MSNBC is in the final days of their campaign to reelect their "chosen one," Barack Obama. They are in full-attack mode--angry and vicious in their commentary using terms like "lies" and "liar" when referring to anything Republican, especially as it pertains to Mitt Romney.
This should not surprise anyone familiar with the bias at that cable network. They have been on the attack for Obama ever since the last election when Chris Matthews had those tingly-leg feelings and once almost forgot that Obama was black. (By the way, is Obama really "black" or is he "white" since he was born of a white mother? Most importantly, does it matter to anyone except those at MSNBC who, at their insistence, have made this president an ethnic phenomenon and injected race into every discussion, warranted or not?)
Chris Mathews has been increasingly agitated in recent days due to the polls showing Romney closing the gap, if not in fact leading Obama. Matthews is slobbering more than usual in his daily rants over Romney and the Republicans in general. One critic suggested that that aforementioned leg tingle has gone to his brain so harsh and volatile has become his daily show. He certainly is more unbalanced lately--if that is possible--obviously the result of Romney's narrowing the lead if not beating Obama in reputable national surveys. Matthews tries his best to downplay any Romney edge by avoiding the mention of certain polls on his show, or, if he does acknowledge them, to certainly attempt to question their credibility. Chris is overly anxious to even think of a possible Romney victory, let alone to accept Romney as a probable president.
The second angriest man on MSNBC has to be Ed Schultz. In fact, he may just be the most angry since he is contemptible in criticizing Romney and the Republicans. He spares no vitriol in his nightly rant lasting one hour, most of which is devoted to calling Romney a "liar," or worse. His harsh approach to political reporting--if you could even call it that--centers around praise for Obama while ridiculing Romney to the extent it causes me to wince. How he is allowed to rant on and on is beyond me in that MSNBC claims to be "the place for politics," and not the place for political assassination per se.
Other talking heads have their whack at Romney in their allotted time slots. Rachel Maddow is more inclined to logical argument as to Romney being the wrong man for the job. She is more the "intellectual" MSNBC talking head, including in her discussions such other lefties as Melissa Harris-Perry, Ezra Klein, and Chris Hayes. (These "newbie juvenile lefties" each have their own show, or are members of a panel of young democrats (The Cycle) MSNBC is molding into the next generation of radical political analysts while cultivating the younger generation of viewers is my only guess as to the purpose of these interlopers.)
Al Sharpton, "the Reverend Al" as he is referred to, has his own show nowadays--after appearing frequently on other's for numerous opinions on racial matters--that is MSNBC's obvious attempt to forge a legion of black viewers by allowing him to rant on racial matters--as if he truly speaks for the black community, which we know he does not--and find "racists" under every rock, behind every Republican act, and to reinvigorate his claims of civil rights violations at every turn. His latest "crusade" is on voter suppression in which he claims Republicans are behind the voter fraud movement intending to keep people, especially black people, from the polls on Election Day. In this he has found, once again, something to reclaim his relevance--at least in his own mind--and another modern-day "Tawana Brawley" moment. Is there a more unqualified individual on television today, a less intelligent commentator, or a person more undeserving of being allocated one hour of prime time television to espouse racist views than the ubiquitous "Reverend Al?" I think not-- and so does Saturday Night Live, which skewers him at every opportunity.
Even the once-gentlemanly Martin Bashir has turned sour and himself vile on his own mid-day show. I resent a person with a British accent--one who is not yet even a citizen of this country--so vitriolic in his one-sided views of American politics and our Republican candidate for president. Has MSNBC lost all perspective? He belongs on BBC, not on American television bloviating as to the qualifications of Mitt Romney, especially when he has become just another of MSNBC's predisposed crew. No discussion of MSNBC's blatant bias would be complete without mentioning Lawrence O'Donnell, a long-time extreme lefty who even looks angry as he pontificates on the Republican campaign and Romney's many bad qualities. In fact, he is a self-proclaimed socialist as he has admitted frequently. Just after the Democrats' flogging in the 2010 election, he argued on a broadcast, "I am not a progressive. I am not a liberal who is so afraid of the word that I had to change my name to progressive. Liberals amuse me. I am a socialist." Now here is a political animal with the temperament of a hungry grizzly bear who spares no vindictive verse when examining the wrongs of the Republican Party today. He is a more-accomplished Ed Schultz type. He even gets "physical," or threatens to anyway. Recently, on October 18 on his show The Last Word he challenged Mitt Romney's son, Tagg, to fight. "Take a swing at me, and don't worry, there won't be any Secret Service involved. Just us. And I'll make it easy for you. I'll come to you anytime, anywhere. Go ahead Taggart, take your best shot," chided O'Donnell. Now that's a first--a political commentator throwing down the gauntlet on national television!
MSNBCs blatant bias has not gone unnoticed by media analysts. The reputable Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism has published a new report, which analyzes MSNBC compared to Fox News, and found that "if Fox News was a favorable environment for Romney but negative for Obama, the reverse was even more the case on MSNBCEUR¦.The bigger difference on MSNBC from the rest of the media was in the coverage of RomneyEUR¦.This year, of the 259 segments studied about Romney during the eight-week period, just 3% were positive in nature while 71% were negativeEUR¦.MSNBC was especially negative in its treatment of Romney's policy prescriptions. Fully 75% of the stories focused on Romney's policies were negative compared with 1% that were positive. For Obama, by comparison, 32% of policy stories were favorable while 18% were negative." The full report is available online and is worth reading as it fairly and factually details MSNBC's obvious one-sidedness in their effort to ensure Barrack Obama is afforded a second term--another whack at the apple.
So the days are numbered until the election of our next president. MSNBC has made no bones about their choice--Obama--as if they and they alone know what is best for our country. I have never witnessed such demagoguery in my lifetime, such obvious partiality in political analysis to the extent that it is almost criminal in its blatancy, such disrespect for the democratic process as to be nauseating, and such transgressions of common decency in journalistic endeavor.
This should not surprise anyone familiar with the bias at that cable network. They have been on the attack for Obama ever since the last election when Chris Matthews had those tingly-leg feelings and once almost forgot that Obama was black. (By the way, is Obama really "black" or is he "white" since he was born of a white mother? Most importantly, does it matter to anyone except those at MSNBC who, at their insistence, have made this president an ethnic phenomenon and injected race into every discussion, warranted or not?)
Chris Mathews has been increasingly agitated in recent days due to the polls showing Romney closing the gap, if not in fact leading Obama. Matthews is slobbering more than usual in his daily rants over Romney and the Republicans in general. One critic suggested that that aforementioned leg tingle has gone to his brain so harsh and volatile has become his daily show. He certainly is more unbalanced lately--if that is possible--obviously the result of Romney's narrowing the lead if not beating Obama in reputable national surveys. Matthews tries his best to downplay any Romney edge by avoiding the mention of certain polls on his show, or, if he does acknowledge them, to certainly attempt to question their credibility. Chris is overly anxious to even think of a possible Romney victory, let alone to accept Romney as a probable president.
The second angriest man on MSNBC has to be Ed Schultz. In fact, he may just be the most angry since he is contemptible in criticizing Romney and the Republicans. He spares no vitriol in his nightly rant lasting one hour, most of which is devoted to calling Romney a "liar," or worse. His harsh approach to political reporting--if you could even call it that--centers around praise for Obama while ridiculing Romney to the extent it causes me to wince. How he is allowed to rant on and on is beyond me in that MSNBC claims to be "the place for politics," and not the place for political assassination per se.
Other talking heads have their whack at Romney in their allotted time slots. Rachel Maddow is more inclined to logical argument as to Romney being the wrong man for the job. She is more the "intellectual" MSNBC talking head, including in her discussions such other lefties as Melissa Harris-Perry, Ezra Klein, and Chris Hayes. (These "newbie juvenile lefties" each have their own show, or are members of a panel of young democrats (The Cycle) MSNBC is molding into the next generation of radical political analysts while cultivating the younger generation of viewers is my only guess as to the purpose of these interlopers.)
Al Sharpton, "the Reverend Al" as he is referred to, has his own show nowadays--after appearing frequently on other's for numerous opinions on racial matters--that is MSNBC's obvious attempt to forge a legion of black viewers by allowing him to rant on racial matters--as if he truly speaks for the black community, which we know he does not--and find "racists" under every rock, behind every Republican act, and to reinvigorate his claims of civil rights violations at every turn. His latest "crusade" is on voter suppression in which he claims Republicans are behind the voter fraud movement intending to keep people, especially black people, from the polls on Election Day. In this he has found, once again, something to reclaim his relevance--at least in his own mind--and another modern-day "Tawana Brawley" moment. Is there a more unqualified individual on television today, a less intelligent commentator, or a person more undeserving of being allocated one hour of prime time television to espouse racist views than the ubiquitous "Reverend Al?" I think not-- and so does Saturday Night Live, which skewers him at every opportunity.
Even the once-gentlemanly Martin Bashir has turned sour and himself vile on his own mid-day show. I resent a person with a British accent--one who is not yet even a citizen of this country--so vitriolic in his one-sided views of American politics and our Republican candidate for president. Has MSNBC lost all perspective? He belongs on BBC, not on American television bloviating as to the qualifications of Mitt Romney, especially when he has become just another of MSNBC's predisposed crew. No discussion of MSNBC's blatant bias would be complete without mentioning Lawrence O'Donnell, a long-time extreme lefty who even looks angry as he pontificates on the Republican campaign and Romney's many bad qualities. In fact, he is a self-proclaimed socialist as he has admitted frequently. Just after the Democrats' flogging in the 2010 election, he argued on a broadcast, "I am not a progressive. I am not a liberal who is so afraid of the word that I had to change my name to progressive. Liberals amuse me. I am a socialist." Now here is a political animal with the temperament of a hungry grizzly bear who spares no vindictive verse when examining the wrongs of the Republican Party today. He is a more-accomplished Ed Schultz type. He even gets "physical," or threatens to anyway. Recently, on October 18 on his show The Last Word he challenged Mitt Romney's son, Tagg, to fight. "Take a swing at me, and don't worry, there won't be any Secret Service involved. Just us. And I'll make it easy for you. I'll come to you anytime, anywhere. Go ahead Taggart, take your best shot," chided O'Donnell. Now that's a first--a political commentator throwing down the gauntlet on national television!
MSNBCs blatant bias has not gone unnoticed by media analysts. The reputable Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism has published a new report, which analyzes MSNBC compared to Fox News, and found that "if Fox News was a favorable environment for Romney but negative for Obama, the reverse was even more the case on MSNBCEUR¦.The bigger difference on MSNBC from the rest of the media was in the coverage of RomneyEUR¦.This year, of the 259 segments studied about Romney during the eight-week period, just 3% were positive in nature while 71% were negativeEUR¦.MSNBC was especially negative in its treatment of Romney's policy prescriptions. Fully 75% of the stories focused on Romney's policies were negative compared with 1% that were positive. For Obama, by comparison, 32% of policy stories were favorable while 18% were negative." The full report is available online and is worth reading as it fairly and factually details MSNBC's obvious one-sidedness in their effort to ensure Barrack Obama is afforded a second term--another whack at the apple.
So the days are numbered until the election of our next president. MSNBC has made no bones about their choice--Obama--as if they and they alone know what is best for our country. I have never witnessed such demagoguery in my lifetime, such obvious partiality in political analysis to the extent that it is almost criminal in its blatancy, such disrespect for the democratic process as to be nauseating, and such transgressions of common decency in journalistic endeavor.
Source...