I have to object with comparing Olbermann and Maddow to the Fox team. Olbermann and Maddow may have their opinions, but they don't stretch or manipulate the truth, and they certainly don't lie.

I understand your point, but I think it is such a mistake for them to risk all the trust and credibility that has been built up over more than 50 years of great reporting by NBC News. It makes me mad. And I believe ultimately what MSNBC makes all of media seem less credible. And that is a really dangerous development. Thanks.Z

You canot compare Olberman with O'Reilley. The latter is a big fat lier.

When in the world did David Gregory become a "first rate and balanced journalist"? Spend 1 minute watching Race for the White House (its on now!) and the "first rate and balanced journalist" is transformed into no better than Keith, Chris, or Rachel

I have to disagree. I have watched Gregory a lot, and there is a decided difference between the ways in which he and, say, Tom Brokaw anchor a show on MSNBC as opposed to Olbermann. As I sure you know, there really is a tradition of jorunalism that is based on reporting verified facts and trying to present them in balanced context. I believe Gregory does adhere to that even when anchoring on the cable channel. Thanks. Z

FOX is more fair than MSNBC. It's about time Olbermann got taken down a notch. I think he should be fired.

I have to disagree with you as to one being more fair than the other. I think they are both playing the same game from different ends of the spectrum. But Obermann is a kind of smug on-air hotdog. But,a again O'Reilly traffics in the same kind of gas-bag bluster. Thanks.

Should your site consider having a requirement to only publish remarks from those that are literate? Perhaps mandating that commenters possess the ability to spell, would eliminate some of the polarizing and unkind remarks. Civility should still have a place in the U.S.A. Do the above comments cause you to suspect that there is a "Right Wing Conspiracy"? Maybe the Right has their own people send in the above moronic statements so as to make the Democrats look less intelligent.

I agree 100 percent on the civility matter. As to the conpiracy notion, I am a pretty paranoid guy, and even I didn't think of that one. But you also send a good reminder about spelling,. I have been trying to respond to every comment on this first day of the blog, and I have not been nearly as careful I should be. I will do better in that regard. Thanks. Z

I like your quick response. At first, I thought that you might be replying in jest as you spelled: you and conspiracy (ytou and conpricay). I would ask that you not publish this remittance, just go back and correct the spelling in your response. I write in a blog and understand how easy it is to get caught up in the response and forget to check my grammar and spelling. In the long-term, people have used this to criticize the site. Best of luck. Rock

The difference between Olbermann and O'Reilly is that Olbermann makes no secret that he's not calling it down the middle, whereas O'Reilly acts like people still believe that Fox foolishness of "We report, you decide."

People keep defending Olbermann by comparing him to O'Reilly but people need to keep in mind that Bill O'Reilly isn't a political anchor nor will he ever be one.

i think you are making a mistake replacing Keith Obermann and Chris Matthews. They at least are honest and are not afraid to speak the truth. Would you tather have Fox people. "THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE DOING".

the old objectivity as " not reporting the truth by playing it down the middle argument.". it is a stupid argument . but yet even during the run-up to the war the media did not play it down the middle .they pushed the prowar agenda through lies and deceptions etc. yes. the liberal media
MSNBC IS THE ONLY MAINSTREAM T.V. CHANNEL THAT DOES NOT NOW COMPLETELY SUCK-UP TO THE CORPRATOCRACY !
howard kurtz er.. i mean howard beal where are you ? LOL!!!
The mainstream media did fail us on the run-up to the war, I can agree with you on that. But not about MSNBC. And can you elaborate a bit on the Howard Kurtz/Howard Beal reference? I admire Kurtz a lot, and have appeared on his Syunday morning show a few time. But I am not sure if you are praising or daming him. I am interested in knowing. And if it is damning, why? Thanks. Z

I am an independent and watched both conventions on different networks. I typically have been an NBC supporter, but will not watch them for political information. I personally can feel the anger coming from Obermann and Matthews when reporting. They both exude a condensation as if I can not make my own decisions as a voter. Let's just say I have made my decision and NBC lost my vote.

Although I live in ireland I do watch and read a lot of the media in the US and I have to say theat most of it is a total disgrace. People are allowed to lie and distort on a regular basis with no accountability whatsoever while those who attempt to tell the truth are marginalised ans silenced. I watch Olbermann on a regular basis and have found him one of the few commentators that attempts to tell the truth even at a time when the rest of the media were a bunch of sycophantic cheerleading warmongers for the current administration. Olbermanns parting shot was to accuse the republicans of exploiting 9/11. I couldnt agree more as anyone with ears and eyes could only could. Keep up the good work exposing the lies of the politicians and the complicity of the media

Hi, Have you had a chance to see CNN or PBS? Do you think of CNN as cheerleaders? I am not asking rhetorically. I realluy want to know -- especially with your international perspective. Thanks. Z

Glad to see MSNBC finally figured out what the rest of America already knew. These guys, in their fervor to help Obama, have actually hurt him. And the damage is already done.

Keith has been loosing it for about a year. He needs mental help and anger managerment

It's about time MSNBC pulled the plug on Olbermann. He is certainly talented, but his obsession with George Bush has made him, frankly, boring.

Learn how to spell "liar" before you point out they are. What you have are subjective beliefs in the "truths" Olbermann and Maddows spew.

Why is it that Fox News has gotten away with obvious Republican propaganda for so long without any apparent accountability? Where is the pressure on The Fox Propaganda Network? At least MSNBC "balances" Fox. I'm reporting this ... you decide.

This is some in the words of Michael Baisden "some fraganagle bull". Please tell me that MSNBC and NBC has not decided to buckle to the right wing conservative whining????? Please say it ain't so. Kieth, Rachel and Chris do their research and if the truth being told leans to the left then so be it. TRUTH in reporting is all I need to hear. Unlike Fox who just out right LIE while clearly leaning to the right, Kieth and Chris are NOT guilty of LIES just leaning. Come on MSNBC and NBC don't ruin this election coverage by tying the hands of the two of the best.

Keith Olbermann has never been able to keep a job. He's completely biased. His arrogance doesn't help and usually gets him fired. I'm sure he's accustomed to this. Nothing new here.

Good riddance.

119,000 viewers doesn't look good.

The point is, he's an ANCHOR. Bill O has his show and agenda. They shouldn't show off their strong radical lefty views. That Rachel girl makes me sick. Im surprised she agrees to wear professional clothes. I thougt she was a man at first. Google her. She looks like a man. And I can say that if she can call our President "more evil" than Saddam and Osama Bin Laden combined.

My theory: McCain/Palin have Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews to thank for at least 4 of their 11-point post-convention bounce.

I am really missing Tim Russert as this election nears.

Yes. You are so right. So am I. Z

Hi, I have not seen much of PBS but I do watch lot of Cnn, Fox and Msnbc. I dont believe that Cnn or any of the broadcast media hold politicians to account while interviewing them. What generally happens is Wolf Blitzer or Anderson Cooper or whoever asks a politician of whatever stripe a question and that politician basically recites a talking point of their particular party and the interviewer then just moves on to another topic without asking follow up questions or pointing out glaringly obvious falsehoods. After the interview is over a panel of "experts" analyse what the politician said as if they had just heard something new or insightful. This is propaganda masquerading as journalism and doesn't help voters trying to make an informed judgement on who they should vote for. If you want to see examples of journalists holding politicians to account in interviews have a look at Amy Goodmans interview with Bill Cinton in 2000 or Carole Colemans interview with George Bush in 2004, then compare them to anything you have seen on the mainstream media in the last 10 years. Perhaps you could give me an example of an interview better that these that I may have missed because I certainly have not one. Thanks

I agree with most of what you said, but the interview I mention in the blog, the one done by Campbell Brown, is an example of a journalist asking the second and third follow-ups seeking specifics when a McCain spokesman tried to pound an inflated talking point about VP candidate Sarah Palin's experience past her. I have seen Blitzer do it with VP Dick Cheney. In fact, I wrote in the Sun and appeared on air earlier this year defending Blitzer. So, while I would agree that it is relatively rare, it is done. Thanks for the thoughtful comments.Z

I think Fox had to lean more right just because the other stations leaned so left. Today I heard a radio report that talked about the government taking over Fannie May and Freddie Mack and in that few seconds of news reporting the on air reporter put her two cents in with the sentiment that she hoped it worked. See this is where it all goes south. There are those that are suppose to just read the news. Then there are those that are paid to have opinions discussing issues. The two worlds have collided.

I do agree about Fox. But I do totally agree people who are supposed to read to report the news offering opinions. The meainstream media is in a state of high confusion these days (maybe panic in some quarters), and standards are being ignored, forgotten, shredded, you name it. The audience has a right to be angry about what you heard today.Z

FACT: MSNBC host were suppose to be NEWS ANCORS

FACT: Oreily is not a news program. It is a talk show.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

In terms of original intent, you are right -- particularly in the case of O'Reilly. But the distinctions have been erased in recent years both by the cable channels and in viewers' minds. But the main culprit here is MSNBC, which gave Olbermann talk show host latitude as his ratings rose. Thanks for the insight.Z

Olberman was the only journalist I liked in covering politics. Now NBC has made a mistake. GE, you will be losing money.

You did the right thing in removing the pair. It was to late and will take some time to get me and others back.

R. Carnahan

I admire Chris Matthews a whole lot, even tho I know he leans to the left. I appreciate that he is a keen student of history and genuinely interested in the whole American political process. Olbermann, I just don't get. I've always thought he was too dramatic and have never understood why he is so popular.

I noticed that most of the stories on the Olbermann - Matthews demotion seem to have commenting disabled. The Baltimore Sun is one of the few venues that doesn't. MSNBC (of course) didn't allow for comments as they probably would have been smothered in brickbats.

I think I can discern fact and fiction; Keith Obermann has to be the most obnoxious, bombastic newcaster I believe that I have ever listened to. He is so obviously biased that I cannot believe that the 'powers that be' at NBC could in any way overlook his 'personal' agenda. His "Worst List" is insulting - I've always wondered why he is given a ' personal 'platform on a major news network. Even if I agreed with his political philosophy, I would find him offensive for his negative, and deprecating opinions. NBC has lessened their image by giving such a man a platform to spew his hatred.

I agree, I miss Tim Russert too. There are those who will disagree, but I think we owe alot to Tim, Chris, Todd, Rachel, and Keith because they have made us think...and not blindly accept the talking points put out by the campaigns. True, they do get carried away sometimes and they tend to lean to the left. It is sad though to see the power of the conservative right in operation.

The issue isn't whether Olbermann/Matthews et al are further left than O'Reilly/Hannity but their role in the broadcast.

O'Reilly hosts an opinion show, not a straight news show. This is no different from Hardball or Countdown.

Fox never puts O'Reilly or Hannity in the anchor position - they use Brit Hume for that role. MSNBC until this move made no such distinction.

Get over who's right or wrong or left and right. MSNBC is trying to get back some of the credibility they squandered by deliberately mixing opinion into their news reporting.

Only time will tell if it's too late to save the NBC news brand from irrelevancy.

Puhleeze! Olbermann makes no bones about who he is. O'Reilly is pathetic. He wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the truth and a lie if it slapped him in the face. Too bad you don't like a person calling a lie a lie. Bush LIED, Cheney LIED, Rumsfield LIED, and McCain and Palin are both LYING. The comment about some of the "newscasters" who interview politicians on CNN is right on. I have seen them interview and never challenge something that they surely know is inaccurate, embellished, or "spun." No one who out and out lies will ever get my vote and when a person shows with video and audio that a person is lying, thank God for him/her.

Glad to see the rest of the country is realizing what kind of commentator Olbermann is. He was a terrible sportscaster here in Los Angeles & never rose above that nationwide.

c: Keith and Chris dont be discouraged by people from the right you guys are just being honest in your opinion. People from the right foxnews are the ones who should be ashamed and why is it that they are so obvious leaning to the right yet they can get away with it. i will keep watching you guys coz i know you are smart people who loved this country so much. We need people like you that speak for truth. I love America so much that I wanted somebody who will lead us in the right direction. America its time to vote smart

Olbermanns jealousy of O'Rielly is seen nightly, he just can't quit talking about him, it borders on obsession. Thats the only excuse for it, jealousy. Olbermann and MSNBC in last place in ratings. Yep, gives even more for Olbermann to be jealous of.

O'Reilly has won awards ofr his work, Bath Tub boy on the other hand is a botoxed hair weaved tele prompter reading jabroni... and Rachel Maddow?? she is a zero. which is about what her ratings will be... MSNBC sux

I will be very interested in Thursday's interview with Sarah Palin on ABC News. Charlie Gibson (along with George Stefanopoulos) asked Barack Obama some really lowball and skanky questions in the debate just before the Pennsylvania primary. Will he take the high road or the low road with Palin? Judging by the polls, if he swings either way, half the people in America will be outraged.

Gibson is a good journalist, but the mainstream media in general is looking a little timid right now on Palin. As I said in an earlier post, The Republican Noise Machine sent some warning shots across the bow of old media last week. None of the networks wants to hear folks angrily chanting "NBC, NBC" as the delegates did at the GOP convention. But I respect Gibson tremendously. So let's see. Z

" The machine in its present incarnation went after Brown last week during the GOP convention because she dared to ask follow-up questions of Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for Sen. John McCain. She had every right to keep asking the question she did until she got an answer."

I disagree. It was obvious the guy didn't know the answer to the question. Which is not the end of the world, it's not like everyone knows everything about everyone. What he should have done is just been upfront and say he doesnt know and will get back to her. However, the way she got was just inappropiate considering the trivial nature of the question. The rest of us are wondering when someone is going to ask Trojan Horse Obama about Ayers with that much determination.

But we know the press would never do that.

You miss the point O'Reilly = commentator, Olbermann and Matthews were supposed to be anchors. There is a huge difference. Olbermann and Matthews can now comment any way they want, like O'Reilly does, and you can end the farse that Olbermann and Matthews were anything close to journalists.

Hi, thanks. I think if you read through the discussion, you will see that's addressed. Bottom line: There was a difference at the start, but it became blurred in large part through th fault of MSNBC.Z

Keith and Chris maybe angry but they do not LIE like Hannity and O'Reilly;nor do they do propaganda as Brit Hume does.So much for Fox News and its "balanced approach" ala Roger Ailes.NBC has caved in.Period!

Olberman is a coward and a carnival clown. He can't even spell the word journalism. It IS too little TOO late. They should have booted these two buffoons months ago. The once proud and reputable NBC is now a laughing stock. Rachel Maddow?? Are you kidding me?? She is a total disgrace. This cast of reprobates makes Lou Dobbs seem like a statesman. I must say they are McCain's best allies now and can accept huge blame when Obama loses in November. The American public won't stand for their overt partiality and cynicism. Ooooooooo this news is making my "legs tingle" Chris.

"Carnival clown" is a nice term. Didn't Mr. Beck over on the CNN Headline channel label himself a rodeo clown noit too long ago? I guess the latter would involve having more physical dexterity to avoid the bull. For me, it is disheartening to see MSNBC skew so far to the left in pursuit of ratings at such an important time in the history of the media and the country. Maybe MSNBC can splinter off a a Carnival Clown News Channel for its politically motivated hosts. Thanks.Z

The first thing I think you should point out is that the production during the DNC was, at best, shoddy. It made Olbermann and Matthews look unprofessional. You cannot tell me that other anchors don't act in this fashion when they think that the microphone is off. Look at WSJ's Peggy Noonan's comments about "narrative" for an example. I personally feel that Olbermann was absolutely correct about Joe Scarborough in mindlessly relaying the latest Republican blast fax ("grab a shovel, Joe"), but that his mic should not have been open for the world to hear.

The labels "liberal" and "conservative" have become completely meaningless, where it appears that liberal means everything that opposes Bush, the Bush administration's policies, the War in Iraq or the Bush administration's logical successor, the McCain campaign, while conservative is everything not liberal. 70% of the American population oppose the War on Iraq at the moment.

Andrea Mitchell is Alan Greenspan's wife and Campbell Brown is married to Republican strategist Dan Senor, for example. Howard Kurtz, who you reportedly admire, is married to Sherri Anis (sp?), a Republican consultant. Kurtz routinely takes up themes that are also "reported" by the Drudge Report. Brian Williams, for example, has admitted to admiring Sean Hannity's work and reading the National Review. I think you are internalizing the "liberal media" meme, which in 2008 is completely laughable.

The Republican Noise Machine is very real, and Brock's claims in his book have not been refuted by any reputable source. [That guy from the Media Resource Center is NOT a reputable source]

It is completely ridiculous to think that anyone is completely "unbiased;" we all carry our biases along with us from our life experiences. The Europeans have a much healthier attitude towards this where you have liberal newspapers, such as the Guardian, and conservative ones such as the Daily Telegraph. People are smart enough to make up their mind and form their own opinions, especially in 2008, where we have access to an incredible amount of information through the Internet.

I would rather have some one like Olbermann, who I might not agree with all the time, but who I know will say something original and interesting rather than someone like Sean Hannity, or a lot of the other Right wing talkers out there, who get their talking points straight off a fax machine from RNC headquarters.

Finally, for those of you missing Russert, Russert was the preferred avenue of choice for Dick Cheney as was found in the Plame/Libby trial. Russert, who admitted that everything was "off the record" until the source let me know something is on the record.

It appears to me that access for the Mainstream Media has become holy over actual journalistic standards. David Gregory may have asked some tough questions of Bush, but there he was prancing around with MC Rove at the Washington Correspondent's Dinner.

We live in a world where the McCain campaign decides how and on what terms Sarah Palin will be interviewed - the questions will be all pre-screened for "appropriateness" and, as Rich Davis says "proper deference to the candidate."

That that deference is considered "fair and balanced" shows where the media's standards lie in 2008.

Hi, thanks for the comments. Your remarks are the kind that make me think there is nothing half as intellectually stimulating these days as blogging. I will answer more in-depth later. But just a couple of points for now. One, I also admire Brock's book, and believe the machine does indeed exist. I have seen it action, and it something to behold when it is hitting on all cylinders. But I will dispute you on Howie Kurtz. He is the best media critic the popular press has had in my lifetime. Yes, I do think of him as a colleague if not a friend, but I do not think that is coloring my opinion. He gets stories no one else gets and he is relentless in reporting those stories as close to the middle as most of us will ever get. Thanks.Z

In spite of all the right wing blather about left wing influence the truth is that all network television is owned by major corporations and the only reason for the few liberal programs is that they are seen as niche markets.

I am a unrepentant liberal who loves Olberman and who expects to like Madow as they are so rare versus the crypto-fascist right which dominates our TV and even worse our radio.

We are on the edge of falling into a permanent far right anti-democratic dictatorship.

I am stunned that this is even a topic. AHHH. FOX in the morning is such a right wing joke and we are discussing MSNBC. Something is very wrong. McCains people must be paying off the media to say what he wants. Keep donating to McCain's ultimate goal and you will get a President that wants everyone to think like him and do what he wants. POWER.POWER.POWER. He is scary. Everyone is falling for it.

Don't cry for Keith. This "poor" liberal got a raise added to his $4 million-a-year income for stepping down.

How could you possibly compare Olbermann and Maddow with O'Reilly and Hannity? Yes, Olbermann has his opinions. Yes, his opinions are left leaning. But he neither lies nor is he inconsistent. Your article, and MSNBC's move, are the latest example of the right cowering media with allegations of being "left leaning." In response, the real media bends over backwards to placate the right wingers. Of course, you can't placate them -- they will attack anyone who disagrees as being "leftist." Didn't you guys learn anything from the run up to the Iraq war when the right made cowards of you all?

Maddow's debut was quite dull. More often than not, sidekicks can't carry their own show. Sure, it worked when Fraiser was spun off of Cheers, but I think the Rachel Maddow show is more likely to end following in the path of Joey or Joanie loves Chachie.

Olbermann is a self centered, arrogant, irreverent, obnoxious, shill for the extreme liberal agenda. On the other hand, though Matthews leans to the left, he is an intellegent, thoughtful, historian, albeit with a pit bull style, he has twice the substance of the clown, ex sportscaster, and baseball card collector Olbermann, and should not be given the same status. Maddow is no better than Olbermann, and has the added gay agenda. Actually the only reason MSNBC is finally reacting is because they know Olbermann is killing Obama with his ranting. Only thing better for Mcain lately was the nitwit fruitloop that hosted the MTV awards.

Look, Z! You got responses!

I have neither cable not satelite dish. For convention coverage, I went to PBS. They covered the entire evening and displayed much less ego - and, frankly, fewer teeth - than the network anchors.

Love him or hate him, Bill O'Reilly has an entertaining show. He is a commentator, no longer a journalist. The same can be said for Sean Hannity. Because their shows are so popular and their personalities so dynamic they have become the identity of the Fox Network. Because of this, the network is branded as conservative. Most of the Fox journalists play it down the middle, although I do agree the morning show gets out of bounds from time to time. Neither Hannity or O'Reilly have anchored the network's straight election coverage. Brit Hume does that. It was a huge mistake to allow Matthews and Olbermann to do this on MSNBC.

The airwaves are full of corporate media hacks like Bill O'Reilly, Chris Wallace, Wolf "I used to work for Pat Robertson" Blitzer and Glen Beck...the progressives, which make up 50% of America at least (and growing), do not have anyone on air outside of MSNBC with their own show. MSNBC's ratings are skyrocketing, and Keith is the reason. If this is a business and not a hatchet job, they will keep Keith where he belongs, on air, front and center.

This is a very obvious attack by corporate hacks at NBC to control the message. Olbermann is not "sinning", he's talking...the sins are with O'Reilly and his falafels.

KO is an obnoxious person and caused me to leave MSNBC. He is biased! CM got caught up in KO's obnoxiousness. Fire KO and get the network back to where it is a competitor with the other cable networks.

Marc writes: ...the progressives, which make up 50% of America at least (and growing)...

Where does that number come from?

Nice call. can anyone fact check that number?Z

Dr. Z asks: can anyone fact check that number?

I think that's going to be pretty difficult (at least to my satisfaction.) The problem is that "progressive" is such an undefinable state. It's like "moderate".

"Republican" and "Democrat" are easy enough to quantify. People self-define and register. "Independent" can be derived...if you haven't registered as "Republican" or Democrat" you are, by process of elimination and combined with voter registrations of "Independent," then an "Independent."

Mostly when I've seen a measure of "progressives" attempted, it is by taking a circuitous route...assuming that "progressives" feel this way or that about various issues, then polling about those issues and deriving a percentage of those polled as being "progressive."

That, of course, is statistical folly.

But I'd like to see where Marc gets his number. There may, indeed, be a direct way to measure what percentage of the population considers themselves "progressive."

Hi, I agree it will be impossible. I was just trying to say thanks to you for pointing out what I suspect is a bogus statistic.Z

Olbermann is a disgrace. He makes the rest of us on the left look bad. He has an obvious anger problem. And he lies and manipulates facts. He lied and manipulated stories about Senator Clinton.

And it is a shame MSNBC took Dan Abrams' show off. He at least attempted to be fair. But MSNBC seems to feel they need to show Olbermann several times a night, padded by Maddow who now seems to echo his every thought.

Keith Olbermann is a joke, has always been a joke, and always will be a joke. I know not a single person who actually takes him seriously.

Factually bankrupt and clearly journalistically irresponsible.

As for Chris Mathews...shivers down his leg when Obama speaks says it all!!!

Keith Olbermann is a pervasive, unfortunate influence at MSNBC. He has affected Chris Matthews and that has been sad to watch. Chris always had a tendency to sensationalize and to take Tarzan leaps to conclusions but his director and producer kept this within reasonable bounds. Olbermann knows no restraint, is an agitant and an excitant and together, they have gone over the cliff. I miss Chris as a questioner, as an analyst, as an open minded thinker. He had a purity of approach that was rare.

Keith Olbermann is a fighter, unlike the brand of fake-democrats that republicans and certain newspaper critics are used to. "Straight down the middle"? That's where the yellow line is. That's where fake-democrats live. What Olbermann provided was balance against American fascism. Now that's gone. Say goodbye to balance in the non-broadcast media and hello to now only one version of "propaganda and ideological bombast".

MSNBC is heading down the same road as "Air America". Microsoft's partnered?

howard kurtz as a media critic is laughable . his criticisms are always nuanced nonsense to hide the truth . balanced by someone on the right and someone from the middle . REAL OBJECTIVITY ! hiding the truth that the media is not liberal at all and functions for the most part as a propaganda tool , for the military/congressional/corporate complex . for specific examples see alterman and greenwald.
during the run-up to the war donahue was cancelled because msnbc did not want an antiwar voice on the air . even though he had the highest ratings on msnbc . so yes msnbc has become completely biased by citicizing more sustantively government policies without all the flagwaving . speaking truth to power is always biased

In my experience, a good percentage of Americans, even those who ultimately vote, do not follow the pundits on cable news, but rather get their information and talking points from coworkers, AP and Reuters stories that make the local paper or their homepage, or from Jay Leno's monologue. Those of us who fight over the importance of the MSNBC "demotions" at least incorporate political discourse in our lives to the point where we can make an informed decision. What I lament, and what David Brock appears to illustrate in his book, is that without this often tiresome immersion into the world of politics, one cannot trust the "low hanging fruit" for fear that it is carefully crafted "noise". Anyone who does not feel that this noise exists has only to look at the "lipstick on a pig" donnybrook of the past week. Point it out as noise and incur the wrath of the Right. Ignore it and risk a nation governed by propaganda because propaganda is a proven means to an end. The solution is in-depth, courageous, impartial journalism. My dream is to be able to clearly decide between conservative and liberal ideals, (or a mix thereof), without having to espouse the noise machines ascribed to either side.

I am shocked that this is even happening. Chris and Keith are credible journalists that are not afraid to tell the truth. They help balance the right wing propaganda that is fed to the American public every day by Fox. How is it that Fox is not being criticized for its biased reporting. How can anyone sit back and think it is a safe, intelligent decision to choose Palin as VP. No one has the guts to speak the truth and now we see why. The news reporting is becoming so one sided and full of lies. How can this be happening? It is scary to think that we will only be able to listen to reporters that support the Republican party, especially during this crucial election period. What is happening to this country?

The first commentator is obviously confused. Olbermann and Maddow lie on a regular basis. Here is just one example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxPkq8TCOJ8

I agree with your comments on MSNBC and Olbermann, however, your remark on O'Reilly is off-base. Unlike Olbermann, O'Reilly welcomes opposing points of view on a regular basis, both with guests and emails. He often has two guests on to contradict him and regularly asks,"Where am I going wrong?" to suggest he is at least entertaining other opinions. Olbermann hasno balance at all. So, give credit where credit is due.

"MSNBC, on the other hand, has all but abandoned a journalism of facts and verification in favor of propaganda and ideological bombast with Olbermann -- and now, Air America's Rachel Maddow. And the cable channel has become no better than Fox News on the right with Bill O'Reiily."

The point that clearly goes over Zurawik's head is that Bill O'Reilly is employed by Fox News to host an opinion-driven program. Fox's news anchors are indeed fair and balanced. Olbermann was actually serving as a news anchor during the conventions.

And if Zurawik believes that Campbell Brown and Wolf Blitzer have been playing it down the middle at CNN, he either has not been watching CNN or he cannot see and/or hear well. It would be difficult for one to watch CNN for 15 minutes and not detect bias in favor of Barack Obama and the Democrats. The Media Research Center has enough examples from just the past month to fill a large book.

Let's inject a little sunshine into Zurwiak's story, or better yet reveal his sins of omission. For me to suggest that O'rielly doesn't lean rightward, or traditional I would be in the same position as The Baltimore Sun and the NY Times, which is to say I'd be slanting the obvious. This however is not about the leanings of one network, or one commontator...they all have 'em. This is about fairness and attempts to be impartial. Having said that, Oreilly has been more than down the middle with both Obama and Hillary, and Ed Rendell, Lanny Davis and other prominent Democrats have admitted so. No such impartially can be atributed to the shills at MSNBC. Those are simply the facts...like 'em or not. Need more? Last night Sweet Rachel introduced Bill Mahr as an "Independent" and prior to that Olberman used the word "stupify" ( copyright infringment on Dr. Phil?) to describe Palin's dramatic drop in the polls. ( ??) Simoltaniously, Fox and CNN were discussing the very real possibility that McCain's path to 270 electorial votes was far more foreseeable now than 4 weeks ago due largely to Palin.The proof is frankly in the ratings...Olberman is a vicious fanatic and Matthews a front man for the Dems..yet he seems outraged when confronted with this. You are what you are Chis...just be upfront about it ! Do you really think NBC news would have yanked Fric and Frac had there not been an obvious bias problem?? Wake up and smell the coffee ..the idiocy of allowing 2 far left commontators to anchor the election desk is to qoute Dr. Phil....STUPIFYING !!!!!

Why bring O'Reilly into this? Unlike Olbermann, O'Reilly has developed his opinions over 30+ years of working in war zones, covering the news, anchoring TV News and studying political science and journalism at Harvard. Olbermann has done nothing to earn his role at MSNBC. O'Reilly is a real journalist who voices his opinion on an opinion/analysis show--just like a Newspaper editorial page. BTW, can we please get Olbermann off of NBC Football Coverage? Please?

Hey Cindy, how could anyone "sit back and think it is a safe, intelligent decision to choose" Barack Obama as President? Huh? Come on? I would choose Palin (someone with real accomplishments) to run a business or a government program way before Obama.

So everyone can judge my opinion, I'm voting for Barack in November, voted for Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000 (I was 19, first presidential election I could vote in). I liked and now miss Al Franken's radio show on Air America but hope he gets into the Senate.
And Keith Olbermann? I shudder when I grasp how many people believe him. Made clear in this thread as it is repeatedly stated that Keith tells the truth and O'Reilly lies. I don't know what O'Reilly does because I refuse to ever watch that channel. But Keith is not factual and will bend and bend until it breaks.
Chris Matthews is loud and flirts with the female guests. Otherwise, he whizzes past with little impression on my TV screen but Keith is just an embarrassment. It reminds me of 2004 when the left was trying to adopt Howard Stern as a mascot (like Keith, Stern got the cover of The Nation magazine too).

This is certainly an argument of opinions so here are mine.

Every major network is owned by corporations that want something from the gov't. Tax breaks, less regulation, the right to lie (corporation=person argument). CBS's firing of Dan Rather was spearheaded from the White House.

I'm surprised Keith has been allowed to air his Special Comments, which have been spot-on, bulls-eye hitting arrows. Much of what is said on his show is not in the GE war machines best interest. But there is obviously a market for his show so NBC leaves him alone as long as they make money.

One of the best things about his show is the exposure of lies, both political and journalistic, and his exposure of attitudes held by powerful people. He does it with juxtaposition of quotes and it is hard to argue that.

Worst Persons is mostly well done. Rush "Gas-Bag" Limbaugh is shown for the cartoonish figure he is and O'Reilly's self appointed authoritarian buffoon style is a easy target for anyone. The thing is: NO ONE else calls them out!! Keith even called himself out for something once.

I enjoy Keith's Countdown for the entertainment value it has but also for the side of the story NOT shown elsewhere.

And he appears he is putting his money where his mouth is by donating $100 for each lie Palin tells to the Alaska Special Olympics, a program for disabled whose funding was cut in half by Palin, while continually claimimg to support special needs children.

I am an unabashed OBAMA supporter. McCain and Palin are beginning to self destruct. Obama is a thinking man who has a greater ability to deal with the nuances of world issues which is a refreshing change from the current White House Sociopathetic staff. Can he turn things around? I think so but there is a huge cancer in DC that has a lot at stake against his views.

This country was intentionally founded for the PEOPLE, not the rich or the aristocracy. But the rich got rid of regulations that require truth in journalism and political advertising which enables jackass journalism to masquerade as news, and politicians to lie over and over again. This doesn't support the country or the founding principles for which former generations have fought and died to protect.

As for whether Keith & Chris should be anchors on a Cable news program, maybe not for the reason that they are commentators as well as journalists. But, maybe with the exception of PBS, EVERY cable news anchor or anchor team is biased, if only by omission. Example: NO ONE reported on the preemptive raids and arrests of reporters (including Amy Goodman) that had come to the RNC to cover the protest demonstrations. That is a case now being taken up by the ACLU.

Come to think of it I haven't seen a news program that is entirely factual news in years and I wonder if it is even possible to do. Every reporter gets the obligatory "great job" from the anchor desk whether covering congress or firemen rescue cat. Opinions are everywhere. So if that is the game then MSNBC's Keith, Chris and Rachel at least provide some balanced alternative to the FOX Noise machine.

Hi, thanks. I have to just respond to one thing. Dan Rather's firing had nothing to do with the White House. I have been writing about Rather sinvce the 1980s. CBS is still suffering because of his foolish act of going on the air on the eve of an election and making allegations against one of the candidates using documents that he could not verify. That is an absolute cardinal sin of journalism. CBS had to fire him. But it is still struggling to regain the credibility he shredded in one reckless and arrogant act. Thanks. Z

Yeah, you can't compare Olbermann and O'Reilly. I'm no fan of the buffoonish O'Reilly, but at least he (and Hannity) wil have people on their shows with whom they disagree. Olbermann's show is little more than a left-wing echo chamber. Pure, unadulterated propaganda.

The powers that be at MSNBC should
be down on their respective knees to
Keith Olbermann,Chris Matthews and
Rachel Maddows for their on target
perspective of the conservative political
- non elite right wing sheet wearing party. They are the type of journalist that we need to be the under dogs to
overset the non-forward thinking of the status quo. For example, they have put the most racist,right wing commentators to call themselves media journalist that have been my misforune to watch. such as o'reilly,hannityand hume. just because their right man ruined the nation and we that a chance to get it right, they are trying to fire the people that tell the truth about the new
democrats on the scene and and the neo journalists are trying to shut them up. The msnbc is getting the highest
rating, so it must be that some in the republican party instigating their removal for being truthful,forward thinking, progressive media champions that we have to date. We need the the truth and not some right wing irreverent,obnoxious naysayers.
Afterall ,Obama is their president too.
Like he said "you might not have voted for me but i will be your president too" so saying that don't you think that you should be for him and all those that is reporting the positive and not the negative?I am an american and hate to see an injustice
done to good people.

Ruby Lewis-Altman