I like John King, but I find Wolf Blitzer's halting delivery painful to endure. Still, anything is better than watching the egomaniacal Matthews and Olbermann ask their guests questions, only to interrupt them repeatedly. Adding the arrogant Joe Scarborough to the evening mix makes for a trifecta of preening self-indulgence.

I thought CNN did a tremendous job. They had ultra-conservative Bill Bennett AND James Carville on the same set. How more bi-partisan can you get. And Anderson Cooper is a great moderator.

#1, Gregory is an idiot. If you had to play second fiddle to him, you'd probably complain too.

#2, the place I was at watched CNN over MSNBC only because CNN had HD available, and MSNBC didn't.

#3, CNN isn't fact-based or down-the-middle, it's just a jumble of occasional competence. They discussed how no one party had full control of the government since Carter. (You know, except back in 2000-2002)

#4, You don't seem to complain about FNC at all, yet this is the second time you've complained that MSNBC is ruining the world with partisan programming--you know, like Joe Scarborough. IOKIYAR.

Take a few minutes and read through the archives, and you will find plenty of complaint about Fox. My goodness, take two minutes to do some fact checking and research before you hit the send button. You'll be stunned to see how it good it feels to actually be informed for once. Thanks. Z

Man Dave, left and right both throwing the 'bows. You don't mind taking a punch do you.

my two cents. Of all the technology gizmos, Jon King's simple U.S. map provided the best statistical analysis of the election. When he showed a state-wide map or county borough, and compared it to 2004, you really understood Obama's strategy. Indiana was especially enlightening.

Of course, CNN had to follow that up with the Princess Leia-cam. The Will.I.am interview made more sense, and I could see how that technology in hat mode (interviewing politicians and stars who otherwise couldn't make it to the set) would make sense. Still, pretty hokey.

Z

Why this love of CNN and particularly the amazingly insipid John King who should have been able to call this election weeks ago if he had analyzed the data he was reporting. To compare his prognosis to Nate Silver of 538.com used by Olbermann and to think King is either a reporter or a thoughtful analyst is to deny reality. The guy is AWFUL; now perhaps he was this slow on the uptake about the electoral tsumami he was reporting had something to do with his corporate pay check or the CNN need to get viewers to tune in for their new hologram farce in order to justify its cost by pretending this election was seriously in doubt.
Neither excuse is defensible from a critical vwpt. The fact they forgot the 6 yrs Bush and the Repubs had all 3 branches of govt one of many biased news memes they should not have said on air. Their ACORN reporting also very unfair.

Blitzer is unwatchable, Campbell Brown slow on the uptake; IMHO only David Gergen's adult analysis and its HD pix are sole reasons to ever watch CNN-they are corporate entertainment disguised as a news service-hate that it so often the face of the country to the world.

Rachel Maddow, who you somehow fail to appreciate, still is the best new face in cable news cause she hosts uncluttered one on one civil and intelligent discussions with an apparent but not overbearing point of view.

Hi Tony Joe: I think you want ideology that agrees with yours, not journalism. John King is as good as it gets in Tv political journalism -- and that is pretty good. I think you want an echo chamber, not a news organization that presents sound information verified fact. And I have to tell you conspiracy you see behind Tuesday's coverage is way off. But I really enjoy the dialogue with you -- I do. We just really disagree about journalism versus what I would call propaganda for the right or left. Z

Respectfully, I do not want an echo chamber for my own precepts. CNN is simply too corporate and cautious and in league w too many biz interests....

Do you enjoy listening to a hypocritical windbag like Bill Bennett on CNN? Note I am also tired of Carville and Madelin.

If John King is as good as TV reporting now gets than why did Campbell and he
agree that no one since Carter had controlled both legis branches and the presidency? These 2 ace CNN reporters forget 5-6 yrs of the current presidency! To paraphrase McCain, that's not reporting we can believe in! John King should have called this election or at least put Obama past 270 2-3 weeks ago, but do we have to watch him spin out more ridiculous scenarios that might get Mac near 270. Nate Silver and Chuck Todd much more reality attuned entire campaign.I note yer love of the Magic Map and your silence bout the Hologram entertainment.Candy Crowley and her false equivalencies on neg campaigning was another CNN reporter failing miserably to see what was happening. Not reporting we can believe in.

I admit to being an unabashed liberal who likes Keith O but have issues w some of his recent bombastity . Chris M has often irritated me in the past w specific interviews and insensitive comments, but I have given him a personal pass for his relentless and almost unique TV questioning on the basic issue of why we went to war w Iraq w'out real cause. Wolf Blitzer John King never went into that neighborhood; they should turn in their press creds for that reason alone. I do not ask my media to alway agree w me as you posit-I ask they do their jobs w some sense of the responsibility. Blitzer, King and Crowley particularly and egregiously fail that basic responsibility INMO. And don't get me started on the ACORN story as spun by CNN, FOX, Kurtz et al; I live in this town-ACORN as some vast left wing conspiracy is Serious Loony Tunes, but these reporters did the bidding of their masters. Whether it was conscious or unconscious protection of their paychecks, or genuine incompetence: You Decide!

Personally, I prefer my discourse civil as with you here, Rachel Maddow and David Gergen on tube. Your underestimation of Maddow and her strengths just amazes and frankly upsets me; its a personal campaign to make you see the light. You are rarely so wrong; or another way of putting it- how can you defend the always unprepared Larry King on CNN to Rachel opposite on MSNBC, Brother Z?
Peace

Hi Tony Joe, I do also value our civil discourse. And I am willing to be "educated" on Maddow. I have said I like her persona and admire the fact that she is always civil as opposed to the verbal thuggery of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. You are not alone in liking Maddow, so I am listening to what you and others say. You notice I edited one part of your comment. You can see from the harsh comments I do publish that I edit almost nothing except stuff that might be libelous or considered hate speech. Certainly nothing you say would ever fall in the latter category. But the bit I edited out could be seen as borderline in terms of damaging someone's reputation. And since that someone is a competitor of mine, it might look like I was party to trying to damage their reputation. I know you were not trying to do that, but I have been trained in a school of journalism that says always error on the side of being super-cautious about other peoples' reputations, because you can take the words back with a retraction, but you rarely can undo the damage those words have done. But I'm listening on Maddow, and I do value the civil and highly informed critique you are offering. Thanks. PS Bennett is an obnoxious widbag for my money, and Carville is so far over the hill...Well, I think I will stop there. Thanks. Z

Z
I accept and understand your editing; I knew that discussion pt might unintentionally create a conundrum for you; just trying to get at the corporate money that drives so much of MSM including CNN into banality and truth avoidence. I'll let this dialogue stop here for now.
Respectfully.

Tony Joe, and I accept your point about corporate money and the fundamental structure of TV news. More later for both of us. Respectfully. Z

I think most people channel-surfed the election coverage like I did.

Surprisingly, I was most impressed with Fox News Channel's election coverage. For the most part, Fox was unusally fair and unbiased. The information and analysis from even Karl Rove was spot-on and insightful and they beat other networks to the punch on most points.

CNN had the most creative graphics and the halogram was really cool too. I didn't care too much for the commentary on CNN.

MSNBC's coverage was disappointing. There was very little insight and analysis. The graphics were boring and they spent too much time repeating the same topics.

Hi Larry, Thanks. I would disagree about Fox. I was disappointed with Rove's performance, and I have praised him in the past as an analyst. But I agree with a lot of what you said. Z