RACHAEL MADDOW HAS MORE NADS THAN KO!

[originalpckelly]

She just covered the Stewart thing, but Keith Olbermann did not!

[Ichingcarpenter]

1. I loss the feed did she cover it much?

or just give it a brush over?

[originalpckelly]

3. She started out by listing all the things that happened today...

as an excuse to talk about it, and then she went for it. :-)

Although she did appear to try to minimize it by saying the Washington Post eliminated its business section.

[Ichingcarpenter]

15. She brushed over it by taking about ratings

I don't call that covering it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. the WAPO eliminated their business section

perhaps coincidence, perhaps not... you do the math

[Ichingcarpenter]

The Washington Post and NBC news are joined at the hip

Jack Welch, the autocratic chairman and CEO of General Electric, was watching the evening news on NBC, the network his company owns. It was October 19, 1987 -- Black Monday. GE's stock had been hammered along with the rest of the market. And there was Tom Brokaw, the anchorman whose generous salary was paid for by GE's shareholders, whipping viewers into a panic.
Welch was incensed. He picked up the phone and got NBC News chief Lawrence Grossman on the line. "You're killing all the stocks," Welch angrily informed him. Replied Grossman: "This is not an appropriate discussion to be having."

Within a year, Grossman was gone.

The tale is ominously instructive in light of a blockbuster announcement made on November 17. The Washington Post Company and NBC News are now partners. The deal brings together one of the most admired organizations in journalism -- the Post of Katharine Graham and Ben Bradlee and Woodward and Bernstein and All the President's Men -- with GE's Welch and Bill Gates, whose Microsoft Corporation collaborates with NBC on the MSNBC cable news network and the MSNBC.com Web site. Reporters from the Washington Post and Newsweek, which the Post Company owns, are already appearing on MSNBC's newscasts. MSNBC.com and the Post's Web site are featuring each other's content. Soon, Newsweek's Web site will be incorporated into MSNBC.com.

These collaborations are far more extensive than the ones MSNBC previously had with the New York Times, whose partnership deal was dropped last week. Yet in this Age of Synergy, the Post Company-NBC News deal was a one-day story, and not a very prominent one at that. In fact, it deserves far closer scrutiny.

Media combinations inevitably lead to diminished competition, fewer voices, a blander, more sterile type of journalism -- and a less well-informed public. Though reportedly little or no money has changed hands in the NBC News-Post Company deal, the partnership is not, at least when it comes to the public interest, all that different from a merger. The idea, after all, is for each of the partners to increase its profits -- which means that each has an interest in the other's well-being. "When someone's your partner, they're your partner. And if that partner is helping you make money, you will protect the partnership as jealously as you might protect your own interests," says Mark Crispin Miller, a professor of media studies at New York University and the director of the Project on Media Ownership.

The Post -- which dominates the Washington area but which, unlike competitors such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, has scant national distribution -- is understandably eager to expand its base. In doing so, however, it has jumped into bed with the two companies whose stock-market valuations are the highest in the world: General Electric ($451.3 billion as of November 19) and Microsoft ($443.8 billion). When measured against those giants, the Post Company's market capitalization of $5.7 billion barely qualifies as a rounding error.

More important, GE and Microsoft are controversial, predatory corporations. GE is a major military contractor and nuclear-power-plant manufacturer that is often embroiled in disputes, legal and otherwise, over the way it conducts its business. Microsoft, of course, is involved in a highly publicized anti-trust case. Both companies ought to be subject to tough, independent scrutiny. But now, every Post or Newsweek journalist who covers GE or Microsoft will have to wonder what Jack Welch and Bill Gates will think. (And Welch, in particular, has never been shy about expressing his views; see "The Wages of Synergy," right.) Maybe those journalists will pull their punches; maybe they'll be a little tougher than they otherwise might, hoping to show their colleagues that they can't be intimidated. Either way, something will have been lost.>>>>>>snip


http://www.bostonphoenix.com/archive/features/99/11/25/DON_T_QUOTE_ME.html

[elleng]

38. Did NOT eliminate;

'integrated' with another section for cost reasons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031302275.html?hpid=moreheadlines

[tekisui]

2. Who knows, maybe they had an agreement on who would cover it?

[originalpckelly]

4. Oh give me a fucking break...

When there's a tip out there that no one will talk about it, no one does until Rachael, and even when she does it she has to cover it up with some excuse about all the stories today, it's clear what happened.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

30. And you believe everything you're told,

right?

That's rich.

[dem629]

6. KO: "Rachel, you take the poo-flinging Stewart/Cramer story."

RM: "Yes, sir."

[me b zola]

24. Do you like anyone or anything progressive?

I just came from a thread where you were dissing Michael Eric Dyson. Just who exactly is your cup of tea?

[Tangerine LaBamba]

5. It's old news

KO had other, more compelling stories. I think everything has already been said about it.

Why are people so quick to condemn when someone who's clearly One Of Us doesn't behave as they know he should? It's unseemly and confusing......................

[originalpckelly]

8. Shyeah whatever.

I think we're so quick to condemn because we all know how the media really works, and that we all heard about MSNBC's producers being told not to cover the story.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

10. Ah, yes..........

You do possess all that inside information about how news stories are selected for the news shows on network and cable. I forgot that you're privy to the policy decisions and the rationales behind them. It slipped my mind that you are all that internally and intellectually connected.

So you believe everything you read on the blogosphere? That's very, very smart, too.

(Insert sarcasm emoticon on your own time........)

[misanthrope]

20. Well, I've seen the very same at media outlets and that's exactly what happens...

...Olberman wasn't directly told not to cover it, but the decision was certainly made based on job security and thin skin.

Maddow had a life before this. She has a PhD. Olberman is a talking head. He's nothing without a camera.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

21. Actually, he's an old sports guy.

Degree from Cornell at age twenty, and a long and impressive career as a sports commentator on radio and TV. You obviously know nothing about him.

I don't suppose you saw the post from KO today about not always covering Jon Stewart's shows. It was most enlightening, but, since he doesn't have a Ph.D., he cannot be either believed or trusted.

I have a couple of graduate degrees, one of them a Ph.D. Will you believe everything I say?

Fool.

[misanthrope]

25. I know plenty about Olberman...

...and remember him fully well from his days in sports. Sports commentators, especially on ESPN, are most indeed talking heads. He is a media creature through and through.

Rachel? Not so much. Her intellect, temperament and measured presentation towers over Olberman's.

Olberman strikes me as being much too full of himself, on a par with Bill O'Reilly. I would beg to venture that Jon Stewart's mind is far sharper than either of those bloviating clowns. Considering the comments Stewart had for Carlson and Begala, it surprises me none that Olberman would steer clear of the comedian/commentator as I'm thinking he might have some choice comments for KO as well if pushed hard enough.

And unfortunately, your pair of grad degrees aren't nearly as revealing as the hostility and rash impetuousness in your closing comment.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

28. If you're so familiar with Olbermann,

you might want to try spelling his name correctly.

Clearly, you've got the hots for Rachel and Keith Olbermann, well, no matter what he does, he'll never measure up to your rigorous standards.

I am laughing at your most personal evaluation of someone you've only seen on TV. How he "strikes" you plays large in your judgment of someone you'll never meet, so you decide that he is "full of himself." That's a real show of discriminating intelligence.

My dear, I smell projection coupled most unattractively with resentment.

That's all right. You're perfectly fine just as you are. Don't let the world tell you otherwise.

And now, you may leave.................

[misanthrope]

33. Tsk, tsk! Such condescension...for what does it overcompensate?**nm

**

[Tangerine LaBamba]

35. Congratulations!

You spelled "condescension" correctly!

So, do you often have these "personal" moments with on-screen personalities you've never met? Do you often "know" what someone is thinking, even if you've never met them?

Do those little fugues occur often?

I know that answers aren't your strong suit. If my queries made you anxious, I apologize. It's just that I don't often encounter this kind of separation from reality, so it's kind of interesting.

It's nice, though, isn't it, that you can piggyback on someone else's thinking? I'm sure that is a great relief to you.

QUICK! What is Keith Olbermann thinking right now?

[misanthrope]

36. KO is thinking...

...ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

[Tangerine LaBamba]

37. Good one...........

:thumbsup:

[Medusa]

13. Newsflash: Someone making upwards of $7M a year

ain't "one of us". Who pays him that kinda money? The media. The corporate-owned media and they do not get any more corporate than GE.

Kudos for Rachel for not forgetting where she is from and not bending to corporate pressure unlike certain other corporate-owned media talking heads who don't talk about what's not comfortable for their corporate masters to hear.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

16. So, income counts, but not political beliefs?

You have some very odd standards.

I see KO as One Of Us, but, clearly, you don't qualify.

[Canuckistanian]

42. It made top story in Canada

This was HUGE. They showed clips on the CBC Evening news.

How could it not be "compelling" enough even to be mentioned by a major media figure?

[backscatter712]

7. Keith made a few posts on Daily Kos about the rumors of corporate muzzling...

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2009/3/13/182441/605/333#c333

By The Way

The assumption that we would automatically do a story on a story Jon Stewart did is not a good one.

There is no interaction between his show and mine, and while it's possible that we did some significant segments on any of his previous smackdowns or vivisections (as good as they might have been), I don't remember when that would've been. So it's either not happened, or it hasn't happened in a long time.

Also the premise of corporate no-touch orders to keep what happened "quiet" is silly. That horse (in fact, an entire stable-full) left that barn as soon as the video hit the internet. My understanding is Rachel's doing a little something on this.

There is also - and of course I know this from being on the other end - the element of competitive gamesmanship about this. If there had been anybody of Cramer's heft on Fox Business, subjected to Stewart's hammering, I don't know that ABC, CBS and Fox would've been quite so interested in covering it. Conversely, I recall Stewart doing a lot of hammering of Foxies and it's not like I've turned all of those into 10-minute segments on this show.

by Keith Olbermann on Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 06:38:04 PM MDT

Keith also makes a few replies in the ensuing thread.

[originalpckelly]

9. I seem to remember Keith cover tons of Stewart's stuff before.

The Daily Show has been dull for a while now, this last week has been its best in a year or two.

But when it was better, Keith covered it pretty frequently.

[Ichingcarpenter]

11. I don't buy his GE light bulb

sorry keith, that's a lame reply or explanation.

He knew that this was gonna be a story and step up on KOS
to stop it fast...... Disappointing and Keith is one of my favorites.

You should post this as a separate OP

[Tangerine LaBamba]

12. THANK YOU!!!!!!

But, isn't this just proof that KO IS IN ON THE CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE?????????

He was probably FORCED to write this and then post it.

(Guess which emoticon goes here ----------->)

[notadmblnd]

14. The reason it should have been covered is because what Jon Stewart did was news

He didn't just go and bad mouth an arrogant Wall Street insider or make him look bad. He exposed them for what they were, crooks! The market manipulation and the disappearance of trillions of dollars and the loss 4 million jobs is a direct result of their criminal actions, and that is the news.

No, the story KO should have covered, should not have been about Jon or Cramer. The story should have been about the crimes that Jon exposed.

[rocktivity]

23. Nice try, Keith, but NEWS is NEWS is NEWS

and what happened last night was NEWS that everyone was talking about the next day!

:headbang:
rocktivity

[backscatter712]

41. I agree, though I don't blame Keith.

He was muzzled by his bosses, and there was no way he'd discuss it with random people on the Internet.

I'm kind of surprised. Yes, GEM$NBC could fire Keith if he bucked his bosses and talked about Cramer and Stewart - hell, he wouldn't have to do anything particularly controversial - it's not like he'd be uttering ethnic slurs on the air - he'd just be covering a story his bosses wanted to be kept quiet.

Keith could do that, and yes, would be called to the carpet for it. But would GEM$NBC fire one of their cash cows? Keith probably has the best ratings of any program on MSNBC, and if they canned him, they'd feel the hit right in the pocket book as people like us went elsewhere for their news. Maybe other consequences were threatened, like the usual threats to withhold access to various Congresscritters and bigwigs...

Ironically, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have more freedom than Keith and Rachel do to cover controversial stories that piss off important people. Since they're purportedly comedians, not journalists, they're expected to "throw cream pies" and piss everyone off. All the important bigwigs and Congresscritters who would deny Stewart and Colbert access for interviews have already done so, which means they have nothing to lose. They don't get the scoops very often, but they don't need them, as their schtick isn't scoops, but making people laugh. And their shows are Comedy Central's cash cow, so they'd have to do something truly horrible before the executives fire them. Pissing off bigwigs by doing things like calling out CNBC, or Colbert's razzing of George W. Bush TO HIS FACE in 2006 only makes them more popular.

Stewart and Colbert, by being the 21st century court jesters, can say and do things that nobody else dares to say.

[steelmania75]

17. So? Keith's still #1 in my book.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

22. Amen.........

Mine, too.

:toast:

[Tarheel_Dem]

40. Plus 2. (nt)

[moundsview]

18. I understand what you mean

But after seeing the photo of Rachel and Susan that a lot of RW message boards are having fun with that might just be an unfortunate subject line.

[originalpckelly]

19. Men and women have nads...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonads

[Joe Fields]

26. I loves me some Rachael!!!!!

[merh]

29. I watched The Daily Show and I viewed the video again today

Jon was good, but he wasn't that great - I mean it wasn't as earth shattering as so many believe it to have been.

Stewart made good points and Cramer was mealy mouthed, but it wasn't the ass whooping that warranted coverage from all other journalists.

IMHO, some folks need hobbies or to at least take a break and go live in the real world for a little while. :eyes:

[Tangerine LaBamba]

31. You know why it was so newsworthy

(but it's old news now and other events have taken place)?

Because it was an in-depth discussion of something very significant in America and in the world, and it was conducted by A COMEDIAN.

THAT was the story - the content was excellent, but the story was that all of our media have been sitting on their asses while A COMEDY SHOW delivered the goods.

[merh]

32. And John Stossels believes his version of the truth

as portrayed on his program tonight was legitimate.

And Stewart made the same points he made with Cramer on Letterman's two nights before.

Olbermann and Maddow covering all things Stewart and Letterman is often just preaching to the choir, progressives watch them, the folks that matter, that need to know don't.

[Stephanie]

39. I don't think that's the reason why it struck such a chord.

It was the sheer bluntness of his statements. The irrefutable evidence of crimes he produced on videotape. The refusal to back down! Which is what Stewart has in common with Obama. I love these kickass liberal men!

[Political Heretic]

34. I just came in to read the thread hijack about sexism.... lets see if I find it. I'll be back

*goes to read the thread now*

EDIT - wow actually none yet.