Boycott? Or not?
The Politico’s Anne Schroeder blogs about the GOP Boycott of MSNBC..if it exists…
But GOP insiders say that the boycott is ongoing, and that Republican appearances on MSNBC are out of desperation.
“If a Republican senator has something they want to say, and they’re not getting booked anywhere else, they might turn up on MSNBC,” said one Republican source. “But it’s not at the top of the list.”
Adding, a bit more directly: “Note to David: We’re just not that into you.”
Ouch.
Hey, I can’t say I’d blame the GOP very much if it is true (and I don’t know if it is or not.). The Dems complain about FNC being biased against them, but FNC doesn’t ambush people they disagree with like Chris Mathews did to Ann Coulter or regularly trashed and smeared by people like Keith Olbermann. Dems may get a tough interview with pointed questions, but they get treated fairly and politely at FNC (well, except on occasion by Sean Hannity, but it’s his job to be partisan.). The same cannot be said for conservatives at MSDNC. Plus, no one watches them anyway….
Comment by Laurel — September 28, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
Let me rephrase that….FNC doesn’t ambush people they disagree with or regularly trash and smear them like KO does…
Comment by Laurel — September 28, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
Yeah.. Republicans should boycott MSNBC since they account for around 20% of the cable news audience between Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. They are already boycotting the minority debates anyway… so boycott the viewers in the minority as well.
There is little difference between Democrats boycotting Fox News and Republican boycotting MSNBC. I just hope the Republican boycott gets as much press as the Democratic one did.
Comment by Danny G — September 28, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
Danny G, Laurel explained things perfectly. Dems that appear on FNC are treated respectfully, and if you don’t agree with that, tell us so. Conservatives, however, seemed to be ambushed/trashed on MSNBC, by the likes of Matthews, Shuster and Olbermann.
I don’t think there’s any out and out boycott against MSNBC, we conservatives just don’t feel like seeing people trashed to that extent. In other words, we have a reason.
Comment by Missy — September 28, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
Missy, the conservatives should call them out on it if they think a question is out of line. If they can’t deal with the “ambush” of Matthews, Shuster and Olbermann.. they clearly aren’t ready to take on the problems facing this nation.
Comment by Danny G — September 28, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
Well, when Olby has a non-RINO Republican on, that’ll be the first time.
Comment by eddiebear — September 28, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
I never see conservatives getting getting trashed on Tucker, Morning Joe, or when conservatives like Pat Buchanan guest host. State the facts,
Comment by Aaron — September 28, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
Why appear on cable shows that get lower ratings unless you have to? I’d go where the ratings are as well.
Comment by Goldfish — September 28, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
Well since MSNBC’s “big star” never invites Republicans on his show anyway, how much of a boycott can this really be?
I personally don’t think boycotting any media outlet is a good idea, but considering MSNBC’s meager audience consists primarily of the ultra-lib loons, there’s not much point in appearing…. though it would be nice to have Newt or another conservative just smackdown these morons every now and then.
Comment by bigred — September 28, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
The Bias on MSNBC is far more out in the open than FOX…while FOX host go out of their way to get opposing viewpoints..MSNBC has one show whose host bans any Conservative,Right lending Dem or non-Rino Republican guests,another who is allowed to team-up with a Dem candidate to sucker punch Ann Coulter and a “Reporter” who reports false stories about indictments against Karl Rove and lying on air to try to sandbag a Republican. Representative…while I’m not crazy about the ideal of a boycott because I think they should go on these shows(the ones their allowed on)and take it to them..I do understand why they want to.
Comment by mlong — September 28, 2007 @ 8:17 pm
rofl @ mlong. Yeah FOX is really good at hiding their bias… sure.
Comment by Mike Beckham — September 28, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
I love it when people accuse Fox of some kind of outrageously inappropriate bias, like the others are so perfectly objective in their coverage. The problem isn’t FNC - the problem is the standard of objectivity is skewed 4 networks to 1.
Comment by Laurel — September 28, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
“rofl @ mlong. Yeah FOX is really good at hiding their bias… sure”
I didn’t say they were…I was pointing out how MSNBC isn’t even trying to hide it’s bias anymore..If you can say with a straight face that MSNBC isn’t just the media arm of the DNC then you must believe the world is flat too.
Comment by mlong — September 28, 2007 @ 10:17 pm
Thank goodness for Fox. At least there is one network that presents another side of the story. I would hate to see the only coverage that went out was from MSNBC and CNN. And I hope republicans are boycotting MSNBC. Anybody who boycotts MSNBC is helping this network get flushed right on off the air, which is what I have been hoping for since April, 2007.
Comment by Anne B — September 28, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
MSNBC CNN and all other media companies do have bias. Commercial bias, like all companies who run advertising. However MSNBC has 2 Liberals and 2 Conservatives with Abrams doing rubbish. FOX has ONE count them ONE liberal and Greta doing rubbish with the rest conservatives. The bias is clear.
Comment by Mike Beckham — September 28, 2007 @ 10:30 pm
#14 - I know that MSNBC, in the majority of its programming, leans left…but how you can lump CNN in with them is beyond me.
See, here’s the problem….if a story or commentator is critical of something the Bush Administration does, then they are perceived to be “libs,” “far-left,” “liberal-leaning” or however it is to be described. Same goes for any story that is perceived to be sympathetic to Republicans or the Bush administration.
Funny, I don’t remember all of this “liberal bias” when the media was raking Bill Clinton over the coals.
Comment by FishOil — September 28, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
Mike, answer me one question… how come, no matter how many times people point out that Joe is no longer a Republican… and Tucker has always been a Libertarian at best… the left still insist they’re conservatives?
Is it because they once might have been? By that logic… people like Dick Morris, Zel Miller, Joe Lieberman, etc. are all still Liberals right?
But it’s more than just the hosts. It’s the way they cover news… the stories they spike, and the stories they chose to cover extensively… the people they chose to host their debates… and the reporters who go out to do the leg work.
FNC gives time to the opposing point of view. They may argue, they may debate it, and the hosts may not agree… but at least they say “this is my point of view” and “he’s someone who doesn’t agree.”
But then again… you already know this. Everyone who has read this blog for even a day, knows this. But without FNC being your boogie man, what would you have? You’d have to know about actual issues. Having FNC as your bad guy… just makes everything easier.
Comment by ImNotBlue — September 29, 2007 @ 12:55 am
Same could be said for MSNBC and the constantly labelled “liberal media” all the right wingers on this blog insessently go on about.
I think Tucker and Scarborough are both conservatives, just because Joe left the party and Tucker isn’t AS conservative as others (or as much as some may like) does not mean they don’t represent the right.
To prove my point even more you say “They may argue, they may debate it, and the hosts may not agree…” There is the problem, F&F, Dayside hosts and then Primetime always seem to be pulling for the Conservative and/or Republican guests. There lies the problem.
Comment by Mike Beckham — September 29, 2007 @ 1:20 am
“There is the problem, F&F, Dayside hosts and then Primetime always seem to be pulling for the Conservative and/or Republican guests. There lies the problem.”
Huh? Dayside was cancelled more than a year ago, for starters. As for primetime, O’Reilly has views in all kinds of directions and he generally presents opposing views on a subject - maybe not every time a particular subject comes up, but he does give the other side pleny of chances to speak. Hannity (a conservative)& Colmes (a liberal) is the epitome of fair and balanced, and Greta does amazingly well at keeping her political opinions to herself, so I’m not sure which hosts you’re talking about of the ones you cited.
Maybe you would like to provide some examples of what you mean.
Comment by Laurel — September 29, 2007 @ 2:16 am
Dayside as in Daytime news programs (Fox News Live etc..). O’Reilly still shouts down and belittles guests all the time, John Gibson, Hannity, O’Reilly, Cavuto on weeknights.
Greta doesen’t do politics so she does not count when it comes to bias. Then the FOX and Friends panel, on the weekend the business block with like one liberal if your lucky (why they talk about politics rather than business is another question). Then you have the Journal report which is entirely conservative. The various specials like the Petraeus thing which was basically a promotion for Bush.
And if Hannity and Colmes is the perfect non-bias situation you forget he has an hour a weekend to spout his opinion. Colmes does not.
Comment by Mike Beckham — September 29, 2007 @ 4:28 am
Comles does, however, have a radio show on FNC radio. It’s perhaps not the same as a show… but he does have a solo platform for his POV as well.
But back to Tucker and Joe… how can you say Joe “left the party” and Tucker “isn’t AS conservative as others” and then say that they still “represent the right?” That doesn’t make any sense. If they’ve done all those things… then they DON’T represent the right.
That’s like saying just because he has a hamburger now and then, it doesn’t mean he’s not a vegetarian. Yes it does! They DON’T represent the right… and you know it! So to include them as some sort of “conservatives on MSNBC” is a false argument.
Furthermore… no comment about Dick Morris, Zel Miller, and Joe Lieberman, still being Liberals, right? By your “logic,” they’re still Liberals because they once were… and while they might not be any more… they still represent the left. Correct?
Comment by ImNotBlue — September 29, 2007 @ 11:25 am