MSNBC is Living in a Glass House: Their Criticisms of Fox News Over Impartiality Applies to MSNBC as Well

MSNBC has engaged in stone throwing while ignoring the glass house that they're living in; they've said through Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann that Fox News should be disqualified from being a news organization because of their activism.

If that's the standard, then MSNBC should be disqualified first as they engage in the character assassination of Fox News personalities on a daily basis. Count the number of times Olbermann deliberately doesn't call "Fox News" "Fox News." He's been reduced to name-calling. And MSNBC was considering keeping this guy as an anchor after he SCREWED up? Here's one of his recent rants (watch as long as you can stomach it).

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Both organizations have their news reporting divisions, and both have their op-ed divisions. Fox has Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, Greta Van Sustran, Chris Wallace and the Fox & Friends crowd. MSNBC has Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Andrea Michell, Ed Schultz, Joe Scarborough, Keith Olbermann, and co-hosts on several of the above shows.

MSNBC ought to tone down their own political rhetoric before criticizing the opposition; they have no credibility with personalities like Olbermann throwing political and personal grenades at people he doesn't like.

I do think both networks do need to do a better job of separating their news gathering divisions from their opinion-editorial side, which does get considerably more attention than their news divisions do. And yes, both liberals and conservatives manipulate stuff to their own ends. There's no denying that.

The main difference between MSNBC and Fox News is that Fox is more open to admitting that it has an opinion. Even their web site reflects it. Look up at the top of their web page and you'll see an "Opinions" selection. MSNBC simply calls their op-ed site "MSNBC TV" and leaves it at that on their web site.

The pot needs to stop calling the kettle black, until it comes clean on it's own views, which are hard-core liberal.

More Political Nonsense From the "Non-Political" Nobel Committee

I'm amused by the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to President Obama for eleven day's work as President (Obama took office January 20th, the deadline for nominations for the prior year was February 1st), but what's done is done. He's been awarded it, and has humbly accepted it in the spirit that it was offered.

So be it.

I'm also amused by the Republicans telling their members to tone it down, out of fear that they will be seen as a bunch of whiners. This is probably a smart move on their part.

And what does his press secretary have to say?

"We think that this gives us a sense of momentum when the United States has accolades tossed its way rather than shoes," he said this morning.

Accolades, eh? This was a one-fingered salute to President Bush from the Nobel Peace Prize committee, which also awarded Al Gore the prize for his global warming hubris, nothing more. So given their own political activism, I'm not surprised they gave Obama the prize for eleven days of no results.

And Mr. Press Secretary is sounding more like a propaganda minister every day, instead of a Press Secretary.

Even Obama's allies on MSNBC were not overly generous:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Whatever.

MSNBC Talking Heads Feuding More Than Usual: Democratic Convention Acts Like a Pressure-Relief Valve

For some time I've been watching the Bill O'Reilly (FoxNews) vs. Keith Olbermann (MSNBC) feud as the two personalities took potshots at one another on their respective shows.

But I didn't see the on-air Joe Scarborough vs. David Schuster spat or Keith Olbermann open-mike commentary during a Scarborough report during last night's Democratic National Convention. It's facinating that these kinds of eruptions happen during live coverage of an event, or even in the studios themselves. The Geraldo Riviera vs. Bill O'Reilly confrontation last year was pretty wild, too.

Will MSNBC react to this exchange, or will they waffle and let things stand?

MSNBC's Don Imus in Big Trouble: So What Else is New?

Many of the news channels have been following the antics of Don Imus today, for calling a women's basketball team a racist term, which I will not post here.

CBS and MSNBC announced that they were suspending the Imus show for two weeks as a disciplinary action.

I have a question...why did CBS and MSNBC have this man on the air at all, given his prior controversies? He's been referred to as the "Howard Stern of intelligent people," though he's had a public feud with Stern for years--in particular a vicious exchange on the air in 2003.

The man is a lightning rod for controversy.

Yet the two companies had him on both radio and on TV in simulcast.

Imus went on Rev. Al Sharpton's radio program this morning (a huge mistake), but made little headway in calming the raging inferno, as Sharpton's thirst for revenge neutralized his efforts. Sharpton's now calling for a boycott of all advertisers who advertise on the Imus show.

Later on in the day, the networks suspended Imus.

Imus's comments WERE way over the line, but Sharpton's handling of the situation on his show made the situation worse; what happened to forgiveness of others?

All Sharpton wanted was to get Imus fired, or better yet, to have Imus sign a resignation letter in his presence and on the air. It didn't happen, so he decided to add his two cents (and more) to the controversy.

There's no winner in this controversy; not CBS, MSNBC, Imus, Sharpton, or the people who were insulted by the racist comments that Imus made.