Wednesday, June 27, 2007

NBC/MSNBC admit to biased "reporting"

Recently three comments were made on MSNBC that prove beyond any doubt that the network not only has a liberal bias, but that it is o.k. to present a biased version of the "facts" and call it news reporting. After viewing these incidents on MSNBC I have come to the conclusion that NBC/MSNBC can no longer be called a network of journalism.

1. Recently on "Hardball" Chris Matthews took up a topic that I and one the people that offers input to this blog have been constantly bringing to the attention of the management & on air personalities of NBC/MSNBC.

Chris Matthews (as well as one of his liberal commentators) admitted that it is not necessary to remain objective when you are reporting the news to people viewing your programs. The consensus of this "debate" was that you can have a bias toward a particular political viewpoint, and that it's ok to allow this viewpoint to determine how you present your stories to those viewing the program.

This wasn't the end of the discussion, Matthews allowed this opinion to be further defined.

Matthews said that there was only one news network even TRYING to have an objective, unbiased viewpoint when reporting the news. It wasn't a surprise when Matthews revealed that this single network trying to live up to what journalism is supposed to be about was NOT NBC/MSNBC but ABC!

What WAS shocking to me was that Chris Matthews had no problem admitting to the world that he believes that presenting a news story to your viewers in a way that promotes one political viewpoint over another was similar to when people like Thomas Paine wrote his articles that helped spark the American Revolution!!

For those of you who don't blindly follow the rhetoric/propaganda of the liberal machine, these two situations have nothing in common.

Thomas Paine was writing editorials that offered why he believed that his opinions were correct for the people in the Colonies, and why he felt that the status quo was wrong for the people.

When a network uses the Peoples' Airwaves to report the news stories of the day, it is under the assumption that the report will be an objective, unbiased telling of what the story is about - without giving favor to one side or the other. People expect that what they are being told what Sgt. Joe Friday of "Dragnet" would say as being "just the facts" and nothing more.

But here we have a member of the NBC/MSNBC networks freely admitting that they have no problem with pushing their political viewpoint to whoever will watch their TV shows and read the newspapers/magazines affiliated with them.

It's bad enough to know that Matthews and his associates present their "version" of the news, but it's even worse when these people act in this manner while demonizing FOX News network for doing the exact same thing - only doing so for the opposing political viewpoint.

The final straw of this hypocrisy on this topic is when NBC/MSNBC promotes themselves in commercials promoting their shows as being the opposite of what they actually are. It's laughable to sit through a commercial where show after show with obvious liberal bias is portrayed as offering a "fuller spectrum of news" It's even on the MSNBC website, as seen with this logo graphic.

I guess this would be true, if you are talking about going from the lightest blue to the darkest blue.

(I'm sure many people missed this reference to blue being the color typically describing Democrats & the liberal

viewpoint. Chris Matthews frequently uses the term "True Blue" when talking about real liberal Democrats)

I find it ironic that the logo graphic used on the website uses the color blue (and various shades of blue) - but then maybe it's no accident considering how consistently NBC/MSNBC shows their liberal bias.

So, NBC/MSNBC portrays themselves as being unbiased, objective, and offering a more total look at all sides of the news... while freely admitting that they actually present a biased version of the news that is pro-liberal and anti-conservative.

2. Dan Abrams recently proved the second aspect of how NBC/MSNBC is operating in a hypocritical manner when presenting their version of the news.

Dan was "guest hosting" for Joe Scarborough on the MSNBC show "Scarborough Country" when he admitted on air that the show (in specific, so we can reasonably assume that this applies to NBC/MSNBC in general) wasn't about "a free debate of the issues".

Abrams (the General Manager of MSNBC) did to prove this attitude lacking in free & open debate of opposing viewpoints was to silence John Ridley, an invited guest of the show. This is odd, mostly because Ridley is known as being liberal in his political viewpoint on most issues while voicing his opinions on websites & network programs known for their liberal bias.

If this happened once it would be bad, but it happened on two separate "Scarborough Country" shows that Ridley appeared on with Abrams as the "guest" host.

The second incident became a news story when it appeared that Abrams had "blacklisted" Ridley from appearing on MSNBC. At the time, Ridley was part of the on air staff of another MSNBC program called "Morning Joe". This was the morning show for "Scarborough Country" host Joe Scarborough - it offered a different on air dynamic because it had Scarborough (a former Republican Congressman who calls himself an "independent" voice of conservative views) with Ridley and news reporter Mika Brzezinski as his liberal counterparts.

People began to flood MSNBC with emails basically calling for Abrams to stop preventing Ridley from being on MSNBC. (of course, the official comment to that idea from MSNBC was that Ridley wasn't being prevented from being on MSNBC, and the real reason behind his absence for a few days was due to Ridley not being available for that time period) John Ridley was back on "Morning Joe" a few days after the show addressed that alleged issue... but this was a temporary situation. As of this morning (Wed. June 27, 2007) John Ridley's "spot" on the show was being filled by MSNBC producer, Willie Geist, who also works on the other "token" non-liberally biased show on MSNBC - "The Situation with Tucker Carlson". (which I think was shortened to just "Tucker" awhile back when the format of the show was changed from very independent to an obviously less independent voice)

It should be noted that "Morning Joe" had comedian Chuck Nice as guest commentator for a few days. (I'm not going to offer any opinion about the obvious fact of Chuck Nice being African-American as is also the case with John Ridley because although it might be relevant, I don't want to devote time to this aspect of NBC/MSNBC not having a very diverse ethnic representation for the "main" time slots on the network schedule) Chuck Nice did a great job on a show about politics - when you consider that he's a comedian and not a pundit - and that he normally appears on shows dealing with pop culture & celebrities, not politicians.

Why he was replaced for Willie Geist is unknown. Not that I have a problem with Geist, he's one of a very few group at MSNBC that isn't either obviously biased or following along with the liberal bias to keep his job. NBC/MSNBC has a reputation for getting rid of people with conservative or independent viewpoints - at least the ones they can't force into either hiding their views to the public or be willing to allow their program to be altered to minimize/erase any independent appearance to be seen.

Dan Abrams isn't the only one at NBC/MSNBC to prevent people from expressing opposing views while helping those who agree with the liberal viewpoint to get their comments heard.

Chris Matthews prevents open debate of issues by also silencing anyone opposing his position. A recent example is how Matthews tried to keep Ann Coulter from responding to the comments of the wife of Democratic Presidental Candidate, John Edwards.

Matthews allowed Elizabeth Edwards to say comments that were either improper, incorrect, or not relevant - while not allowing Coulter to defend herself to the attacks.

Then Matthews appeared on programs aired on NBC & MSNBC where he offered his biased opinion about who "won" the debate, when it was clear that his opinion was not an accurate portrayal of what actually happened. He also failed to mention how he helped "gang-up" on Coulter and basically "stacked the deck" against Coulter by not allowing a fair debate on his show.

Then, to compound his biased presentation of the incident, Matthews allowed John Edwards to spew rhetoric for 15 minutes on the following day's episode of "Hardball". John Edwards was attempting to make people believe that Coulter was in the wrong for her actions, while doing the exact same things he was accusing Coulter of doing.

John Edwards showed how hypocritical he is by calling Coulter names, attacking her (and even Karl Rove, who wasn't even involved with the incident) with comments that prove beyond any doubt that he is not the person for the job of being our next President. John Edwards showed how un-Presidential he is by engaging in the very tactics that he demonized Coulter for allegedly doing.

It needs to be noted that Matthews was untruthful when he talked about what Ann Coulter said, both on his show and on previous occasions. But this unprofessional behavior is totally ok with the way Matthews believes news can be reported.

For instance, Ann Coulter NEVER said that she wished John Edwards would die in a terrorist attack. But, that's exactly what Matthews said several times since her appearance on his show.

What Coulter DID say was a reference to a comment that Bill Maher said that he wished happened to Vice President Cheney. Ann Coulter commented how nobody (especially Chris Matthews) was outraged by Maher's comment that was so out of line, that in the future she should just say that John Edwards should suffer the same fate as Maher wished for Cheney.

She didn't actually say that she wished John Edwards be killed in a terrorist attack... she pointed out that IF she would say such a thing that people wouldn't be able to say she was wrong for it since nobody said Maher was wrong for his comment saying the idea for real rather than just reference the idea.

It's a subtle difference lost on people like Matthews, Edwards, Olbermann, or anyone who mistakenly accused Coulter of saying something she never said.

But it doesn't matter to the liberal gasbags who will forget about the facts when they want to attack a conservative.

Chris Matthews needs to publicly retract how he misreported what he claims Coulter said. He also needs to set the record straight and admit that Coulter didn't say anything that could be spun as an attack on Mrs Edwards when she called his show to blind-side Coulter.

That is a must, unless NBC/MSNBC & Matthews want to show the people that the "truth" and the "facts" have no place on their network.

Matthews will berate any conservative (even a member of Congress) on his show if they make any statement he disagrees with - while allowing Democrats to say totally ridiculous statements no matter how little sense they make.

I find it ironic (and totally hypocritical) that Keith Olbermann had the gall to put the banner "errorist agenda" in one of his never-ending attacks on a Republican. (Rudy Guiliani in this instance) That is a term that totally describes the way NBC/MSNBC goes about misleading/lying to the people they spew their propaganda (I mean, news) to.

3. The third example of MSNBC admitting to an agenda in their reporting was when Joe Scarborough recently told the world how Keith Olbermann goes out of his way to say things and put segments on his program that are aimed at attacking FOX News and their opinion giver (this network is no better than NBC/MSNBC) Bill O'Reilly.

Scarborough admitted that Keith and his producers seek to get O'Reilly to respond to their unprofessional tactics - to the point that they all have a huge laugh when they succeed in their goal. This is definitely not acting with "integrity" as Steve Capus claimed would be the way things are done in the aftermath of the Don Imus firing.

Scarborough explained how Olbermann was rewarded (in the range of millions of dollars) for his stalking attacks of O'Reilly and FOX News. That doesn't seem to describe a network with integrity, does it?

So... to sum this mess up:

1. Dan Abrams (General Manager of MSNBC) admits that NBC/MSNBC is not a place for open debate of opposing viewpoints, while the on-air personnel censor/silence the opposition while promoting those of like opinions.

2. Joe Scarborough admits that people who act without integrity, attack the opposition, and distort the truth in their reporting get richly rewarded for being as unprofessional as possible.

3. Chris Matthews admits that his policy (obviously endorsed by NBC/MSNBC) of having his political bias distort the stories being reported on NBC/MSNBC (and their affiliated newspapers/magazines) so that they promote one political viewpoint over another is the PATRIOTIC thing to do - in the spirit of such founding fathers as Thomas Paine.

With nobody speaking out at the hypocrisy of this corporation that defrauds the American People every time they forward the liberal propaganda agenda - it's time for someone, ANYONE to have the courage to stand up and say that NBC/MSNBC should not be allowed to poison the public airwaves - and take action to resolve this grave offense.

I'd ask for Tim Russert to rise to this challenge... but it's obvious that he has sold his soul to people like Dan Abrams, Steve Capus, Phil Griffin, and the liberal agenda they serve.

It's a sad day when Tim Russert, the last true journalist we had in America, allows his once revered profession to become a prostitue to special interest.