Nader: Conscience of the Democrats!

anneshirley

FINALLY, IT HAPPENS:  From the New York Times

MSNBC Takes Incendiary Hosts From Anchor Seat

MSNBC tried a bold experiment this year by putting two politically incendiary hosts, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, in the anchor chair to lead the cable news channel's coverage of the election.
Skip to next paragraph
MSNBC

That experiment appears to be over.

After months of accusations of political bias and simmering animosity between MSNBC and its parent network NBC, the channel decided over the weekend that the NBC News correspondent and MSNBC host David Gregory would anchor news coverage of the coming debates and election night. Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews will remain as analysts during the coverage.

The change - which comes in the home stretch of the long election cycle - is a direct result of tensions associated with the channel's perceived shift to the political left.

"The most disappointing shift is to see the partisan attitude move from prime time into what's supposed to be straight news programming," said Davidson Goldin, formerly the editorial director of MSNBC and a co-founder of the reputation management firm DolceGoldin.

Executives at the channel's parent company, NBC Universal, had high hopes for MSNBC's coverage of the political conventions. Instead, the coverage frequently descended into on-air squabbles between the anchors, embarrassing some workers at NBC's news division, and quite possibly alienating viewers. Although MSNBC nearly doubled its total audience compared with the 2004 conventions, its competitive position did not improve, as it remained in last place among the broadcast and cable news networks. In prime time, the channel averaged 2.2 million viewers during the Democratic convention and 1.7 million viewers during the Republican convention.

The success of the Fox News Channel in the past decade along with the growth of political blogs have convinced many media companies that provocative commentary attracts viewers and lures Web browsers more than straight news delivered dispassionately.

"In a rapidly changing media environment, this is the great philosophical debate," Phil Griffin, the president of MSNBC, said in a telephone interview Saturday. Fighting the ratings game, he added, "the bottom line is that we're experiencing incredible success."

But as the past two weeks have shown, that success has a downside. When the vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin lamented media bias during her speech, attendees of the Republican convention loudly chanted "NBC."

In interviews, 10 current and former staff members said that long-simmering tensions between MSNBC and NBC reached a boiling point during the conventions. "MSNBC is behaving like a heroin addict," one senior staff member observed. "They're living from fix to fix and swearing they'll go into rehab the next week."

The employee, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity because the network does not permit it people to speak to the media without authorization. (The New York Times and NBC News have a content-sharing arrangement exclusively for political coverage.)

Mr. Olbermann, a 49-year-old former sportscaster, has become the face of the more aggressive MSNBC, and the lightning rod for much of the criticism. His program "Countdown," now a liberal institution, was created by Mr. Olbermann in 2003 but it found its voice in his gnawing dissent regarding the Bush administration, often in the form of "special comment" segments.

As Mr. Olbermann raised his voice, his ratings rose as well, and he now reaches more than one million viewers a night, a higher television rating than any other show in the troubled 12-year history of the network. As a result, his identity largely defines MSNBC. "They have banked the entirety of the network on Keith Olbermann," one employee said.

In January, Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews, the host of "Hardball," began co-anchoring primary night coverage, drawing an audience that enjoyed the pair's "SportsCenter"-style show. While some critics argued that the assignment was akin to having the Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly anchor on election night - something that has never happened - MSNBC insisted that Mr. Olbermann knew the difference between news and commentary.

But in the past two weeks, that line has been blurred. On the final night of the Republican convention, after MSNBC televised the party's video "tribute to the victims of 9/11," including graphic footage of the World Trade Center attacks, Mr. Olbermann abruptly took off his journalistic hat.

"I'm sorry, it's necessary to say this," he began. After saying that the video had exploited the memories of the dead, he directly apologized to viewers who were offended. Then, sounding like a network executive, he said it was "probably not appropriate to be shown."In an interview on Sunday, Mr. Olbermann said that moment - and the perception that he is "not utterly neutral" - restarted months-old conversations about his role on political nights.
Skip to next paragraph
MSNBC

Keith Olbermann, left, conveying that Chris Matthews talks too much, with Representative Steny Hoyer.

"I found it ironic and instructive that I could have easily said exactly what I did say, exactly when I did say it, if I had been wearing a different hat, and nobody would have taken any issue," he said.

"Countdown" will still be shown before the three fall debates and a second edition will be shown sometime afterwards, following the program anchored by Mr. Gregory.

The change casts new doubt on what some staff members believe is an effective programming strategy: prime-time talk of a liberal sort. A like-minded talk show will now follow "Countdown" at 9 p.m.: "The Rachel Maddow Show," hosted by the liberal radio host, begins Monday.

Mr. Griffin, MSNBC's president, denies that it has an ideology. "I think ideology means we think one way, and we don't," he said. Rather than label MSNBC's prime time as left-leaning, he says it has passion and point of view.

But MSNBC is the cable arm of NBC News, the dispassionate news division of NBC Universal. MSNBC, "Today" and "NBC Nightly News" share some staff members, workspace and content. And some critics are claiming they also share a political affiliation.

The McCain campaign has filed letters of complaint to the news division about its coverage and openly tied MSNBC to it. Tension between the network and the campaign hit an apex the day Mr. McCain announced Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. MSNBC had reported Friday morning that Ms. Palin's plane was enroute to the announcement and she was likely the pick. But McCain campaign officials warned the network off, with one official going so far as to say that all of the candidates on the short list were on their way - which MSNBC then reported.

"The fact that it was reported in real time was very embarrassing," said a senior MSNBC official. "We were told, ‘No, it's not Sarah Palin and you don't know who it is.' "

Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams, the past and present anchors of "NBC Nightly News," have told friends and colleagues that they are finding it tougher and tougher to defend the cable arm of the news division, even while they anchored daytime hours of convention coverage on MSNBC and contributed commentary each evening.

Mr. Williams did not respond to a request for comment and Mr. Brokaw declined to comment. At a panel discussion in Denver, Mr. Brokaw acknowledged that Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews had "gone too far" at times, but emphasized they were "not the only voices" on MSNBC, according to The Washington Post.

Al Hunt, the executive Washington bureau chief of Bloomberg News, said that the entire news division was being singled out by Republicans because of the work of partisans like Mr. Olbermann. "To go and tar the whole news network and Brokaw and Mitchell is grossly unfair," he said, referring to the NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell.

Some tensions have spilled out on-screen. On the first night in Denver, as the fellow MSNBC host Joe Scarborough talked about the resurgence of the McCain campaign, Mr. Olbermann dismissed it by saying: "Jesus, Joe, why don't you get a shovel?"

The following night, Mr. Olbermann and his co-anchor for convention coverage, Mr. Matthews, had their own squabble after Mr. Olbermann observed that Mr. Matthews had talked too long.

Some staff members said the tension led to the network's decision to keep Mr. Olbermann in New York for the Republican convention, after he ran the desk in Denver during the Democratic convention. MSNBC said that he stayed in New York to anchor coverage of Hurricane Gustav. But some workers say there were other reasons - namely, that Mr. Olbermann was concerned about his safety in St. Paul, given the loud crowds at MSNBC's set in Denver.

NBC Universal executives are also known to be concerned about the perception that MSNBC's partisan tilt in prime time is bleeding into the rest of the programming day. On a recent Friday afternoon, a graphic labeled "Breaking News" asked: "How many houses does Palin add to the Republican ticket?" Mr. Griffin called the graphic "an embarrassment."

According to three staff members, Jeff Zucker, chief executive of NBC Universal, and Steve Capus, president of NBC News, considered flying to the Republican convention in Minnesota last week to address the lingering tensions.

Up to now, the company's public support for MSNBC's strategy has been enthusiastic. At an anniversary party for Mr. Olbermann in April, Mr. Zucker called "Countdown" "one of the signature brands of the entire company."

Just last year, Mr. Olbermann signed a four-year, $4-million-a-year contract with MSNBC. NBC is close to supplementing that contract with Mr. Olbermann, extending his deal through 2013 - and ensuring that he will be on MSNBC through the next election.

Me Again:  MSNBC is so over the top that I no longer watch.  I changed from NBC to CNN.  Read a comment to this article that said, simply, that in all likelihood the station might actually bring about Obama's defeat.  I agree.  When you raise someone to a God, it offends lots of people not just Republican voters.  This atheist was beginning to feel she was at church while watching MSNBC, only the object on the altar was obama.

anneshirley

Wow, just saw the Republican ad directed at the Obama campaign for dropping some 30 lawyers in Alaska to dig for dirt on Palin--and family.  Sending those lawyers is slime and running that ad is also slime. Scary ad and even more scary where these campaigns are going and where they might end up.   (This new ad reminds me of the one the Democrats ran against Barry Goldwater, suggesting he might cause a nuclear war--really ugly.  That was the first time I voted third party.)

It was said on the original political thread by an Obama supporter that Obama would be the better nominee because an Obama/McCain campaign would focus on the issues--with the implication that Hillary would run a dirty campaign. So far, it's even/even in my view.  Obama and McCain are both rolling in mud!   

Throw out the bums.  Vote Nader!  

Beesie

Obama - gee, didn't he win the nomination over Clinton at least in part because he promised "a new kind of politics"?  Who does he think he's kidding?  Does anyone believe this anymore?  (I'm not sure why anyone did to begin with, but that's another issue.)  Obama learned politics in Chicago and from what I've heard (and seen for myself during the primaries and now the campaign), he can go down & dirty with the best of them (or more appropriately, the worst of them).  

As for MSNBC, it's good to hear that Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw have been voicing concerns.  I've wondered how they could stand to be on the same broadcasts as Matthews and Olbermann.  Unfortunately though, this move by MSNBC doesn't do nearly enough.  Matthews and Olbermann will still be on the broadcasts and they still have their shows.  And MSNBC just gave a show to Rachel Maddow, and she's at least as bad as the boys.  Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw should speak up more strongly, while their reputations are still intact, or else they may see their careers ruined by association.  And maybe some MSNBC advertisers will finally clue in and start pulling their ad dollars - ultimately that's what will drive real change.    

snowyday

I'm so tired ladies.  Surprisingly I like Palin, what we are learning about her so far. I still wish that Obama would have chosen Hilary so much.  I feel he really let down alot of people and the minute I heard his pick, I thought "Old boys club" right away. I really thought he was for change. My sister who I think is really intelligent is warning alot of stuff will be dug up on Palin and she isn't too crazy about her, so we will see.  I watch Hilary commenting and making speeches about Obama and all I think is what strength after all she went through.  I really hope she runs again in 2012. 

I ran around my building cleaning the empty apartments rented one, cleaned the back yard and downstairs apartment and talked my landlady in to trying.  And she was willing to, but she just seemed overwhelmed. So one morning I was outside and the landlord next door was there. He's a nice man and I finally had my landlady at my place, so I introduced them, gave them privacy and he has bought the building. I am still losing my apartment I have to move downstairs to the back it's much smaller, and colder but it is still in the house so I am gathering up as many people as possible to help me move.  Had my Port put in and it hurts darn it. But I over did it at first as ususual.  They wanted to start the herceptin on Monday but the Onc (I'm starting to wonder about him) didn't order an adapter for my port and the chemo nurse wanted to use my hand and I told her no, and I'm so glad I did, she didn't even realize it was to be my loading dose.  She said to me and my sister, well it can't be that bad you've already had your loading dose.  Needless to say I hit the roof, there have been so many mistakes I am really wondering how many happen to people that don't know any better, Its a very scary thought. So I sholud get my loading dose of herceptin on the 19th I think they still haven't contacted me.  So hears is hopin that I can manage the herceptin that was one of the reasons I was so upset about having to move, I know I'm going to be tired I'm already dead on my feet now.  But I am happy that the house sold my landlady is happy I found a wonderful tenant for her and she has a little labradoodle puppy I take for a walk everyday, He just cheers me up.    I wish I knew what the future held the election is going to so exciting and I really cannot say who will win now,  Amazing how things change, wow.  Well everyone have a good day  I'm going for a nap.

anneshirley

Snowy,

Really glad you posted as I was wondering about you.  Sorry about the apartment but at least you have a place to stay for now.  I don't know your history so not sure if this is your first use of  herceptin.  I did it for a year and compared to chemo it was so so easy.  I hope you'll do fine, but I'm pretty sure you will.

I have no idea how this will turn out but if Obama loses, I think Hillary will run again.  If he loses, he'll disappear from the national scene but the ones who really need to disappear are those who decided to push him over Hillary!  

I hope they unwrap Palin soon.  It's annoying to not know more about the Republican pick for VP.  Can't imagine how folks are screaming about someone they don't know, but then they did the same for Obama.  Distressing.

You have to keep watch on your own care.  I had issues with loading dose versus regular; they make mistakes all the time, so you're in charge.  Best of luck. 

anneshirley

Interesting!

Ron Paul has $35,000,000 to spend this year and he may throw his support to Nader or Barr--hoping it will be Nader.  News is that Nader is polling 6%+ in some states like Michigan.  

Go Ralph! 

anneshirley

Just received from Ralph!

We're pulling solid numbers in key swing states.

Including 6 percent in Michigan, according to yesterday's CNN/Time poll.

Nobody can say what will happen over the next seven weeks.

What we can say is this:

Independents are now positioned for an historic breakthrough.

Yesterday, Ron Paul appeared with Ralph Nader on CNN.

And together they announced a joint breakaway from the "evil of the two lessers" -- the Democrats and the Republicans.

We need to continue to ratchet up the pressure on the corporate controlled, illegitimate two party system.

To break through the media blackout.

To break through into the debates.

To let the people know --

There is a choice in November.

A candidacy that will deliver full Medicare for all.

A living wage.

A peaceful solar economy.

Reversing U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Nader/Gonzalez.

Let's keep the pressure on.

Don't let up.

saluki

Anne-Shirley--know you'll appreciate this......

---------------------

Nader on bank woes: 'I predicted this'
By: Alexander Burns
September 15, 2008 02:10 PM EST

As banks reeled and presidential campaigns scrambled to react to the crisis on Wall Street Monday, color one man unsurprised.

“I predicted this,” said Ralph Nader, the independent presidential candidate. “All this I’ve written about five, 10 years ago.”

In a meeting with Politico reporters and editors, Nader laid the blame for the current economic upheaval squarely at the feet of corporate America.

“Pure greed, coupled with concentrated power on Wall Street and elsewhere” brought about the crisis, Nader said.

Though Nader would not comment specifically on the news of the Lehman Bros. decision to declare bankruptcy — “I just heard about it this morning,” he explained — he argued that banks and other corporations had engaged in “a massive, imprudent acceptance and transfer of risk.”

Nader, who made his reputation as a consumer advocate, concluded: “The rubber band eventually snapped.”

It wasn’t just banks that Nader criticized. In a letter to congressional leaders, Nader also attacked the idea of a government loan to major automakers, alleging that Congress was rushing to pass “panic legislation without due deliberations, without even having public congressional hearings.”

As Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain attempt to present themselves as plausible economic stewards, Nader told Politico both major party candidates fall short of addressing the root causes of the latest bank failures. According to Nader, Obama and McCain are too worried about containing fallout to take on the banks’ irresponsible behavior.

“Look at how they are knee-jerking similar approaches,” Nader said, chiding the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees for their support, earlier this year, for bailing out Bear Stearns. “McCain, Obama: Rubber stamp. No detail. We will go along with the bill.”

“They’re twins,” Nader continued. “If you look at their economic policies, other than taxes and so on … they’ll curtsy to the, quote, prestige of the Treasury.”

Though Nader attacked both major political parties — alleging that their platforms showed ideological “convergence” — he suggested the GOP is in a particularly tenuous position as it responds to continuing economic turbulence.

“The Republicans are going through ideological schizophrenia,” he said, noting that many conservatives continue to support government-backed bank bailouts even though “they’re supposed to be capitalists.”

Nader, 74, is in the midst of his fourth bid for the White House; he ran in 1996 and every election cycle since then. As in his previous campaigns, he has struggled to gain traction with the electorate and has expressed frustration at limited media attention to his campaign.

“Our main problem is the uniquely pronounced blackout by national TV,” Nader said, adding that television networks had devoted 10 seconds of news coverage to his campaign. “This is not journalistically sustainable.”

Nader recounted a recent meeting with editors at The Washington Post, who he said told him the paper wasn’t covering his campaign because he had no chance of winning. According to Nader, he replied: “Then why are you covering the Nationals?” a reference to Washington’s long-suffering baseball team.

Along with his running mate, former San Francisco supervisor Matt Gonzales, Nader held rallies in Denver and St. Paul, Minn., during the major party conventions that failed to generate media interest. More recently, he held a news conference with Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, the former GOP presidential candidate, and several other independent candidates to urge voters to consider third-party options.

The event attracted some attention, but not enough to ease Nader’s anger at the news media.

sccruiser

Bumping this up for BinVA

anneshirley

It will be very interesting to see if I'm right on the following; we'll have to wait until election day for the answer.

From what I'm hearing on the cable networks, congressional members are hearing from large numbers of constituents, and most of them are complaining about the bailout.  Since this package will be approved despite the voters' complaints, I suspect there will be large numbers of voters who will be furious at both parties.  If by November 4, there are no discernible improvements in the economy despite passage of the bailout, I believe those who were against this bailout will be looking for a way to register their anger. McCain voters may vote for Barr and Obama voters for Nader.

I'm fairly confident that Nader will get more votes than expected--he's against the bailout. It might be the difference for one of the candidates, depending on whether more Republicans are angry (McCain loses) or Democrats (Obama loses).  More important, if Nader draws off enough votes, it will bring him over the 5% popular vote he'll need in 2012 to get federal funding. And if he gets a sufficient number of votes it will give him some bargaining power with the Democrats in 2012.  Hopefully, he'll use it to get consensus on universal health care. With this bailout, any plans that Obama has for changes in health care will be side tracked (if he's the winner), and if McCain is the winner, I doubt he'll convince a Democratic Congress to approve his health care tax credits, which in my view are about equal to putting a finger in the dyke.

We shall see, but I'm encouraged enough today to send Nader more money.  Anyone else out there as pissed as I am over this bailout might consider sending Nader a contribution.  He doesn't ask for much; even $3.00 is acceptable.

anneshirley

Just received the following from the Nader campaign, about a third-party debate.  I gather they need some signatures so if anyone is interested, please help to get another view out in front of the American public.  For sure they'll discuss the bailout! Thanks.

Trevor Lyman is the man who organized the Ron Paul money bombs.

One Lyman money bomb raised $4 million in one day.

Another raised $6 million in one day.

Now, Lyman is at it again.

Lyman wants to hold a third party debate in New York City.

Lyman was inspired by Ron Paul's press conference a couple of weeks ago.

At that press conference, Paul called on his followers to ditch the two major parties and throw their support to one of the independent or third party candidates.

So, we all need to support Lyman's push for an alternative debate now.

If Lyman gets 10,000 pledges by October 8, he and the other sponsors will organize a debate in New York City.

All major candidates -- Nader, Barr, McKinney, Baldwin, Obama and McCain will be invited.

Already, with no publicity, Lyman has close to 1,000 pledgers.

So go to thirdpartyticket.com now.

And add your name to the pledge list.

Just add your name.

The Commission on Presidential Debates won't let Ralph debate.

So, let's get behind Lyman's push now.

anneshirley

Is there someone reading these political threads who can enlighten me?  I always thought until last night's debate, perhaps because I'm not an economist, that the government provides services through the collection of taxes: income, payroll, property, fines, fees, etc.  Of course, our government also gets money from selling bonds, but isn't bond money just a loan to be paid back with interest, from taxes? Is there some other way the government makes money?  Is the U.S. post office more profitable than I had imagined?  Or is George running a business out of the White House: does Laura have a hair-dressing salon in the basement, are the girls making moonshine in the garage, or, heaven forbid, growing pot in the Rose Garden? 

In the good old days of the Democratic Party, which disappeared with big hair and bell bottoms, the Dems told us that our taxes went to pay for services (called big government by the Republicans), and some of us, like me, scoffed at the Republicans who had only one way to win office: the promise to cut taxes and wage war. But now that the Democrats are the cut taxes and wage war party, aren't the Republicans redundant?  So to those of you who still prefer a two party system, I urge you once again to vote for Nader!

Beesie

Anneshirley,

If what you are saying is that the platforms of the candidates, and particularly, Obama, don't seem to add up, I'm with you on that.  Cut taxes for 95% of the population, increase funding for education, healthcare, the environment and balance the budget!  It's a miracle!

Maybe the reason that Obama is so anxious to get more troops into Afghanistan is so that he can get better access to their poppy crop.  That could generate a nice chunk of change.  Or maybe Obama will earn extra money for the government by teaching. I bet a lot of people would sign up if he taught a class in his area of expertise: "Don't let a lack of qualifications stop you from achieving your goals!"  Who knows that topic better than him?  (Well, George W. Bush maybe, but even he came to office with more experience than Obama.)  You'd think people would have learned with George, but I guess not. 

anneshirley

Ralph was on CNN today, one of the rare instances when he gets to speak his piece, usually five minutes. His interviewer was very condescending, particularly concerning Nader's view of the bailout--he disapproves.  What I found remarkable is that one of the proposals Nader suggested, not his but that of a Washington economist, was treated with great disdain, yet it was very similar, I thought, to other proposals offered by the major candidates which have not been treated with equal disdain.   It speaks very clearly of the complete bias of the press if an idea doesn't have the approval of one of the major parties. The suggestion, very similar to Hillary's, was to permit those whose houses are in foreclosure to remain as tenants until such time as a deal can be worked out and they can repurchase the house.  The reporter went after Nader suggesting that it's not fair to people who paid their mortgages on time.  McCain, the Republican, is offering to lower the mortgage to the current value of the house, which is a far great giveaway than letting the people stay on as tenants. As Nader said in response, and I agree, if you offer people no down payments with no interest (basically what Countrywide did), of course they'll take it--people love deals. The blame, as he said, is with the government who failed to regulate these loans and the lenders who were well aware that many of these people wouldn't and couldn't repay their loans. 

About the Wall Street bailout Nader was just as disdainful and announced that there will be a protest on October 16 outside the Stock Exchange if anyone is interested . . . 

Jaybird627

AS, if I lived in NY I'd make that protest for sure. Fortunately I'll be in France where I can watch it (maybe, hopefully, but probably not) on SKY or BBC .....