Rachel Maddow covered Mumbai and Keith didn’t. You have only politized the horrific attacks in Mumbai for your political purpose. You should be ashamed of your self. You right wing flying monkeys just can’t stop with the inflammatory rhetoric, can you?
The adults are in charge now. You children have screwed everything up starting with Reagan and terrorized the world with Bush. Now go and sit in your corner and shut up so the grown ups can put this country back together.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#27934105

If you took two seconds to read any other post on the blog and weren't knee-jerk in your defense of Olbermann and Maddow, you wouldn't embarrass yourself by referring to the author as "right wing." ("flying monkey," that's OK.) But, seriously, you are pathetic in your attempt to sieze the moral high ground. Do some woodshedding on Olbermann rhetoric and come back again when you are ready to play in this league, junior. Z

Yes, I am on the moral high ground. I don't kill people for oil or steal trillions of $ from our treasury. That's what filthy republicans do. You betcha, I am on the moral high ground. I will defend anybody who speaks the truth to right wing crap. You betcha ya by golly ya.

So behave and sit in the corner because the adults are in charge now.

As horrific as this the carnage was in Mumbai, you have the nerve to politicize it for your RIGHT wing gain.Like I just said, "Go sit in the corner you right winger and pay attention to the adults who are NOW in charge. You just might learn something about humanity"

You have just been marginalized as of Nov 4th.

Did you actually read the blog post you responded to, fool? Try reading it, and you will see how crazy it is for you to be preaching to me. Now, I know reading all the way to the end of the post with the stuff about Bush and two wars and economic collapse might be more than a nut like you can handle. But just try it before you post again. Read the post. think about it for even half a second. Then post. Then tell me you are not a fool. Thanks. Z

And lots of folks do not. I am surprised at how many readers want to defend MSNBC for leaving Mumbai for fun and games with Keith and Rachel after 10 minutes at the top of each prime-time hour that they control.

Well, no. Again, we all commented on your untruthful reporting which stated that MSNBC did not cover the Indian terrorist attacks at all. When we showed you that you were wrong, you decided to go on this riff that MSNBC didn't cover the story long enough. As if three hours of repeating the same 10 minutes of information is somehow indicative of a more professional news organization.

Quantity and quality are two different things. While I understand that some people need continuous repetition of facts to understand what happened, I managed to get everything I needed to know about the story in 10 minutes of air time.

The thing is, Mr, Zurawik, you don't get to determine what "league" you're in. Others will decide that.

PS, commentary and analysis belong to journalism, too. You can differentiate them from "hard" news, certainly, but it's all journalism and one isn't inherently "better" than the others.

Thank you, David.

The bigger issue deals with a sociological development. In the internet-age, where people can seek out like-minded people from near and far with extreme ease, there is very little tolerance for dissenting views.

Keith Olbermann, like Sean Hannity for right-wing nuts, fills the need to hear one's own point of view validated. The quotes from liberals in 2004 "I don't know how Bush won; I don't know a single person who voted for him" speaks to this polarization. Covering serious news objectively just doesn't feel sexy enough when the guilty pleasure of snarky partisanship is always available with the guarantee of large numbers of like-minded viewers.

It's unhealthy, but it's where we're at.

Hi Mike, I fear you are absolutely spot on in your assessment. Both the example, liberals not knowing anyone who voted for Bush, and the characterization on "guilty pleasure of snarky partisanship" are great. Please keep reading Z on TV as my conscience, because I know I am going to want to use that last phrase, and if you see it, you must quickly write in saying, "Hey, excuse me, Z, BUT YOU ARE STEALING MY WORDS!!." Seriously, thanks for the insight and wisdom. Z

CNN trustworthy?? Maybe you missed Eason Jordan's apology for CNN acting as Saddam Hussein's propaganda department. Or, his resignation for having fabricated stories about U.S. troops targeting journalists in Iraq. This is your definition of trustworthy?

Bingo. You said the magic "word," resignation. No organization is perfect, but when such violations are found, people are punished. Just as Dan Rather ultimately was at CBS News for going on air with allegations based on documents he had not verified. That is a cardinal sin in a fact-based journalism. CNN acknowledged the sins and moved to make sure they didn't happen again. How long ago was that, by the way? Thanks. Z

Z,

You are spot on about MSNBC and the state of news today.

FoxNews stinks. MSNBC stinks. Just about all of it stinks. Almost none of it is news. Olbermann, Maddow, O'Reilly, Dobbs... they are all just playing games with the public and it's a shame.

Further, I can't believe some of the comments above. You're certainly far conservative, but that doesn't mean you have to love MSNBC. I sure don't.

Mr. Z - I must disagree with you assertion that CNN is the only trustworthy cable channel for news and information. Fox may have its issues, but I've seen a lot of bias on CNN. Fox, with its News Corp. partners, had good coverage -- and not hosted by O'Reilly or Hannity. I think the good news is that CNN and Fox balance each other out, while MSNBC sold out to the far left.

Oh PLEASE. I watched from 7 to 10 pm. The whole hour of Hardball was dedicated to the attacks, then Keith talked about it in a segment on his show and throughout his show, whenever there were updates, he would talk about it. So, to say the attacks were completely ignored is distorting the facts. There probably weren't any updates, so after Rachel talked about it in the beginning of her show, they didn't bring it up again. BIG DEAL...

And if you are going to attack MSNBC for this then why not Fox too?? At 8pm...O'reilly also had his show going on and he didn't talk about Mumbai the whole hour either!

Sorry, Sabrina: The "whole hour" wasn't devoted to Mumbai -- not even close. The sad but true fact: Fox had more coverage than MSNBC. Nothing more needs to be said, doesn it? Z

If you're going to ANY Cable news for informed commentary for information you're fooling yourself. Cable's realm is commentary. News and hard-hitting analysis is the realm of Al-Jazeera English, BBC World, and NPR.

You can't possibly cite ANY of the cable news channels as meaningful journalism.

Oooh, Al-Jazeera English, that's where you get your "news and hard-hitting analysis." Good luck with that. Let me know how it works out. CNN shines in both respects. Z

MSNBC is nothing more than televised blogging, which as you may agree, is a medium left without fact checking and objectivity.

I would also add that CNN is not the only remaining news outlet. Fox News is not at all like MSNBC -- rather, it is the "more right" competitor to CNN. Your repeated attempts to skew the network as a channel without redeeming value shows a deep insecurity you have as a liberal Democrat. Thankfully, we the viewers have two choices, not just one, in which we can turn away from MSNBC.

Hi PD: I did praise Fox in my original post late Wednesday night. Check it out. Really, I did. Thanks. Z

You call Mumbai "news?" Yellow ,ephemeral, journalism is, obviously, here to stay. Olbermann and Maddow are in the Voltairien tradition. Bitting wit abides and I thank the both of them.

It's amazing that when conservatives had Fox and liberals had nothing to watch, all was well, but now that MSNBC has developed as a rival, conservatives are all riled up. I honestly don't understand why Maddow and Olbermann's approach to reporting has ruffled so many feathers. I love Rachel's sarcasm, wit & humor while clearly stating the events of the day in her view. Olbermann was the first to call out Bush nationally and we owe him for that. What happened in Mumbai is tragic, but with nothing new to report at the time, I'm glad MSNBC made the call they did. Calling Fox News balanced is a joke. Why, because they say so in the corner of their screen? If not for their far right agenda with Bush's talking points, MSNBC might not have become the anti-Fox. By the way, Republican Scarborough has a 3 hour show as well. Colmes on Fox doesn't count so don't bring that wimp up.

OMG! haha...I watched the whole hour of Hardball myself...it was dedicated to the attacks. I dunno what you are getting out of lying about this, its quite silly LOL.

Anyways...LOL.

Nothing more needs to be said, doesn it? Z

LOL, yes, it doesn't! ;-)

Mr. Zurawik, what I'd like to know is, what's wrong with everyone having a CHOICE in how they like their live "breaking" stories reported? What happened to the idea of "diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks"? Do you believe in the free market or don't you?

Count up the responses, pro and con. You have noticed as many, if not more, saying they prefer PERIODIC UPDATES over wall-to-wall coverage; yet, instead of taking us at our word, you reflexively interpret that as "defending MSNBC" -- as if you believe we're only saying that because we're liberal partisans, not ordinary consumers with a preference for that network's mix of information!

If you aspire to be a journalist yourself, Mr. Zurawik, you must understand that not every decision news consumers make is based on politics. There is style, allocation of time per story, inclusion of stories no one else is covering, etc. I hate to say this but your current thinking seems stuck in a partisan rut.

In response to Carol and others...

The problems with Fox News are so glaring that yes, they are often not cited. I have a feeling Z considers the problems so obvious and so well-documented that there's no need to mention it further.

Even so, Z takes his shots at Fox News. He just doesn't go full into it these days because, as just stated, it's been so over-covered. Even in this post, Z mentions Fox as being just as bad as MSNBC. Read it.

The shots at Fox News are there, regularly. But Fox has been bad forever. The "news" these days is the change in MSNBC. MSNBC is becoming a liberal version of Fox News and that's what Z is reporting.

Repeat: He is not reporting Fox News because Fox News hasn't changed. It was bad when it started and it's bad now. That's not news. The change in MSNBC, that is. And it's unfortunate. There's what's really getting lost in the ideological posts above - that MSNBC's transition is bad, but more than bad it is saddening. It is disheartening. It is downright unfortunate.

Hi Dan, Thanks so much. You are right: I have banged away on Fox since day one when I started this blog Sept. 7. So, thanks for pointing that out. It does surpise me when folks do not take the time to even read a post or two before deciding someone is Satan. Anyway, thanks. Here is an idea for all you folks who think I love Fox, do a google search on zurawik & hannity & palin and see what you get. Then try zurawik & van susteren, and see what you get. Asking you to do a Google search isn't asking too much,folks, is it? If it is, let me know. We can dumb it down further if you want. Z .

Z

We have gone around on this before and you seem wedded to the MSM meme about how MSNBC has no integrity post Olbermann and Maddow.
Last time you were citing an D Shuster incident that occurrred on another MSNBC show and blaming Maddow and Olbermann for the demise of network integrity. I feel that attack would be like saying that what Rick Sanchez does with his motor mouth and small brain reflects on the Anderson Cooper show negatively-absurd on the face of it and a very unfair arguing point. However I will defend your ability to see the problems with the "fair and balanced" Faux News. Unfortunately you seem unaware Larry King, who seems never to have prepared for a show since he moved to LA in search of younger women, gets so much facetime on CNN. Bluntly, from the first nite Maddow is a better hour of information than L King in the past 12 years. And somewhere in your MSNBC diatribes I bet you know that too!!

I had been thinking in the spirit of fair play to email you about the blocks of Lockup that filled the MSNBC airwaves during this holiday weekend instead of real news and use it to illustrate the point that NBC has put too little money into the MSNBC ops and then when they do, they will compete w CNN because CNN is not the current answer to Edward R Murrow's old CBS standards. Give MSNBC HD Channel and full-time reporters they will compete successful. If CNN had gone to their sister IBN (?) network feed it would have been better becuse their was scrolled news flashes on it that looked infrmative but were regulary obscured by the CNN too busy graphic design. I watched CNN cause it was the best available but it was no great shakes to Americans trying to learn some details.

I admit to being at a disadvantage since I was not watching the Maddow show in question (I did see matthews show and as other reader stated it was pretty much all Mumbai and was Olbermann pre-taped that day?), but I feel you have since you have begun to appear on CNN on a semi-regular basis are becoming too much of their defender, and, as the honest man I believe you to be, should rethink this silly line of attack. MSNBC has its less than stellar personaltiites (Scarborough, Buchanan (who does surpsingly well w Maddow),Gregory can be a bit vague on the questions, and Matthews is very inconsistant in a highly caffenatyed way) but they have asked the questions of why Iraq War bagan and torture authorized by our govt that CNN has not, to the great detriment of the Republic.

Please step back from this CNN love-fest cause it will cause me eventually to question your objectivity. That would be a real loss for all of us in Crabtown trying to see the world as it really is.

Hi Tony Joe. What I have been trying to say is that when MSNBC committed to Maddow, it made me see more clearly where management was headed. It wasn't her personally in any way. It was the commitment to all of prime time devoted to the kind of list-and-laughs take on selected events of the day done by Maddow and Olbermann. When it was just Olbermann, rightly or wrongly, I felt the major commitment was to all-news. But the move to someone as partisan as her, made me realize these guys are trying to be the left-wing Fox. I coming to understand the Daily Show wanne be vibe more in recent weeks as well. It's OK. It just isn't news. It's the used-to-be-news MSNBC to me. Z

One point I haven't seen addressed in this discussion is that the reason that Fox and MSNBC don't dedicate tons of time to global news, no matter how "breaking," is that they are not built for reporting, especially internationally. The biggest innovation of Fox News (which MSNBC is imitating) is that they realized that it's much more efficient to air in-studio commentary rather than attempting to match CNN's reporting bureaus. This, more than ideology, is what marks the Fox/MSNBC shift - and can explain why the lack of coverage of Mumbai is not necessarily a bad thing. Would an extra 45 minutes of in-studio chatter add that much to the coverage?

Z
I think the lack of a full-time news service at MSNBC has been long apparent and more crucial with the pattern of Lockup docs to fill up hours cheaply.

I strongly disagree w your association of Maddow with a comic or less serious turn of the news viewpt at MSNBC; anyone who gives Andrew Bacevich's clear headed analysis of the limits of the American Empire 7 minutes to elaborate is doing our country a great service and is not in just for yucks. MSNBC has its problems but the structural and financial ones that impede their presentation clearly predate Maddow's arrival.

I must again ask what kind of commitment to news is CNN showing with its Larry King show? Are you that comfortable with that opposite Maddow and actually prefer King who appears to me to almost never listen to the answers his guests give him? Also on the internet I saw this strange CNN Deepok Chopeh interview where it appeared that he was cut off from the air when he began to discuss Mumbai as some sort of blowback vs the Bush doctrine- this is not top notch news analysis from CNN. It appeared to be censorship and that is CNN's greatest ongoing failure; it has refused to seriously analyze the logic of the Bush Doctrine. Its minions have consistantly failed to connect the dots of our foreign policy and assign responsibility to the outgoing Bush Cheney crowd.
I don't see this as a political bias other than a bias towards the corporate intersts that pay their salaries and I see that as more pernicious to Democracy than a recognizable political bent by any commentator.

I fail to see CNN the news winner when they put the vacous Campbell Brown and the uninterested Larry King opposite Olbermann and Maddow and I think it is a strange scoring system you would have to employ to score that a net news plus for CNN.

Jason, you're exactly right. So it just may be that MSNBC made a virtue of economic necessity when it rebranded itself as "the place for politics," since the parent company, for whatever reason, wasn't giving it enough money to do a good job of what it had been trying to do previously: be a full service 24-hour news channel.

I believe they have a more-than-adequate on-air team to compete on that score with CNN; however, it requires a mind-boggling amount of money to maintain bureaus all over the world and right now I'm not sure any of the three broadcast networks are doing that. Ted Turner saw that change coming long ago, didn't he, when he brought news to cable and made it an around-the-clock international service?

CNN alone seems to have kept that part of its news organization healthy, and for that it deserves great credit. However, there's plenty to talk about on the domestic front and there's nothing wrong with channels presenting mostly domestic news, in my opinion, as long as they do it well.

Just one question and you can reply privately to my email address or answer this post publicly.

Why didn't you post my last installment? Are you afraid I rang the truth bell? It's obvious to me that I did.

I understand if you strike a post because of disrespectful and foul language, but to not let my post go through because your disagree with it is dishonest to say the least.

So therefore, how can I trust anything that you write?

Hi, what post are you talking about? I only delete for hate speech or libel. I have not deleted any post for about week. Send it again, and I'll either publish or tell you why I didn't. I pride myself on not deleting stuff. Thanks. Z

So, we don't live in a democracy if we can't see 24-hour hard news coverage? Then I guess we weren't a democracy for the first 200 years.

Important as it is, the salient points about the Mumbai attacks can be picked up in about ten minutes.

CNN is a trustworthy cable channel for news and information?

You've been watching too much tv.

Yes, it is with a larger international staff and more resources than any publication you can name. Time to get over your prejudice about television, my friend. Thanks. Z

"The adults are in charge now". That's a really funny talking point. What's really funny is that the people who say stupid stuff like this actually believe it - wait, truth be known, it isn't funny and it isn't sad, it's a combination of pathetic, delusional and elitist - just the kind of mentality these people claimed to hate about George W. Bush.

Hubris - look it up - some of you are there already.

Here's the thing, at Fox News, they are very clear about making distinctions between hard news, news analysis and commentary at CNN, if you actually believe that Campbell Brown is "No Bias and No Bull" you're a fool's fool. Regardless of whether it's Fox, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC or MSNBC, sides were chosen and any previous appearance of impartiality was lost. Chris Matthews "cold chill down his leg" was 10 times creepier than John Madden's man-crush on Brett Favre and 8 times creepier than Joe Buck's man-crush on Troy Aikman. As for Olbermann, he does what a no-talent provocateur does - he reads the teleprompter like a chimp and appeals to people who really don't want to think too hard.

Just wanted to say I always believed CNN reports the news, FOX and MSNBC talk about what CNN reports. No biggie though. I don't think Mr. Z you're quite right that CNN is the ONLY source. BBC also reports the news, and well. So does CBC - both available on satellite. For those who can still read, AP, Reuters and AFP do a good job and there's plenty to be found on the Internet. So I'm not worried about CNN's domination of the Earth, but I'm happy they're out there.

Fox News has hard news AND opinion commentators, and they tell you up front.

The fact that you say there's only one cable channel left, and ti's CNN shows you're biased too. CNN leans left, there is no doubt about that, their shameless cheerleading for Obama shows that. They copied Fox News format of commentators in prime time and hard news the rest of the day.

Report it right, or you are just as disgraceful as MSNBC

MSNBC spent hours and hours during the day on Mumbai, even though there was little new to report (as often happens in these chaotic and ongoing situations). I'm not saying it was top-flight; it wasn't. But it was there. I did not see the networks' major evening news broadcasts, but I'll wager they were pretty heavy on the terrorist attacks as well.
So by 8 p.m., was there anything ELSE to say about the then-unknown attackers or extent of the damage and casualties? Were they supposed to find new "experts" to pontificate on a situation they really knew nothing about?
If not, a reminder that other things are happening in the world is welcome.

And before lauding all praise on CNN, let's remember what they did to CNN Headline - to me, a valuable regular newscast throughout the day. They dumped it in favor of still more talkers, including the likes of reality-challenged Glenn Beck. Beck!
Was CNN Headlines all Mumbai, too? Don't know, I gave up on it years ago.

Hi, If you think the story was over by 8 p.m., there is nothing left for us to say. We are on two different planets. Z

MSNBC is a talk show. A 24-hour talk show. Scratch that - a 12-hour talk show; they broadcast prison porn ("Locked Up") at night. The rest is punditry.

Count me in with those who only watch CNN and Fox. And even CNN, which has more resources, rarely airs original reporting on its American channel (CNN International must get the good stories.) Do an audit of these channels - most hours are dedicated to pundits, anchors who read news, more pundits, more guests of pundits to discuss what's on the wires.

Hello AJ: You are right about the "locked up" so-called documentaries. I have to question, though, your claim that CNN rarely airs original reporting on its American channels. I think it has more original repporting than many newspapers even. By and large, it had nothing but original reporting on the presidential campaigns -- with more reporters and producers on the campiagn trail for more hours thaan anyone else. They cover White House, State, Defense, Congress -- all with full-time staffers. maybe we are just thinking of a different sense of "original" reporting. Can you clarify? Thanks. Z

Maddow and Olbermann would have only discussed the attacks had they found a way to blame bush,Mccain and Palin for them as those are the only things they are concerned with
They try hard to veer from anything that may center around Obama
Their comedy well call it that if you like I find it annoying to try to make sense of what they are performing
Maddow for one is not the intelligent classy person she is bragged up to be
Her speech consists of thingy quackadoo sort of kinda
and the howdy doody culture thing how pathetic is that
news huh?
Unless they can bow to praise their idol they could care a less whats happening in the world
any standing they or Chrissy had in the news world died along with their personal attacks on everyone who didnt follow Obama
They did it to them selves
How long will they blame bush Mccain Palin Clinton etc for Obamas misgivings--FOREVER

Maddow has critized Palin in such an
incredibily crude, rude manner and
sadly, Palin is a very intelligent woman and has accomplished more
than Maddow could ever hope to.
Besides, Palin has class and Maddow? I am not sure what she has, but whatever, it is ugly.

Hi David,
If you didn't already, you should catch Jon Stewart's take on MSNBC as the network for the new administration. The Daily Show last night (Dec. 1st) addresses some of the same issues you've been talking about.

Hi Laura Lee: Thanks for the heads-up -- and for noticing. Z

I am glad Olbermann and Maddow are on the Air .For years I have watch Fox tell lies and CNN look the other way; while the nation has went down. It is obvious that you and others are just jealous of there success. I feel sorry for you and all the other MSNBC haters out there. This is a new day and if you do not like MSNBC do not look at it.