger, the NY Times has become a left wing, and particularly, a Hillary Clinton, propaganda machine.
MSNBC made a business decision to appeal to the hard left because it was the only way it could get viewers.
Together, they will push hard to get more Democrats elected in ‘08. I guarantee it.
Comment by bigred — August 1, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
You’re all missing the point. There have always been people who believe everything they hear. They are a lost cause, and hopefully those on the left cancel out the votes of those on the right. There are also those who don’t vote. Then there are those of us who can see through the spin. I could go to just watching MSNBC for all my news, and I wouldn’t turn into a left-wing nut. Or I could get all of my news from the National Review and Rush Limbaugh, and NOT turn into a right-wing nut. And I would venture to say most of you posting here would say the same thing.
Comment by erljr — August 1, 2007 @ 1:35 pm