Great Post Z. What is most scary about these types of programs is that people watch so that they can adopt the ideas of the "newscaster" and then reproduce those same ideas in casual conversation in order to feign intelligent opinion. You can always expose these people (and the O'Reilly-heads) by asking them "Why do you feel that way?"

As I understand it, Rupert Murdoch considers Fox "news" to be "fair and balanced" not because it is fair, or balanced, but because he sees it as a counterweight to a perceived (and almost entirely fictional "liberal bias" on the part of every other media outlet.

People on the left, of course, perceive the mainstream media as being a part of the power structure and with a statist (not necessarily conservative) bias. The major broadcast media outlets supported the Iraq war, for example, and routinely fail to provide meaningful coverage of stories that cast the Bush Administration in a bad light.

Therefore, a few left-leaning shows to balance out Fox's rightist propoganda isn't necessarily a bad thing. So long as we remember that this is what they are -- slanted coverage, not "objective" news.

In my experience, the liberals who watch Rachel Maddow are FAR, FAR more likely to understand that than the conservatives who watch Fox.

Those who tune into the television for their news coverage are not properly informed citizens. Many are people who want their biases reaffirmed while others have simply settled into a habit. The television media AND the citizens are to blame.

Print media is a lot better but it takes an advanced consumer of information to sort through the ample bias.

NPR is the best by far because they are member supported and their primary goal is to give citizens the information they need to make decisions rather than make money,

Come on. I'm 75 years old and remember such stalwarts of "factual news" as Gabriel Heatter, H.V. Kaltenborn, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Walter Winchell and Father Coughlin and so on. So, facts are still spinach and I say to hell with them. Rachel is a good kid who is finding her
groove. Just in time for for the inauguratory myth making sweeping away the debris of a dead century.McCain as a bonus.

Fr. Coughlin was a virulent anti-Semite who incited listeners in Detroit to trash Jewish cemeteries. He was one of the most dangerous and vile broadcasters in American history, and he was huge in Detroit. I wish folks like Olbermann and O'reilly knew that history and understoond how much they are trafficking in the same techniques. (I am NOT talking about Coughlin's anti-Semitism, but the rhetorical techniques of ridiculing opponents and portraying the opposition as worthy of contempt and abuse.) I think your point is that becauise people did it in earlier decadees, it is OK that we are seeing aresurgence of it now on cable TV. If that is your point, it is a bad one. The techniques were dangerous in the 1920s, and they are dangerous now. And, by the way, the econmic conditions that contributed to Coughlin's greeatest success in the 1930s, are similar to those of today. Now I am getting upset.Z

Mr. Zurawik,
idiotic rants such as yours make me fear for the republic. Please cease and desist, as America has too much to be ashamed about already.

Sincerely,
Anyone who has been subjected to your "unbiased and educated" opinions

O'Reiley had 5 liberal guest on last week compared to 4 consertatives guest. Yeah he only present one side. MSNBC is worse than fox news. Where's the other side on MSNBC? Rachael will fail just like Air Americia did,

Oh please, with O'Reilley and "liberal" guests...The same for Hannity. The bring them on and verbally beat them up -- never letting them get a a complete thought it. The mock them before and after their appearance. They totally control the space and use it to "punish" the "liberals" by making them look bad. It is a kind of TV fascism. So, don't tell em about your "liberal" and "conservative" counts, please. Spare me. O'Reilly is a despicable presence, but that doesn't make what Olbermann and Maddow are doing any less dangerous. Z

Why is it that only after a liberal becomes successful at something that the right-wing has been doing for some time now (Hannity, O'Reilly for example), does this sort of programming become evil and cause for fear? Was there such an outrage directed at Fox News when they began broadcasting right-wing partisan programs all night? Maybe MSNBC is realizing, finally, that there is a market for this type of program hosted by a liberal and that there's nothing wrong with it as long as it is advertised as such, as opposed to a "news hour". And by the way, until recently, CNN did give Glenn Beck, hardly a non-partisan voice, his own show.

Hi Greg, You should do a little research, my friend. I have been the critic at the Sun for 18 years, and I have long complained loudly about Fox News. You just hit the send button. As for Beck, he was on Headline News, not the main news channel -- though I will grant you that CNN does get away with some hairsplitting between the two. I do ahave to say, though, it makes me mad when people assume that Fox has nort come under harsh criticism here. I have the scars to prove that it has. Write again when I am in a more trasparent mood, and maybe I will share some of Fox's dirty tricks with you. Thanks. Z

Honestly, Rachel Maddow is the only person on tv who I can watch. Her content is the first consistently sane grounded information I have ever heard on a news program. I find other outlets so biased, off base, unthoughtful, and dishonest I'm left drained, outraged, and disappointed. This article is intentionally manipulative, fear based, conservatively slanted hot air.

I don't really see Maddow as a game-changer since her ratings are expected to go way down after the election.

I could be wrong, but I do not think her ratings will go way down. There could be a new ideology in place in Washington -- one much more in synch with that espoused on MSNBC. But even that is not the case, America is at such a critical time in our history, that cable news will continue to have huge audiences looking for information and guidance as to what it all means. Thanks. Z

It is not so much the ideology of Hannity, O'Reiley, Maddow or Olberman that bothers me; it is the tone. There is such a smugness about all of them that seems to discount the idea that intelligent people can have different opinions. The emphasis is on mocking the other side, while ignoring the shortcomings of your team. This mindset has transcended the commentors and has become the foundation of our debate. The proof of this is in the comments the various partisans are making on this blog.

I feel that both movements, conservative and liberal, have lost their intellectual bearings. Where are the up and coming Bill Buckleys, George Wills, David Broaders and Pat Moynihans?

Fantastic analysis. I am in complete agreement.

The fact that these ideoligically driven shows do draw an audience doesn't take away from the fact that they are not always the best source for the news.

With newspapers dying off within the next few years, we are in a strange situation, where we have more access to getting news quickly, yet, the only way to attempt to get a "fair" representation of what the facts are is to read everything, watch everything and listen to everything, and use our own judgment.

Sadly, that is not always possible, and people tend to hear what they want to hear. I'm not sure it will be as horrendously stupid as it is when Fox does it, but Olbermann and Maddow will not be "down the middle" sources for news.

But I'm sure many of your commenters are worried about bigger things than that, because apparently, they believe that a lying, terrorist Marxist negro is about to destroy the American dream that we have all fulfilled for the past 8 years....that must be stressful.

Adam, thanks again for youre wisdom and larger perspective...Z

Though Rachel and Keith have a definite bias toward the left, I do think they aren't shy about saying so, it isn't like they are trying to hide what they are all about. I actually enjoyed Rachel's encounter with David Frum a couple weeks ago. No one raised their voice though they both were most assuredly not agreeing about anything. I've not seen anything that mature on Fox in ages, if ever. Are we mature enough to decifer the bent of the presenter and with other news sources make informed opinions?

Good point about being civil in disagreeing -- in fact, great point. O'Reilly and Hannity are often horrible bullies. Thanks for making the point about Maddow, and you are right. I have not seen her abuse guests the way O'Reilly and Hannity do. Z

Hey David, While I would agree with you that partisan punditry by the likes of O reilly and Olbermann is dangerous, I do so for very different reasons than you. I would describe O reilly as far right and Olbermann center left with cnn in between. To me it is dangerous mainly because msnbc, fox and cnn operate within such a very narrow political spectrum with only republicans and democrats represented and anyone can see there is very little difference between the two parties in terms of foreign policy and the economy despite the medias attempts to convince me that there is. In European terms the republicans and democrats are both on the right of the spectrum and anyone truly on the left is marginalised and described as extremist in U.S media. One example is Hugo Chavez, who is regularly called a dictator in even the New York Times, yet has put himself and his policies to the people more regularly than any government in the world in the last decade, I guess a politician following through on his election promises would be extreme in America. Compare this criticism to how the the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan,(countries that have few if any elections and freedom of the press), are discussed,(they are usually described as our moderate allies in the region), and surely you must admit that none of the mainstream media have any credibility. I believe the total electorate in the US is about 200 million so surely there is room for other voices than that which the democrats and republicans cater for. You would think that there were only 2 candidates running if you were to observe the media but apparantly there are others running, one who got 3 million votes in 2000, and yet there is barely a mention of them no matter where one looks. This cannot be conducive to a healthy democracy and that is ultimately why I would describe it as dangerous.
Thanks, Chris Mac, Ireland

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Europe been using this same media style (the conservatives have one paper or channel, the liberals another paper or channel, the third parties another, the state another?).

I've always contended that this golden concept of "unbiased" journalist came only at a time when newspapers and TV stations were financially powerful enough to take on the government-say the mid 60s to about the mid 90s, when advertisers had few options to reach an audience. Prior to that, towns with multiple newspapers each had their own biases and agendas in order to create and reach audiences.

I just think this having nothing but "unbiased" news stations is wishful thinking on your part.

If you seriously think O'Reilly is a right wignnut then you really just showing your own liberal bias. Studies of this presidential election have shown FNC to be the most balanced of all cable news networks.

O'Reilly, has been very balanced in his approach, criticising McCain and Obama both. While Hannity is a vocal conservative, you forget that Colmes is also on the show. He may not scream as loudly, but there is a definite balance to the show. MSNBC, on the other hand, has no balance. Just a constant stream of leftist hatred with a string of parrots agreeing with Olbermann and Maddow. Maddow at least does have Pat B as a regular guest, but his dislike of McCain makes him basically a conservative parrot at this point.

One thing that this election will guarentee is that if Obama wins, CNN and MSNBC will tank horribly. Disallusionist liberal youth are not prime economy drivers to begin with, and without a focus for hatred for Oblermann and Maddow their shows will have no audience. But then that is their own fault. Ironically, the only near future for Liberal news is a McCain presidency since it will be hard to hate the republicans if they are in the minority in all branches of government.

Please give me a citation for one of these studies that shows Fox to be "most balanced." I would love to see it. Z

Responding to TLA's earlier point "Are we mature enough to decifer the bent of the presenter and with other news sources make informed opinions?" I would say yes we are mature enough, but finding news that is fact-based on tv is a rarity and unfortunately many Americans use the television as one of their main sources of information.
Though what I think is the most damaging aspect of these entertainment, news shows is how Olbermann and O'Reilly visually promote an image of America as a society with only two opinions (far right republican or far left democrat) and moreover only two that are constantly arguing and disagreeing. Is this really how American society is or is this only how television chooses to represents us? By not having newscasters with their egos and opinions in check, no issue is ever presented in a clear manner. Instead the viewer only sees what the rich, self-promoting individuals think behind the news desk rather than finding out what the significance of the issues mean to the American public. No real representation....

If telling the truth is "partisan," then I'll take my news from Olbermann and Maddow and MSNBC. Amazing how the truth can be labeled partisan. Amazing that someone would go on record doing so. This is America; isn't it? We do believe in the truth; don't we? The truth is the truth, and thank GOD people like Olbermann and Maddow are willing to tell the truth and suffer the slings and arrows of those who would prefer the truth not be disseminated to the masses.

"Truth" is a big word, Mr. American. And a very complicated one. Lots of folks who disagree violently with one another think they all are speaking the truth. Just asked the religious fundamentalists who kill in the name of their truth. Z

David, you are right except that you fall short, perhaps, because you viewed this issue as a TV critic and not, in this instance, as a media critic. It seems to me that professional journalists - whether print, broadcast or cable - have lost control of their profession. I'm not referring to the media companies which own Fox or The Baltimore Sun. I'm referring to the professional journalists who gather and report the news. The Society for Professional Journalists, Investigative Reporters and Editors and similar groups need to define the profession. What are the qualifications? What are the standards? What is fair, accurate and objective? How should consumers evaluate news to determine if it is fair, accurate and objective? The legal and medical professions define and enforce the standards for those professions. Professional journalists need to start doing the same. Professional journalists need to market and defend their profession. If they continue to let the media companies and those with political agendas, then journalism will continue to wane.

Hello John, Thanks for these thoughtful comments. I absolutely agree about the profession. I think more of us as a culture, and as such, we really are having a cosmic identity crisis. But all the things you say about the lack of standrads or even consensus on standrads -- heck, even a willingness to discuss standrads in a coherent and systematic way -- is on the money. Thanks. Z

Dear Rachel!

Ialways follow you since time that you started appeare on Carlson show.

Now, about election:

McCain and company accuse Barak Obama of being Socialist!

But, what about Sarah?

Sarah Palin heavily taxed oil companies, yes?
Sarah Palin distributed these money to Alaska citizens, yes?
She uses this as a proof that she is really wanted to help people.

Bravo!

Now, tell me please: Is it not Socialism?

Why Media, including you, do not use this fact to fight back?

Thank you

Feyga

Hmmm. I get what you're saying; I do. But I disagree with this: "Those viewers are the future of the republic, folks, and they are turning for the "news" and take on the state of the world to a guy every bit as dangerous in his left-wing bias as the Fox News channel's Bill O'Reilly is in his angry right-wing rants."

Does reality actually reflect that these shows are the *only* places where viewers get their news? How is this different than, say, reading through the Baltimore Sun's front section to get news and then reading the opinion pages to get someone's "take" on the news. Papers have been playing this game for a while, and that's how I tend to view these shows--as the op-eds of the news channels.

But my home is cable-free, and we tend to get our news from NPR or the Newhour with Jim Lehrer and his fantastic crew.

Cheers.

Balt-O-Matt: Jim Lehrer and crew is the best for down the middle journalism. If folks were watching Lehrer and Olbermann, I would have no problem. Thanks. Z

I watch Campbell Brown at 8PM and Larry King at 9PM on CNN. I am part of the great american Centrist middle, and I prefer to watch programs that do not take sides yet challenge their guests. Keep up the good work CNN.

I still think Rachel is, at least for now, trying to be more down the middle (than olbermann or Fox), trying to invite guests from the other side - and regularly says 'we asked ... for a response, or to send someone and they declined' ...
I fully accept that I'm watching TV -- Cable 24 hour nonsense - with a bias towards my opinions; therefore, choosing to cover more of the 'real stories' I am interested in. I listen to BBC Radio, or NPR in the car.

I actually think Rachel is almost a response to Olbermann who I can't watch too much of anymore because he spends more time on his show covering Fox News and Bill-O than he does reporting on anything.

I think the media, the lack of journalists, has been a great loss for our country as a whole. More interested in personal scandals in politicians lives than they are at talking about the way they are running our country (into the ground as it were).

Also, I actually saw an almost 'real' news report on Maddow's show - one of the NBC reporters in Afghanistan with them under fire and guns jamming etc... And it was chilling. I don't recall any other comment on the story by Maddow but maybe I was too shell-shocked. In a way it so refreshing to see something not tied into the election, a reminder that WE have people stuck out on a rock in the middle of nowhere who don't have the luxury of worrying about the kind of things we are talking about here. That was an image, and a wake-up call that all the radio coverage in the world, or print coverage just could not do justice to....

I disagree with many of the things said here. First of all I think most of the people who watch these shows on MSNBC and Fox are tuning in not to be tricked into believing what they hear is true but rather because they already agree with the ideology of the anchor and want to feel good about themselves by listening to someone defend their common viewpoint. Secondly, I would hardly compare any show on MSNBC with any show on Fox in terms of fact-based news. Yes, MSNBC may slant slightly toward the left, but there is no comparison to the all-out lies told on Fox. And lastly I will say that CNN is no angel. That channel has the same issues, just a mix of the two sides. Some CNN anchors are far-left biased and some are far-right biased, but few CNN anchors stick true to the old-fashioned journalistic standards we once knew.

I found this an interesting read. While I wholeheartedly agree with the basic sentiment, I have to disagree with you about Rachel Maddow in particular.

Equating her with Olbermann or O'Reily or Hannity is, frankly, simplistic and insulting. Unlike them, she actually allows her guests to speak. She actively seeks intelligent debate (see her regular features with Pat Buchanan or her interview with David Frum) and is in a class by herself amongst many of these hosts.

As for why she can't get more conservatives/Republicans on her show... they don't want to come on. I think they're a little afraid of her, after Frum and Nancy Pfotenhauer sort of made fools of themselves. It's too bad, too, because her interactions with people "on the other side" are usually some of the best. Personally, I like people of different ideologies who can have an actual debate.

She definitely has a bias, and she isn't exactly hiding it or pretending to NOT be biased as she smirks or gives a bewildered smile at some of the days events. In fact she FREELY admits she's liberal and doesn't think that has to be a dirty word, without all the "fair and balanced" smokescreens Fox News tries to throw up. I think why she's so popular is that she FEELS like someone a regular person can relate too. She shines a light on events and says "isn't this sort of ridiculous," the way that many of us "normal folk" do. She's not bombastic and sort of awkward and funny sometimes. She's also genuinely intelligent and respectful. See the interview with David Frum I mentioned. Frum basically attacks her and her show for lowering the political discourse (hello kettle, this is the pot) and did she yell back? No, she just talked it out with him. I respect that A LOT.

I actually wish Fox News had some sort of similar show to hers, as I might actually watch it.

I haven't seen much on her show that has been proven to be patently false. There have been some factual errors, but they hardly seem rampant to the extent that it seems like downright lies. Do you have specific examples? If every show about news became like her show I'd be worried. If Olbermann, Hannity or O'Reily became more like her, it'd be a step in the right direction. But the truth is, it's nice to have a little variety in the way news is presented. I think Rachel is an important bridge between comedy shows like The Daily Show or The Colbert Report and actual news programs.

She's presenting the news (biased though it may be) in an entertaining and engaging way. If that's where you stop short, you're doing yourself a disservice. But that's up to the individual viewer. Shouldn't the responsibility fall on the viewer to educate themselves?

I think perhaps you are seeing her through an "Olbermann" lens because they follow one another. I don't watch Olbermann. I found him amusing now and again but he just seems so smug and every other day he's mock-blowing up about something. No one can spend that much time being indignant. I don't think the fact that they share an ideology is bad, and I think the way they present themselves and their shows makes all the difference.

I think it's also worthy to point out that down the middle journalism can be equally deceiving. They often feel obligated to include all side of a debate and may give equal time to two sides even if one is supported by 96% of America and the other by a small group of extremists with no basis.

What I'd love to see more of in print journalism is...

1. Issues explored in depth from multiple perspectives. So each day use the op-ed page to really dive into a single issue, and use writers from all parts of the political spectrum to tackle that issue at the same time. Let the reader absorb it all and make their own decisions.

2. Back and forth. The problem often is that statements proposed as truth are allowed to linger unchallenged. Have an exchange between journalists much like that of David Brooks and Gail Collins of the New York Times, only with a more serious slant and focus.

Here you go, figured you would have heard about this. Fox news most balanced in coverage. http://cmpa.com/Studies/Election08/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf

I don't really mind that they have these types of shows out there. Everybody knows that they are pundits stating their point of view (as are O'Reilly and Limbaugh). You can choose whether or not you want to watch them or not. If you don't like it just change the channel.

Madcow is an Ogorman clone. And while you salivate at how well they are doing, the ratings will drop off the charts when Obama wins. With the house and senate potentially veto proof, the only thing they can could possibly complain about would be republicans speaking out. The problem is their mission will be to ignore anything conservative thus giving them nothing to discuss. With only positive things to say about their candidate their ratings may disappear, but their mission will have been accomplished.

As for you Z, I hope you have enjoyed your recent popularity. But I am afraid that you will enjoy the same fate as Scott McClullan effective Nov 5. Useless.

Oh the power of "copy and paste". Z, what is your definition of hypocrite? As someone who is railing against foxnews as being partisan as if thats a problem. Here are the titles of your " Most recent articles.

Rachel Maddow and the power of partisan cable "news"....
D.L. Hughley's CNN show off to promising start....
SNL goes where press can't in Bush-Palin satire....
NBC's Williams fails to ask Palin about shopping sprees....
Palin uses the Plumber to call Obama socialist on CNN....
CBS interview highlights McCain's big, big TV problem....
Big news, big ratings -- a wild TV ride with Palin, Powell....
Palin plays safe, Fey and Poehler shine (again) on SNL....
Saturday Night Live: Will Palin appear? I'll be here....

While their seems to be a few negative ones about McCain/Palin, I can't find one that even hints at anything negative towards Obama/Biden.

Well, on second thought, being partisan yourself, you would be able to recognize it in others. Now since you want fox to admit it, maybe you can ask the same of MSNBC, CNN and yourself. Oh..and besides a couple guys on each channel who do swing towards the opposing side. Don't even bother trying to tell me that any of them are less partisan than the other.

David,

When talk radio stopped being a free exchange of differing views and began to openly campaign for one political party nationwide and 24/7, the traditional media (TM) simply started mouthing and printing their talking points regardless of the actual facts.

When an entire network dedicated to spouting the talking points of one political party 24/7 came into existence, the TM did but one thing-started mouthing and printing their talking points regardless of the actual facts.

Now that a network dare have TWO HOURS of programming that doesn't just accept the DC insider/GOP spin, you in the TM wring your hands and worry about the future of the nation.

I think that had the TM actually taken on the conservative media instead of incorporating much of it into itself, the need fror Olbermann and Maddow would not exist.

Rachel Maddow is a partisan for a political point of view rarely heard in today's media. Most cable news programs hire open and boisterous conservatives and mousy "liberals" those conservative can destroy. You can watch dozens of those programs if that is you cup of tea (which, apparently, it is). Morning Joe on the very same MSNBC is one of the programs you can choose, with Scarborough's HANNITY talking over Mika's colmes.

Maddow isn't "angry" like O'Reilly or intense like Olbermann or smarmy and dishonest like Hannity; she is smart, likable and makes her points with humor and grace. She often debates Pat Buchanan on her program, a man who questions her right to have rights in this country, and still ends the discussion with a smile and a thank you.

She isn't "fair and balanced", but makes the most intelligent, thought-out presentation on television.

If Obama wins this election, you are going to find that this Democratic President will face tough questioning of his policies not just from the right but also from the left in the person of Maddow. She is a partisan for a political point of view, but not just a political party.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs study, you say Todd?

From Wikipedia: The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) is a self-described nonpartisan and nonprofit research and educational organization that is affiliated with George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.

It was founded in 1985 by Fox News contributor Dr. S. Robert Lichter and his now ex-wife Dr. Linda Lichter.

Salon reports: The seed money for [the] center was solicited by the likes of Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson.

And sourcewatch.org notes: Media Transparency documents that between 1986 and 2005 CMPA received 55 grants totaling $2,960,916 (unadjusted for inflation). The data reveals that the overwhelming proportion of CMPA's funding comes from conservative foundations.

The funding information, covering 1986-2005, lists the following donors (note: all figures are unadjusted for inflation):

* Carthage Foundation, part of the Scaife Foundations - $512,000 from 8 donations;

* The Earhart Foundation contributed $120,000 in six grants between 1999 and 2003;

* John M. Olin Foundation - $730,000 from 15 donations between 1986 and 2001;

* Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation - $250,000 nine grants over the period between 1989 and 1995;

* Sarah Scaife Foundation, part of the Scaife Foundations - $760,000 from 9 donations spanning the period between 1991 and 2003;

* Smith Richardson Foundation - $416,916 from 3 donations between 1998 and 2001;

Thus, out of the total of $2,960,916 in foundation grants, nearly all of it ($2,668,916) came from just four sources: the John M. Olin, Scaife, and Smith Richardson foundations. In other words, CMPA received 86% of its foundation funding from those four [conservative] donors.

That Center for Media and Public Affairs, Todd?

You wrote "This is not a woman who gives a hoot about... verified facts..."

Name ONE statement she's presented as fact - that is untrue - to support your argument. Wouldn't backing up your claim that she's a liar with AN EXAMPLE be fair an balanced?

Anything?

Well, yes she has liberal views and her show shows that. But, she CARES about facts. She's the ONLY ONE who report based on facts & common sense than lets say... YOU.

CNN and other networks are LAZY, they don't care about facts. Rachel does, I've listened to her radio show for years & I know who's faking news & who's not.

You on the other hand is FAKE news.

One, after this campaign, can we all dump the tired and overused cliche "game-changer"?

I like Maddow's show. She is a good interviewer and debater, and her guests aren't the usual standard fare that you see on the other screaming head shows. I like her format in that she doesn't pit two ideologues, in two subscreens, only to scream over each other and the host. She actually engages her guests and it results in a productive and constructive interview. She allows the guest to finish their sentences and state their views, and she has obviously done her homework and asks intelligent, relevant followup questions in a respectful way.

So please, give me more of Maddow.

>>This is not a woman who gives a hoot for balance, fairness, verified facts...

What has she claimed to be fact that was not??

I am tired of people throwing around allegations like this and never providing any backup!

Please, in the future, if you're going to accuse someone of playing fast and loose with the facts, GIVE SOME EXAMPLES!!

CNN "hews to a traditional notion of fact-based news" and yet Maddow is challenging the ratings of the guy who regularly interviews psychics and other mind-numbingly stupid guests (Judge Judy and Jenny McCarthy, coming soon). The same CNN whose Headline News runs Glenn Beck. But it is Maddow on MSNBC that is part of the problem. Hilarious.

Given the nonsense expressed in this blog, You've got to wonder if "Z", PhD, University of Maryland, ever took a course in logic or perhaps one in rhetoric. Where was "Z" when Fox News BEGAN its progamming on TV in the mid-90's, and all this time its ditto-head viewers have been salivating over the - - well, you know what excrement is presented on FX, or for that matter the radio poison spread by rabid right wing copycats ?
Oh, sorry "Z", I see you do only TV. Too bad. You might listen to the REAL TRUTH as expressed by Rush Limbaugh. I suspect you might find it quite agreeable.
And CNN "fact based" ? Yes, indeed, fact based but only barely, and massaged by editors into pap designed to create an often bent-out-of-shape impression.
"Z", if you haven't yet and ever get a chance, read Robert Pen Warren's book on rhetoric. Might still be in print. It's an eye opener.
So now that "liberal" points of view and LOTS of simple, honest, and complete truth, forcefully presented, have finally appeared on TV, all of a sudden "Z" reacts with a warning about the frightening "danger" of biased commentary. Maybe a little late to cry "wolf" ? Heh?
I rarely read the B. Sun, but if this is blog is representative of the Sun's coverage, I am not encouraged to start. It's another contribtion to the glaringly evident decline of the corporate media.

Jason Mealey - citation please. If you watch TV for news, you're vitamin deficient and if you watch Bill O'Reilly for your news you need to cut back to one six pack before breakfast.

The argument is over.
People don't wear bootstraps and never have. It was all a lie. Everything.

2000 years of sanctimonious white rule is over.

Cheers to one party rule.

Keep your Stevens, Bachmanns, and mothers of unwed pregnant daughters. Move to Alaska and enjoy your socialism while we get back to running a democracy!

Interesting piece. But why is this an issue NOW? Why has this type of program become a problem NOW? Is it because liberals are finally getting successful shows of their own?

The format of Maddow's program is certainly not new. For decades, the right-wing has-without question dominated talk radio with these types of one-sided programs.. And on television, Bill O'Reilly has been around since at least 1996; Glenn Beck has certainly been around for a few years.

And one could certainly argue that the right-wing shows have posed more of a threat to what you call "fact-based news" than does a program like Maddow's. Maddow would be the first to admit that her show uses facts to advance a liberal agenda. But the right-wing commentators hold themselves out to the public differently. Limbaugh claims to be a better source for the news than the "drive-by" media. And O'Reilly calls his program the "no-spin zone" as if he is presenting a "balanced" and "objective" view of the facts, with no spin.

I love Rachel Maddow's show, I love it so much that I tape and watch at the same time....I am going to keep watching even after the election..She's great!

We,who watch Rachel, and Keith, already know what was on the news. We watch to hear them talk ABOUT the news. They are not newscasters, they are commentators ON the news. As far as not fact checking, I reject that thesis. If anything they are committed to deflating myth and getting to the truth. I would think Mr Zurawik, at his stage in life, would know the difference between a news show and a commentary show. I freely admit the Keith Olberman is over the top, but he is funny. Rachel is equally funny but also even more dedicated to exposing anything that attacks out democracy. I'm with you Rachel, 100%. I even discovered Air America thanks to you. I'm buying the sweatshirt to wear to Thanksgiving dinner just to antognize the family.

Hi Mary, I think if you are wearing the Air America sweatshirt to Thanksgiving dinner, I had better surrender here and give up the ghost of convincing you. Seriously, though, I am struck by the passion of Maddow's supporters. Many seem to really like her -- and interestingly enough, they don't feel that same passion for Olbermann. Thanks. Z

News and/or news-like TV will likely continue its decline so well illustrated in the film Network(1976).

As for getting what we demand, not likely. Commercial TV is an archaic medium that does not truly measure the desire of the viewers. I very much agree with the earlier post by Rocket88 and I'd like to add that if you want to see worthwhile news and related information on TV turn to PBS for their nightly News Hour, Bill Moyers Journal and the Frontline documentaries. It's really all that's left.

Hi John, read through the archive, and you will see much about the excellence on Jim Lehrer's NewsHour -- but not so for Moyers, an ideologue through and through. Thanks. PS Network is form another time and place -- the TV world has changed so dramatically, it could be talking about TV on Mars. Z

With most of the US having Fox "news" on all day (and thus being brainwashed by liars and cheaters whose only real loyalty is to big corporations), we needed an antidote, and the only ones I've found are Keith and Rachel on MSNBC. They present the truth about the lies, corruption, and malfeasance that the Republicans under Cheney have perpetrated for the last eight years, and for this they should be praised. When wrong is being done, someone needs to speak out about it, and when outrage is appropriate, it should be expressed. To think that we should always have paid lackeys cancelling each other with opposite ("balanced") viewpoints when serious harm is being done to our country and our planet, is ridiculous. Cheney lied us into a trillion-dollar war; Bush's team allowed deregulation of the financial sector leading to what will be a severe recession; Bush has committed numerous well-known offences; the Rove pack have stolen two elections and are trying to impede legal voting again. Tax cuts for the rich, combined with a fraudulent war, have made a mockery of fiscal responsibility. McCain's attack on taxes ignores the fact that the only way a government can avoid debt is to take in revenues equal to its spending. That's what it means for a government to live within its means, John. McCain also ignores the fact that the biggest piece of unjustified spending in the last eight years has been his beloved Iraq war. He has abandoned most of his long-held principles in a desperate attempt to win. Thank god there are two people on TV telling the truth about all this.

I don't think you give Rachel Maddow enough credit. She is smart, educated, and respectful to her guests, regardless of their political affiliations. I don't believe it's fair or productive to compare her with Fox folks like Hannity. And consider, too, the point about watching her show is not to get the news; it's to get her take on the news.

David, how can you call Bill Moyers an ideologue? Come on now, are you confusing him with the Bloombergs and Murdoch's of this world? Plzzzeee.

Bill Moyers presents thorough and expanded discussions on issues affecting the majority of people in this country. He never resorts to bullying or ridiculing his guests unlike other so called 'journalists'.

Interesting commentary. As a partisan, liberal news watcher, I love Rachel Maddow, I find Keith to be obnoxious and over the top and Chris to be a pretty reasonable straight shooter. If I want relatively unbiased news I go to CNN. When I want entertaining news, I go to MSNBC, when I want to get riled up, I watch fox for five minutes. So I imagine that news consumers are like me. They know where their biases are, they know in their heart of hearts that fox is a right wing propaganda machine, MSNBC is in the tank for the dems, and CNN does their best to be objective. So my news night goes like this:

8:00 the daily show
8:30 second half of cambell brown
9:00 some part of Rachell Maddow

I only started watching MSNBC because FOX AND CNN are very right wing biased!!! At least on MSNBC, there is ALWAYS Rep and Dem being interviewed. On Fox, I constantly see Billo and Hannity interviewing ONLY Republicans/right-wing nuts, and they HIRED Rove, Kristol and their ilk as "commentators".

The last episode of The Billo Factor I watched was when Billo insulted the son of a man who died in the WTC attack and wouldn't let him speak. The next time I'll turn on FOX is to see the clowns they have ACTING sad at Murdoch's funeral (hopefully soon and in the same week as McCain).

Ay least the people at FOX and CNN will have people on with opposing views...Olberman and Maddow never have anyone on with an opposing view...you only get their views and same old looney rants...they are serving Kool Aid to the naive and stupid ones...but even they will get tired of it after a while...liberal shows never last long.

The strange thing about the ideology war being fought amongst today's cable media channels is that they are all viewed by some demographic as being "fair and balanced", and by others as being biased. The simple fact of the matter is, they are all biased, even CNN. It's just a matter of how well they hide it by obscuring down opinion, be it well founded or not, and displaying images from "both sides of the isle".

However, as I've come to realize while channel surfing between the major three cable news outlets (CNN, MSNBC/CNBC, Fox) I've realized a definitive difference in the way all three stations generally represent their own brand of "fairness".

CNN is fact based and presents topical news that branches party boundaries, airing on the side of journalistic safety. However, as you pay attention to the nuances of conversation and reporting, you can easily tell an anchor or reporters political bias. This will always be the case, unless the journalist simply doesn't care either way, which is a contradictory quality in a person who spends their careers caring about world issues and happenings.

Fox News claims fair and balanced reporting, while in fact they are severely biased in that they favor the Republican party, constantly cut off and disrespect Democratic/Liberal guests, report stories (usually not fact based, ridiculous, or complete lies in some instances) that are designed to hurt the left side of the isle. Even Hannity and Colmes is biased, with Hannity yelling over democratic anchors and guests, with Colmes doing nothing to counter it, often just giving nods to his ideologically opposite buddy. Recently, Fox has gone far enough as to attempt to link Senator Obama to Satan. Fair and balanced? Interesting. Link: http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/23/jpinkerton_1023/

MSNBC is obviously coming strait out of the left, and they don't hesitate to hide their political position and ideology. Where they differ from Fox on their style of reporting, however, is that they are fact based, calling out politicians on lies and fraud. While the anchors of MSNBC are certainly blatant and pointed in their approach to criticism of the right, their means of doing so are not out of bounds, taking on what are in fact, serious issues and facts. Someone viewing MSNBC isn't going to get a significant dose of the conservative viewpoint, but that isn't to say that what they are reporting isn't fair. So balanced? No. Fair? Yes.

Now after that, my own biased is fairly apparent, but allow me to make my closing statements as to why these are my observations. This argument of fair and balanced news... I simply find it to be ridiculous. You aren't going to formulate a good opinion based upon what one person tells you, but rather, by making a judgment based on differing perspectives. Furthermore, the definition of "fair and balanced news" seems to differ heavily from station to station. CNNs version is equal exposure. Fox New's version simply isn't balanced by any stretch of the imagination. And MSNBCs definition is telling the truth... the radical, angry ranting truth.

I personally watch all stations regularly. I probably watch an unhealthy amount of news, in fact, but some good does come out of this. Though I don't expect anyone to simply take my judgment without cause, I'd prescribe MSNBC to anyone who seeks political clarity in regards to right wing shenanigans. I can usually watch Maddow and Olbermann without cringing because they are the type of journalist that I would be, if I choose to pursue that in the upcoming years of college. I believe that although they can be harsh, condecending, like a loaded and cocked shotgun, they also report by the same philosophy I live by.

No bull****.

I am a resident of Illinois, and so I had hoped that somebody would cover how Obama's Senate staff dealt with his constituents. That never happened. Right or left. MSNBC or Fox.

CNN, MSNBC, and FOX are nothing more than a television version of Facebook.

I am a resident of Illinois, and so I had hoped that somebody would cover how Obama's Senate staff dealt with his constituents. That never happened. Right or left. MSNBC or Fox.

CNN, MSNBC, and FOX are nothing more than a television version of Facebook.

MSNBC is not slanted. Neither is Fox News. Both news divisions cover the stories without much slant. The opinions and commentators are slanted. As you would expect of people whose opinions you want to hear. The actual reporting of the "news" by both organizations isn't slanted. If you want comments from the right go to Fox who have better Republican pundits and MSNBC for Democratic pundits. The real problem is the pundits themselves are to cowardly to cross networks for debates and when they do its completely uncivil discourse.

Mr. Zurawik;

To say that Maddow doesn't care about facts is a large and serious charge, and it was wrong of you to make it without even attempting to back it up, as other commenters have already pointed out. But this is the part of your column that really jumped out at me:

"And while she has not yet indulged in the kind of full-blown, hot-dog, crazy-man rants that O'Reilly has so mastered and Olbermann has come to imitate with such success, she is heading in that direction."

No, she isn't. Where are you getting this? Maddow is one of the calmest hosts on the evening cable news. She's much less hyper than Matthews or even Blitzer, much less sarcastic than Beck or Olbermann, and much less angry than Dobbs or practically anybody on Fox. When she interviews her political opponents, she is unfailingly courteous and respectful. Anybody who listens to her radio show knows that she is angry about the Iraq war, and appropriately so, but she has never gone in for the theatrical, showboating, vein-popping outrage of O'Reilly or Olbermann. You have seriously misread not only her substance, but her style as well.

I hope you'll give her another chance after the election, once the political scene has calmed some.

Fox News destroys MSNBC in every prime time slot.

And "American Idol" is higher-rated than "Mad Men," Brian. What's your point? Since when are Nielsens a benchmark of quality?

Much has changed about "news" with the advent of the internet. I look online for the exposition of raw facts (a wide array of sites including even Drudge) and source material (e.g. videos).

I look to television for opinion, and prefer pundits who are civilized and, yes, share my biases -- because they incline me to hope more than despair.

Rachel is my favorite. Olberman was once essential for crying that the emperor -- Bush/Cheney -- has no clothes. I fear what he will become when there is no more emperor, but Maddow seems headed in a different direction.

It's so funny than "conservatives" get so mad because the sucess of MSBC, come on... people is tired if the republican $#%$#..thats all!!! and about FOX news? this people really have seen a episode of O'Reilly, how he insults people? and then how is posible some one says "is fair and balanced"!!!???

Hi Rachel, On Oct 22 Dailey Show A
Clip of Mccain Telline a young
Rep,That Taxing The rich more is not
( Socialist }

Today, Mccane and Palin ranted on and on about how Obama seemed to lack experience to become the next President. If i am stupid then I wonder why Obama's camp doesn't respond by saying that because of McCane's age - Palin might become the real inexperienced President sooner than the people who voted for McCane would want. Would Palin run amuck buying the most expensive things at tax-payer suffering. There's a lot of Paris Hilton in Palin - can't you see her dancing around in the White House in her $150 K go go outfit??
Picking her BBF's.
Reuben Ingraham, Medford, Oregon

I watched Rachel Maddow for less than two minutes before I had to change to station. I consider myself a moderate but she is so far to the left on the issues that she makes Al Franken look conservative. I use to be an MSNBC viewer but in the last 6 months MSNBC has become Multiple Souces of Nonsense, Bulls&it, and Crap. So much for my GE stock. I'll never watch that network (and I use the term loosely) again.

It's a sign that the world is truly in trouble when you have to watch FOX News to get fair and balanced...which it has become.

"The Rachel Maddow Show" is not a news program. (It's not even a "news" program.) It's a commentary show, presenting a point of view. You've been watching TV long enough to know the difference.

Is your point that all such commentary shows should be like "Crossfire," with a voice from the right battling one from the left? You may call that balance, but I call it unwatchable.

Rachel has a point of view, but she welcomes those with opposing views, most notably one of the most conservative of them all, Pat Buchanan. She is comfortable with discussion and disagreement. I say she and her show are models for what point-of-view commentary shows ought to be.

Tonight's Maddow show mentioned about computer error (either by touch panel itself, or the program that runs the polling or counting). I think we have to check into the program and the machine, including recounting for verification too. Program can make anything summed up differently.!
Actual results until 11/4 should reflect the real numbers, not by possible wrong doings. We should be very careful and precise. All the poll results may end up for nothings.

Will someone review the second presidental debate, the one that took place in Nashville. The guy sitting in the front row, looks exactly like "Joe, the unlicensed plumber". A friend pointed it out to me and i thought nothing of it, but later that evening I heard on CNN that "Joe" just signed a country record deal, ..in Nashville? How ironic if this is true - could it be he was positioned from the start by the McCain campaign - remember that debate was prior to his unveiling.

I heard you making the same points on Dan Rodrick's radio show. I always enjoy your visits there with great insight into TVLand. However it seems you and Dan lose all sense of irony when you bemoan the unobjective nature of shows that are basically opinion pieces, the equivalent to how both of you make your living at the Baltimore Sun. These shows (O'Reilly to Olberman) are Cables version of the OpED and Opinion pages. The big distinction I see is that Fox News division comes off often as an endless propoganda machine whereas MSNBC's news division plays it pretty straight. And when it comes down to the difference between Fox shows and MSNBC shows of this type I think a fact check on both shows would show a stark difference.

My mistake JW. You are right. It's not a News Program. It's a commentary presenting a view point much in the same light as Pravda was.

here in tampa fla the local paper had a big full page put out by the nra.pvf, that obama is anti guns, can someone tell thw truth about this and put this issue to rest, it only comes out once every four years.

I am a loyal Fox News Channel viewer. Occassionally I flip on the other channels to see what others are saying. As a matter of fact I used to tune into MSNBC, thought I liked Chris Matthews until I found Fox which was 10 years ago. But I have to say that this is the WORST news station that I have ever witnessed as far a politics is concerned. You guys are Obama's Campaign Headquarters New station! The way you all drip and drool over Obama is truthfully and discustingly sicking! You lack honesty and professionalism! This is the Obama brain washing channel if I ever saw one!

You GOTTA be kidding, right? We're drowning in nasty, screaming, vile idiocy from the mentally disturbed right, but you have a problem with intelligent, calmly presented, affable opinion from Rachel?
David, because of your truncated life experience, YOU are part of the problem.

By the way... In what Bizarro version of a free country are citizens given the opportunity to vote away the rights of fellow citizens? Gay marriage today, your rights tomorrow.

I think people lose site of the fact that neither Ms. Maddow's show nor Mr. Olbermann's, Mr. O'Reilly (et. al.) shows are news shows.

Since these types of shows are all about commentary they are, by definition, going to show the bias of the commentator/host.

I happen to tune in to hear Rachel Maddow's commentary because I like her. I find her to be entertaining. I like that she can have and enjoys haveing civil conversations with those that don't agree with her.

In response to GMan: I don´t know about all of Europe, but here in the Netherlands it is not really comparable. (Our political system is completely different also.)

We don´t have a Dutch 24 news channel, the news programs and news background programs (among which discussion programs), are mostly financed by the state, but they are independent in content. We don't have debates or panel discussions during news programs, and they are less theatrical than the American ones I’ve seen so far. The debates on the news discussion programs in general are more nuanced, more issue based instead of following party lines. Our political system is not a two party system, and also the positions of the far end parties lie closer together than in America.

The commercial programs are different in that they cover more popular stories, but are still objective, in my experience.

The major newspapers have a small slant as far as discussion pieces go, but the difference is mainly in the level of information and analysis.

Fact Check: Obama on Gun Control

Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Sure, let's complain about this type of program in 2008 with Rachel Maddow! Where was this article 10 - 15 years ago about Fox News? Or 5 years ago about Olbermann?
I would say great advice, but you're not warning of the avalanche; you're simply reporting on it after it's happened.

One question: Is this high school? This woman sounds like a teenage bully with her sophmoric reactions and mean spirted remarks. Ugh.

Z wrote"This is not a woman who gives a hoot for balance, fairness, verified facts, context or any of the other things traditional journalism have demanded in the past of those sitting at TV anchor desks."

I wish you would have given some references to what facts she has not verified. I would like to know. I read my news, before I watch anything on TV and I haven't heard the liar siren yet, watching Maddow.

Furthermore, your last sentence is very demeaning to your readers. I don't watch much TV except for the war going on between Fox and MSNBC and I find it quite entertaining. It is one big op-ed after the other and hysterically funny. If your readers aren't gathering their own opinions before tuning in, why would you ridicule them for it?

I think what MSNBC is doing against Murdoch's machine is awesome and about 8 years late. MSNBC is still a few eye rolling, sarcastically laughing journalists short.

I think this debate is neither here nor there. America is made up of all kinds of peope with all kinds of viewpoints. Why is it so dangerous to have someone on television who represents these views? Whether your person is O'Reilly, Olbermann, or Maddow isn't the real point the second amendment and the right to free press? Even your views are applicable to someone else's. If we silence or reject these people as journalists then shouldn't we also reject your assessment of them? I'm not on anyone's side here I am just asking. The point I am trying to make is that if there were only news reporters like cnn, wh, in their attempt to be balanced offer so many points of view that it is really just spin being presented as news. I like cnn but it is a bit brain racking for me when the interviewers ask questions and barely challenge the person they are interviewing. Truth is a relative word, it is relative to the personal opinions of the individual seeking it. In my opinion, cable news offers Americans the opportunity to watch programs that represent the different viewpoints of the country. What's so wrong with that. Plus all of these people do have legitimate points to make regardless if we disagree with the way they present their views

I think "dangerous" is a rather strong word.

I'll certainly give that past election results show that there are segments of the population on both the left and the right who are either very misinformed or very selective as to which information they take into account in making decisions.

That said, I think there is also a sizable segment of the American populace that can distinguish between objective news reporting
(that is, objective to the extent that complete objectivity is even possible)
and opinion.

I'd even go so far to say that there are a few out there who can distinguish between opinion arrived at after review of all relevant facts, and opinion arrived at in a vacuum and then backed up with a few cherry-picked pieces of sometimes dubious "information".

People with this ability can easily use both Fox and MSNBC to their advantage. Since both report at least occasionally on what the other won't, one can simply check claims against a variety of other sources--something that is much easier to do than it was in Father Coughlin's time.

Regardless of one's point of view, both networks provide insight into the reporting that informs at least some of those who see things differently.

I can find much to criticize about CNN, but I do find it refreshing that CNN and some of the other networks, have, of late, been at least occasionally checking partisan claims against concrete verifiable facts, instead of just checking partisan claims against each other. I do think there are times, though, when the validity of isolated facts could be better contextualized.

As others have pointed out, both O'Reilly's and Maddow's shows are commentary shows--and commentary does have a place in a free society.

It would be nice, though, if, somewhere on television, there was a non-shrill program featuring intelligent commentary from the full range of the political spectrum--not just the limited Republican/Democrat sliver of the spectrum.

A show like this would be stimulating, but also maddening on some levels: by definition, most of us would disagree with most of the views presented, but we would be much more in touch with what the range of views is. We might be challenged more often than we are now, and might even occasionally-gasp!-change our minds about specific issues.

Until such programming exists, we'll just have to do what I suspect increasing numbers of people (especially young ones) already do: surf the net.

In Father Coughlin's time, the great information divide was between those who had the time and money to obtain education and to access multiple sources of information, and those who could not access education and a variety of information.

Now that this chasm is beginning to narrow, the new great divide will have to do with the extent to which individuals choose to access multiple sources of information and opinion, and the extent to which individuals allow their decision making to be guided by both the ability and the desire to intelligently prioritize and evaluate information and opinion.

Of course, intelligent decision making also involves careful thinking about, principles, values, ethics...

And information improperly processed can be as "dangerous" as no information at all.

All of this begins with education, both formal and informal.

Access to formal education of one kind or other is much less an issue than in the past. The great challenge is in improving access to quality education that teaches people how to intelligently navigate through an ever deeper and more turbulent sea in which information, misinformation and trivia can become indistinguishable from one another.

You have got to be kidding! I have always thought that Rachel Madow was really Keith Olbermann in drag, and that they have been using special effects when they show them in the same shot. Wow, so much for urban legends!

I love Rachel -- her success makes me as happy as Obama's does. I see them as counterparts to a new attitude that hopefully will help leave behind the hateful discourse we've seen, especially on the right, but on the left as well. There will still be loyalties to partisan views, but they can be expressed agreeably - as Rachel does it -- rather than in the disgusting vein of O'Reilly, Coulter, Limbaugh, Maher. Too bad she came from Air America rather than a more centrist journalistic background. I'd like to see her be Tim Russert's replacement rather than some worn out persona like Koppel or Couric or Chris Matthews. NBC doesn't have the guts to do it though. Nor am I sure Rachel would want that much pressure so soon.

What does it matter? When I watch shows like Maddow, O'Reilly, Hannity and Olberman, I just giggle for 2 minutes then research their statements. I find in most of what they say, there is always some part that is missing that changes the way you can look at a situation. I said in a previous comment on this blog that people should take the time to find the truth. Maybe then these shows can be just entertainment.

Shows like "The Rachel Maddow Show" and "Countdown" do not perpetuate themselves as traditional news as much as commentator shows, like radio and such. Yes, Maddow and Keith both present facts that back up their agenda, but neither of them claim to be unbiased news.

As for news, don't you think it's likely people get their news from other sources besides TV (like newspaper and such) and then want to watch some more compelling shows at the end of the day? I am more worried about people taking "FOX NEWS" as unbiased, since it presents itself that way, rather than thinking Maddow is unbiased. She clearly has an opinion on the subject, but she researches it and brings in interesting people to speak with her.

Also, Maddow is much more quasi-moderate -- that is, she's more like to bring in positive facts about conservatives and negative facts about liberals -- than a lot of her counterpart liberal shows. She's also politer and more composed than other commentators.

Isn't part of the news finding trends and forming opinions on them? Isn't it likely that people don't just want the facts, they want someone who has a background in political study (or similar subjects) to connect current events with history in a way that produces an opinion they can choose to agree or to disagree with?

I think it's fair to say that hearing one person's opinion can help people with discernment formulate their own opinions.

I wish I had the time to write a research paper on how The Oreillly Factor and Fox News for that matter ARE the most "fair and balanced". Unfortunately I don't have the time and even if I did the leftists would say that the statistics were biased and created by Fox. It wouldn't matter. God Himself could speak on TV with statistics and many liberals would not believe it.

I understand that some people are turned off by O'reilly's style and occaisionally he gets a little worked up. However, if you actually WATCHED the show WITH AN OPEN MIND and MORE than ONCE and MORE than just the clips on U-Tube, a fair and reasonable person would realize that he is pretty fair and his show has a lot to offer. I can agree that he slants SLIGHTLY to the "traditional conservative" side, but he gives liberals their fair time and if he blows up at them there is always a good reason if you see the full context. IF after watching the FULL show 2 to 3 times a week you still disagree with me then that's fine. In that case, it means we have a completely different view of the world, this country, and probably reality, and arguing with you doesn't do any of us any good. In my opinion, even if you disagree with O'reilly, anyone can learn a lot from watching his show.

As for Hannity......HE DOESN'T HIDE WHO HE IS. He is a Republican Conservative and if Fox wants to have ONE of the very few Republican Conservative commentators on their network, then that shouldn't be a big deal.

One can argue that Fox slants a little more conservative (I could concede a 6 to a 7 on a scale of 1 to 10), but putting them in the same category as MSNBC or that they are the "fringe far right" is a joke and a lie that the media wants to emphasize because they disagree with them and they get their butts kicked in the ratings.

I think Rachel Maddow is brilliant. Finally an analyst with a brain—a Rhodes scholar for god's sake. She possesses the uncanny ability to sum up an argument or a point clearly and convincingly in about 15 seconds. That's a rare gift that analysts on every network should be jealous of: the woman is awesome.

This is not a woman who gives a hoot for balance, fairness, verified facts, context or any of the other things traditional journalism have demanded in the past of those sitting at TV anchor desks.

Yeah, um, that's patently false, and kinda slanderous.

I didn't see this post until today, but it's never too late to correct an error. Or to apologize* for it.

*not to Maddow or her fans, mind you, but to the readers you've misinformed

the "bias" bent of rachel's show is not equivalent to that of hannity or bill. In her time on the air she has never driven or even obsessed over bogus or phony stories such as Ayers, Acorn, etc...

msnbc is obamas real pet ...

edited for possible slander..." Z

I hope CNN never throws in the towel and goes the way of the other cable channels. CNN is where I go because it is non an opnion channel. I have watched Rachel Maddow and she is really not much different from Olbermann they do hold people up for ridicule and use there opinion to persuade. If CNN goes there then who will we turn to on cable news? I'll have to go to BBC. Please CCN hold out and it will pay off in the end. Stick to your journalistic standards.