Done with MSNBC

[AFBlue]

Okay, first of all let me just say that I can't stand the clear bias of Fox News, so that was never an option for me to watch campaign coverage.

I had always felt that CNN had a liberal lean to it as well, so I figured I'd settle on MSNBC as a middle ground....I was wrong.

Between Olbermann, who is about as transparent as possible, and now giving Maddow a show...I can't take it anymore.

I found myself watching CNN for the most unbiased coverage of tonight's action and have been looking for other alternatives.

Is Anderson Cooper, John King, and co. the best I'm going to be able to do? Anyone have some additional options?

[hitmanyr2k]

All of those shows are more about spin and tabloid journalism these days. CNN isn't at the crap level of MSNBC and Fox but they're starting to crawl towards that way as well. That's the reason I stick with C-Span.

[Mr. Body]

Go, whiner. A couple libs finally on TV and you get your panties in a bunch.

[JoeChalupa]

Okay, first of all let me just say that I can't stand the clear bias of Fox News, so that was never an option for me to watch campaign coverage.

I had always felt that CNN had a liberal lean to it as well, so I figured I'd settle on MSNBC as a middle ground....I was wrong.

Between Olbermann, who is about as transparent as possible, and now giving Maddow a show...I can't take it anymore.

I found myself watching CNN for the most unbiased coverage of tonight's action and have been looking for other alternatives.

Is Anderson Cooper, John King, and co. the best I'm going to be able to do? Anyone have some additional options?

I've also found myself watching more CNN lately. But I do flip to FoxNews to hear what the right has to say and MSNBC for the left point of view. I do however like "Morning Joe" on MSNBC as Joe Scarborough give praise when deserved and criticism as well on both sides. As a republican he has one of the most non-partisan views around and I also like Pat Buchanan's analysis as well. But yeah right after the Forum tonight Sean Hannity was bashing Obama but Newt Gingrich did tell Sean that Obama did very well.
But yeah, CNN seems to have about as non-partisan as you are going to get.

[JoeChalupa]

All of those shows are more about spin and tabloid journalism these days. CNN isn't at the crap level of MSNBC and Fox but they're starting to crawl towards that way as well. That's the reason I stick with C-Span.

I watched the majority of the conventions on C-Span.

[Mr. Body]

C-Span is the way to go. Everybody else is spinning.

[AFBlue]

Go, whiner. A couple libs finally on TV and you get your panties in a bunch.

So I start out by saying that I can't stand the bias of Fox News (a noted conservative leaning network) and you call me a whiner for complaining about libs....how much sense does that make?

You clearly missed the point...

I just want to turn on the tv and get election coverage that doesn't have anchors (not "strategists" that have established bias) giving one-sided coverage or eliciting transparent opinions....one way or the other.

I was just looking for a network or a group of anchors that people on this board generally thought of as covering this election in an unbiased manner.

If "go whiner" is the best advice you can give....thanks, but no thanks.

[Mr. Peabody]

So I start out by saying that I can't stand the bias of Fox News (a noted conservative leaning network) and you call me a whiner for complaining about libs....how much sense does that make?

You clearly missed the point...

I just want to turn on the tv and get election coverage that doesn't have anchors (not "strategists" that have established bias) giving one-sided coverage or eliciting transparent opinions....one way or the other.

I was just looking for a network or a group of anchors that people on this board generally thought of as covering this election in an unbiased manner.

If "go whiner" is the best advice you can give....thanks, but no thanks.

CSPAN and PBS were pretty good during the conventions and actually showed all of the speeches.

[AFBlue]

I've also found myself watching more CNN lately. But I do flip to FoxNews to hear what the right has to say and MSNBC for the left point of view. I do however like "Morning Joe" on MSNBC as Joe Scarborough give praise when deserved and criticism as well on both sides. As a republican he has one of the most non-partisan views around and I also like Pat Buchanan's analysis as well. But yeah right after the Forum tonight Sean Hannity was bashing Obama but Newt Gingrich did tell Sean that Obama did very well.
But yeah, CNN seems to have about as non-partisan as you are going to get.

I do like Joe Scarborough and I even like David Gregory of MSNBC. I guess I'm not dicking on the network as a whole, but I'm looking for who you think has the best coverage.

[AFBlue]

What anchors ask the right, tough questions in as balanced a way as possible?

[Wild Cobra]

The simple truth is this:

Journalism is dead!

All one can do is listen to the left and the right commentators, and try to decipher the truth.

[Spurminator]

All one can do is listen to the left and the right commentators, and try to decipher the truth.

:bang:bang:bang

[Nbadan]

Journalism is dead!

Investigative journalism is dead, except for a few exemptions here or there like Sy Hersh...our M$M is the main reason for the bogus war in Iraq, the Cheney team played them like a two dollar whore...

[shelshor]

CSPAN gets my vote, plus they showed the speeches at the conventions without the talking sock puppets talking/spinning over them

[Viva Las Espuelas]

and now giving Maddow a showis that the dyke?!

[AFBlue]

is that the dyke?!

Wow, I don't know about her sexual orientation.

What I know is that she doesn't declare herself for party or position and is presumably there to offer unbiased reaction/response to the news of the day....at which she fails miserably.

I won't be watching her show...mostly because she's annoying.

The only one that I'll watch who has a biased opinion on that network is Chris Matthews, because it's pure entertainment. And his hair is downright rediculous.

[I am Tom]

If you want non bias news you have to watch jihad or some other TV not connected to USA funding.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

If you want non bias news you have to watch jihad or some other TV not connected to USA funding.
i try to watch bbc, but it's pretty apparent that they think we're a joke, and that's pretty sad coming from england.

[RandomGuy]

Okay, first of all let me just say that I can't stand the clear bias of Fox News, so that was never an option for me to watch campaign coverage.

I had always felt that CNN had a liberal lean to it as well, so I figured I'd settle on MSNBC as a middle ground....I was wrong.

Between Olbermann, who is about as transparent as possible, and now giving Maddow a show...I can't take it anymore.

I found myself watching CNN for the most unbiased coverage of tonight's action and have been looking for other alternatives.

Is Anderson Cooper, John King, and co. the best I'm going to be able to do? Anyone have some additional options?

Contrary to what quite a few would believe, some of the most unbiased coverage of the election comes from NPR.

[101A]

PBS is not too bad.

Leherer is about a unbiased as they come; and the guys on the left and right aren't bomb-throwers. Kind of a Joe Friday "Just the Facts" thing going on.

[NASCARdad]

I get my news from Rush Limbaugh.

[DarkReign]

i try to watch bbc, but it's pretty apparent that they think we're a joke, and that's pretty sad coming from england.

Can you blame them? We elected Bush....twice.

While I believe that has more to do with Kerry than Bush, its still hilarious in retrospect that a majority of the EVs in this country thought the coke-head, born-again Christian who cant put two sentences together from a teleprompter and routinely butchered the English language as we know it was a FAR better choice.

The American people, in general, are nimdrods. Keep them dumb and theyll elect representative people to office. Why do you think the elections have bolied down to political theater and character development?

Because the viewing audience is entirely too shallow to see anything beyond appearance and gusto. Swayed by the grand speeches of Obamessiah and hard-core badassness of McSame (did you know he was a POW?).

The people of our country deserve this. We allowed this expansion, this decline, this over involvement. It may not have been you and me, per say, but we are a part of the problem nonetheless.

Its emabarassing listening to some of my family drudge their heavy-heels thru a political conversation. Its troubling listening to the people at work espouse their ignorance at any given chance because their audience is amazed they read the news at all, so they believe it.

When spam emails are taken as fact, when soundbytes are used to determine policy and position, the system is from there on broken. God bless America.

[Mr. Peabody]

PBS is not too bad.

Leherer is about a unbiased as they come; and the guys on the left and right aren't bomb-throwers. Kind of a Joe Friday "Just the Facts" thing going on.

I like Lehrer as a debate moderator. I'm glad he's moderating again this year.

[Mr. Peabody]

Can you blame them? We elected Bush....twice.

While I believe that has more to do with Kerry than Bush, its still hilarious in retrospect that a majority of the EVs in this country thought the coke-head, born-again Christian who cant put two sentences together from a teleprompter and routinely butchered the English language as we know it was a FAR better choice.

The American people, in general, are nimdrods. Keep them dumb and theyll elect representative people to office. Why do you think the elections have bolied down to political theater and character development?

Because the viewing audience is entirely too shallow to see anything beyond appearance and gusto. Swayed by the grand speeches of Obamessiah and hard-core badassness of McSame (did you know he was a POW?).

The people of our country deserve this. We allowed this expansion, this decline, this over involvement. It may not have been you and me, per say, but we are a part of the problem nonetheless.

Its emabarassing listening to some of my family drudge their heavy-heels thru a political conversation. Its troubling listening to the people at work espouse their ignorance at any given chance because their audience is amazed they read the news at all, so they believe it.

When spam emails are taken as fact, when soundbytes are used to determine policy and position, the system is from there on broken. God bless America.

You know, I was thinking this morning that television has really changed the type of candidates that we get. I don't think it's any coincidence that in this election we have two younger, fit, attractive candidates; people that look good during the 24-hour news cycle.

I was wondering today if there's not some overweight balding guy that would be a great president, but could never get elected because of his appearance. Maybe, TV and the 24-hour news cycle has left us with spokesmodels, who repeat focus group tested talking points.

A similar phenomena happened in the music industry. When MTV started, people started seeing their favorite musicians on TV constantly. All of a sudden image became ultra-important in selling the package. Right after MTV started broadcasting, we got the hair bands, with layers of makeup and tons of hairspray. The music wasn't all that good, but the image sold.

I remember seeing a Behind the Music on Christopher Cross and one of the commentators on the program said that MTV killed his career. He had a bunch of hits in the early eighties, but couldn't make it on MTV because he was a tubby balding guy. Prior to MTV maybe you'd see the guy's image on the album (if the label even put on there) and that's it, you could put it out of your mind. After MTV, the image was in your face and you couldn't help but notice that your favorite musicians didn't look like you thought they would.

Same thing in politics. It's the image that sells, not the substance. This election really has become nothing more than a superficial exercise in journalism and analysis. Most of the coverage has focused on issues that you wouldn't be surprised to see on E! Entertainment or Access Hollywood. It's all about soap-opera like characters and disputes (who's pregnant, who's having an affair, who's a secret Muslim, etc.), and this is what we get. We're left with the last four who got the rose, as voted on by the fans. We're left with the survivors in this hyperactive media environment (24-hour news, blogs, web ads, TV ads, radio ads, talk radio, etc.); the ones that were good at playing the media. Is that a good thing? I don't think that it is.

[DarkReign]

Is that a good thing? I don't think that it is.


I couldnt agree with you more.

To answer your question....No, it is not a good thing. Its the absolute worst thing that could happen to a democracy, IMO.

Which is why I have little sympathy for this country. You reap what you sow, regardless of your favorite color.

[MannyIsGod]

A democracy is only as good as the people who vote. The people who vote in this country are incredibly ignorant and stupid.

DR is right on here.

[JoeChalupa]

A democracy is only as good as the people who vote. The people who vote in this country are incredibly ignorant and stupid.

DR is right on here.

Are you including yourself in your analysis?
Some people but not the majority, IMO.

[Supergirl]

TV news sucks. It's all controlled by the advertisers and one of the 2 or 3 conglomerate media corporations.

Get your news from the internet - but check the facts and references for everything you read - and listen to NPR. That's my advice.

[KenMcCoy]

You know, I was thinking this morning that television has really changed the type of candidates that we get. I don't think it's any coincidence that in this election we have two younger, fit, attractive candidates; people that look good during the 24-hour news cycle.

I was wondering today if there's not some overweight balding guy that would be a great president, but could never get elected because of his appearance. Maybe, TV and the 24-hour news cycle has left us with spokesmodels, who repeat focus group tested talking points.



:toast Totally agree. Ask yourself if we would have elected a wheelchair bound FDR if he was running today...

[01.20.09]

That is why Ron Paul and Dennis Kukunich never had a chance.

[Anti.Hero]

Why even bother with any? You can find video on the internet and come to your own conclusion.

The TV people are like ESPN, they won't tell you shit that you couldn't find within 5 seconds on the net.

[DarrinS]

I don't have a problem with Keith Olbermann doing his "Countdown" show. What I object to was having this guy ANCHOR election coverage. WhoTF had that brilliant idea? Oh well, don't have to worry about it anymore.


Also, anyone else ever notice that Olbermann never has anyone on his show that disagrees with him? He doesn't ever have to debate anyone. The only argument he ever got into was with Chris Mathhews about which of them had a bigger boner for Obama.