Keith Obermann and Chris Matthews removed from the front lines of reporting
 

Liberal reporters removed by MSNBC: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thed...ntly-resp.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA times Apparently responding to criticism about liberal political bias, MSNBC has removed its two political hot-potato co-anchors, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, from the network's election coverage. David Gregory will be the new anchor for coverage of the debates and election night. Olbermann and Matthews have been relegated to “analysts” during the coverage. The switch was first reported in the New York Times.

These two made it very self evident who they liked. So, this drives home the thought that the media can drive and sway people in a certan direction.

I like people that say what they think ... it's their motives I wonder about.

Chris Matthews was a speech writer for the first Bush ... I think :yep:

Theres that Liberal media again. :lol:

If I were a betting man, I would bet that MSNBC bent to the amount of whining coming from the McCain camp.....

I can't say I haven't done enough bashing of the media for it's liberal bias, but I'd bet they did it for the money:D Lose enough viewers (from either side) , or perceive that you're going to lose viewers, and they'll try to get them back. Maybe they just got tired of those of us (self included) that whine about it and just said "you can't call us biased now".

So does this mean that all journalists who report their political leanings will also be barred?

Aren't journalists supposed to be neutral? How can they maintain their objectivity if they are rabid fans of one side of the political coin or the other?

Actually no. That is the difference between a journalist and a reporter. A reporter is supposed to report the facts while a journalist is supposed to report their interpretations and observations of the event.

Although the terms are used without discipline these days, there is a difference between a journalist and a reporter.

I remember getting dinged in my J classes for just reporting the facts. :down:

Hmmm. Rose thinks that all politicians should be required by law to wear the logos of the companies who support them (like NASCAR drivers wear the logos of their sponsors), so we can tell who owns them.

Maybe journalists and other media types ought to be required to wear the logo of the party they support as well.

That would go over like a fart in a space suit.

I'm sure they wouldn't like it but i'd bet the public would...

Yes, then they would know to flip the channel if they did not care for who they supported. :up:

The good thing is that subtlety is not common in journalism. It is pretty easy to identify biases.

And bias, as long as it is identified and characterized, is good. Since there is no such thing as an unbiased human source, the only way to get the full picture is to deliberately seek out competing biases and make an inference.

Where do you draw the line? Once you start to become the story, shouldn't you recuse yourself from it? I've stopped watching most media outlets because of the spin rather then just reporting the story. Most of us out there can form their own opinion but I gave up after they continually use the expression "victim of a police shooting" when that offender had a loaded gun and pointed it at the police. I really can't take KO seriously because he was horrible at the eastern seaboard propagande network and C M needs ritalin.

Couldn't happen to a nicer pair.:rotfl: They'll have fun in the dishroom washing dishes.