Shuster: Another opinion…
Paul Levinson blogs about Shuster and MSNBC and gives Dan Abrams a thumbs up for being even handed. There’s a lot of ideology in what Levinson writes about (even though he doesn’t realize it) but at the same time there’s something to be said about some of it, particularly where Matthews is concerned. I still remember him going off night after night during the second Clinton administration and the height of all the investigations.
But any news operation could be subject to the loose tongue of a reporter or commentator, and the problem at MSNBC regarding Hillary Clinton goes much deeper.
You can hear and see it just about every night on Chris Matthews’ Hardball. For some reason, he refers to a lot of things that Hillary Clinton has been doing in this campaign as being done not by Hillary Clinton but by “the Clintons”.
What’s that? If Matthews wants to claim that Bill Clinton as well as Hillary had something to do with a specific action or strategy of Hillary’s, let him say so. But the constant reference to Hillary Clinton as “the Clintons” undermines Hillary Clinton as an individual and is demeaning.
Keith Olbermann is no angel in his attitude towards Hillary Clinton, either. When Olbermann attacks Rush Limbaugh by constantly calling him a “comedian,” we all laugh. Olbermann’s tick-like verbal attacks and facial expressions are usually welcome when they are directed at Fox News. But they have no place in supposedly even-handed coverage of a Presidential campaign. And although Olbermann is not as out there against Hillary Clinton as is Matthews, his comments about her are all too often studded with sarcasm and derision.
Indeed, of the MSNBC nighttime regulars, only Dan Abrams has been consistently even-handed and non-ad-hominem.
The guy’s half right - he opines that Olbermann and Matthews also attack the Clintons. But then he lauds Olbermann for his attacks on Rush and on Fox News!
So it’s as we thought - it’s OK for conservatives to be attacked, but liberals such as the Clintons are sacred cows, subject to no derision, earned or not.
Sorry Mr. Levinson, I reject your premise. It is up to MSNBC to see that ALL people, not just liberals or not just the Clintons, are treated with respect. Likewise, all on air “talent” should be treated alike as well. It is hardly fair that Shuster is the sacrificial lamb when, as pointed out in Hillary’s letter, the network exhibits a “pattern” of this type of behavior (thanks to Matthews and Olbermann).
Matthews, Olbermann AND Shuster ALL need to be given a few weeks off and sent to “sensitivity” school. And maybe Fox can send John Gibson along as well. Then let them come back, apologize and treat EVERYONE (even conservatives) with respect.
Comment by Missy — February 9, 2008 @ 9:52 pm
It’s too funny! Olbermann comes under attack for liberal bias, but if he points out something about a democrat, OMG, what shocking behavior! He’s an equal opportunity sarcastic wit who finds humor in the shenanigans of both political parties and ALL candidates can expect to be on the receiving end.
Comment by newswatcher — February 9, 2008 @ 10:06 pm
Sorry newswatcher. I think someone at Olbermannwatch did a study that showed that about 99% of his WPITW “winners” were conservatives. If you’ve got info. that proves otherwise, please let us know.
Comment by Missy — February 9, 2008 @ 10:33 pm
The number wasn’t that high last time I checked. But it’s definitely up there…
Comment by Spud — February 10, 2008 @ 12:04 am
I think it was close to 99% of all winners of which there political affiliation was known. Many of the winners were just derelicts who happened to be in the news that day.
Comment by Jim — February 10, 2008 @ 12:24 am
Missy, I think the number was that high if you reduce it to sub-groups. Of all the WPITW recipients, who are somehow involved in politics, 99% of them are Republicans or Conservatives… or associated with FOX News. But perhaps only 80% of the total WPITW recipients are political. Either way, far from objective, fair, or deserved.
Onto the article:
When Olbermann attacks Rush Limbaugh by constantly calling him a “comedian,” we all laugh. Olbermann’s tick-like verbal attacks and facial expressions are usually welcome when they are directed at Fox News. But they have no place in supposedly even-handed coverage of a Presidential campaign.
This is the key passage. In short what Mr. Levinson is saying is, “Make fun of Limbaugh, Republicans, and FOX News… that’s okay. But the sarcasm directed towards Democrats… and specifically the Presidential candidates… is a no-no.”
The give-away is his stated appreciation of such rhetoric used against Conservatives, followed by the statement that it’s supposed to be “even-handed coverage.” Clearly, he does not want “even-handed coverage”… he wants favoritism. “Even-handedness,” (which is a phrase that should NEVER be associated with MSNBC’s prime-time lineup) is the exact opposite of what he wants.
Comment by ImNotBlue — February 10, 2008 @ 12:30 am
Missy - you’re apparently irony impaired … :)
Comment by Paul Levinson — February 10, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
We all know that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim sympathizer. So why are we so fogged up about his election to the presidency? One cannot tell me that he is NOT a Muslim. His name speaks louder than my suppositions and juxtapositions ever will. His father was a Muslim in Somalia. 95% of people in Somalia are muslim… so go figure. Barack Hussein Obama (Osama)… is a wolf in sheeps clothing…
Comment by Jimmie Jamz — February 26, 2008 @ 6:12 pm