News Is MSNBC Controlled by the Establishment and Biased in Their Reporting?

[Proton Soup]

Is MSNBC the "Establishment"

so i was following a youtube link at another forum, and i end up seeing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuekVufDBNc". and what i see as the featured video on his channel is this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x7o0sNrulg

now, i haven't watched much MSNBC lately, so, not only did i not realize Cenk Uyger had ever been in, i didn't know he was now out. which is neither here nor there. but listen to the reasons that he says that MSNBC did not give him the 6 o'clock slot, despite what he says are stellar ratings. apparently, "people in washington" didn't like his tone. and the head of MSNBC says "outsiders are cool. but we're not. we're insiders. we are the establishment." and then he goes on to say that MSNBC is not FOX, defends Maddow, etc. says he was offered double the money for a smaller role.

so just what does this say about MSNBC? and what does it mean for them to be The Establishment? to what degree does power and money control the media and our government? is real, honest criticism even allowed in a way that isn't marginalized?

 

[mege]

There is some obvious dislike of Fox News from this administration - the most recent incident even involves Press Sec. Carney accusing the Fox News rep of attempting to politicize his question. The reporter asked what the President's plan actually was regarding the debt ceiling - noting that the CBO hasn't evaluated anything from President Obama because there isn't a specific plan.

While I have little real fact to back it up (other than things like Uyger's story) my perception is that MSNBC is tighter with this administration than any other new agency has been with the government. Say what you want about Fox News, and while they definitely have a point of view - I don't think there has ever been a relationship with the conservatives as a whole in Congress or in the White House. Karl Rove and a few former Bush-WH advisors are on Fox now, but I never got the impression that the White House was calling the shots for Fox News programming (and if there ever was an official-ish relationship, I'm sure we would have heard about it).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Gawker uncovered an amazing document written by Fox News chief Roger Ailes in 1971 when he served as a consultant to President Richard Nixon. The plan was buried within Nixon's presidential archives and explains how Republicans could circumvent the "prejudices of network news" and deliver "pro-administration" stories to television viewers...

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/06/30/fox_news_blueprint_found_in_nixon_files.html

This 318-page document consists of White House records documenting Roger Ailes's work as a media consultant for the Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush administrations. The records were obtained from the Bush and Nixon presidential libraries, primarily from the files of Nixon chief of staff H.R. Haldeman and Bush chief of staff John Sununu. The Bush records represent a small minority of what the library has; most of its files concerning Ailes have yet to be released.

http://gawkernet.com/ailesfiles/ailesfiles.html

Watch the PBS News Hour - shown by a UCLA study linked a number of times now to be the most balanced

As for the Young Turks, he didn't get the job so MSNBC is corrupt. Okay. We could lose MSNBC for all I care, but this just sounds like hype and sour grapes to me.

 

[mege]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/06/30/fox_news_blueprint_found_in_nixon_files.html


http://gawkernet.com/ailesfiles/ailesfiles.html

Watch the PBS News Hour - shown by a UCLA study linked a number of times now to be the most balanced

As for the Young Turks, he didn't get the job so MSNBC is corrupt. Okay. We could lose MSNBC for all I care, but this just sounds like hype and sour grapes to me.

It's interesting to note that Ailes, before working at Fox News (launched in 1996, after both of those Presidents), was the chief at CNBC for a while.

And with the Young Turks, it's the blatant 'steering' that occured. Maybe he's lying, but if the reasoning was really because MSNBC was worried that it would make someone in DC mad - that's some ugly corruption. MSNBC already has lower ratings than Fox and CNN, so I don't think many are too worried - but the fact that this type of corruption could be happening is kinda scary. It legitimizes the claims of intentional hyper-politicization by the left which can only mean better ratings for Fox News in the end.

 

[Proton Soup]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/06/30/fox_news_blueprint_found_in_nixon_files.html http://gawkernet.com/ailesfiles/ailesfiles.html

Watch the PBS News Hour - shown by a UCLA study linked a number of times now to be the most balanced

As for the Young Turks, he didn't get the job so MSNBC is corrupt. Okay. We could lose MSNBC for all I care, but this just sounds like hype and sour grapes to me.

balanced? OK, i'll be sure to check it out. but, maybe you'll also try to look up my previous comments on FOX. i never denied that they lean right. in fact, if memory serves, I'm pretty sure i described FOX as leaning right, MSNBC as leaning left, and CNN being more centrist. and i'd even say that i had some respect for the way Maddow carried herself, even though i couldn't stand Olberman at the time and thought he was just a mirror to O'Reilley.

so before you go on a defensive stance, at least recognize that. I've never given a care that MSNBC leans left. infact, i watch 10 times more MSNBC than FOX (fox = almost never), and mostly stick to CNN when it's not celebrity worship. however, i am interested in this accusation that MSNBC says it is the establishment. i find that a bit troubling. and yes, it would be a lot nicer to have confirmation that is free of bias over contract opportunities.

 

[russ_watters]

IMO, MSNBC has an identity crisis: They try to be both at the same time. The Olberman issue is a key example. On the one hand they hired him and rode him to their current ant-fox status, then fired him for being that.

 

[phinds]

It seems to me that MSNBC is stridently liberal and FOX is stridently conservative and neither one is the least bit fair and balanced.

Personally, I think MSNBC makes a little more of an attempt to be balanced than FOX does but I suspect that folks with a more conservative bent probably think FOX is more balanced than MSNBC but I can't see how anyone can believe that either of them are actually balanced.

For balanced political commentary I listen to the BBC

 

[Proton Soup]

article and links about this from Glenn Greenwald. seems that Sharpton is the replacement.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/07/27/sharpton/

On Sunday, Cenk Uygur was interviewed by CNN's Howard Kurtz about Uygur's departure from MSNBC, and Ugyur claimed that Al Sharpton -- widely reported to be his replacement -- vowed in a 60 Minutes interview never to criticize President Obama under any circumstances.

60 Minutes even describes him as being part of the establishment now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHoMXLSjlDo

 

[Proton Soup]

Democracy Now interviews Uyger, and previous experiences of other media personalities are brought up, including Jessica Yellin, Phil Donahue, Ashleigh Banfield, and Jesse Ventura.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/democracy-now/cenk-uygur-leaves-msnbc_b_906708.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGtrnXI0ai4


here's the part where Yellin spilled the beans about having her coverage edited by executives to put on a pro-war spin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj7GuF1RUXE

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/28/acd.02.html

COOPER: Jessica, McClellan took press to task for not upholding their reputation. He writes: "The National Press Corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq. The 'liberal media' -- in quotes -- didn't live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served."

Dan Bartlett, former Bush adviser, called the allegation "total crap."

What is your take? Did the press corps drop the ball?

JESSICA YELLIN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I wouldn't go that far.

I think the press corps dropped the ball at the beginning. When the lead-up to the war began, the press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war that was presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings.

And my own experience at the White House was that, the higher the president's approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives -- and I was not at this network at the time -- but the more pressure I had from news executives to put on positive stories about the president.

I think, over time...

COOPER: You had pressure from news executives to put on positive stories about the president?

YELLIN: Not in that exact -- they wouldn't say it in that way, but they would edit my pieces. They would push me in different directions. They would turn down stories that were more critical and try to put on pieces that were more positive, yes. That was my experience.

and Ashleigh Banfield had an interesting experience at NBC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashleigh_Banfield

In April 2003, in a speech at Kansas State University, Banfield raised concerns regarding media coverage of the conflict in Iraq. She also spoke against "cable news operators who wrap themselves in the American flag and go after a certain target demographic", and specifically named Fox News Channel as an example.[3] The New York Times reported that her speech angered NBC management, who rebuked her and lowered her profile.[2]

I was office-less for ten months ... No phone, no computer. For ten months I had to report to work every day and ask where I could sit. If somebody was away I could use their desk. Eventually, after ten months of this, I was given an office that was a tape closet. They cleared the tapes out and put a desk and a TV in there, and a computer and phone. It was pretty blatant. The message was crystal clear. Yet they wouldn't let me leave. I begged for seventeen months to be let out of my contract. If they had no use for me, let's just part ways amicably—no need for payouts, just a clean break. And [NBC News President Neal Shapiro] wouldn't allow it. I don't know what his rationale was—perhaps he thought I would take what I felt was a very strong brand, and others felt was a very strong brand, to another network and make a success of it. Maybe that's why he chose to keep me in a warehouse. I will never forgive him for his cruelty and the manner in which he decided to dispose of me.
—in New Canaan-Darien Magazine, January 2009[4]

The Establishment seems to like war.

 

[Proton Soup]

Obama uses part of his vacation to visit the home of Comcast CEO Brian Roberts.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0811/into_the_woods_e6c4b4e2-aec1-417b-a8e7-3a2989b80c7f.html

Comcast is the owner of NBC/MSNBC, aka the Establishment.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/29/us-comcast-nbc-idUSTRE70S2WZ20110129

a little more info here:
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/128292238.html

 

[WhoWee]

Obama uses part of his vacation to visit the home of Comcast CEO Brian Roberts.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0811/into_the_woods_e6c4b4e2-aec1-417b-a8e7-3a2989b80c7f.html

Comcast is the owner of NBC/MSNBC, aka the Establishment.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/29/us-comcast-nbc-idUSTRE70S2WZ20110129

a little more info here:
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/128292238.html

My wife typically travels with me to visit friends - a top aide would accompany for business purposes in the real world (IMO of course).

 

[mege]

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0811/plugged_in_985b456d-f954-4c0d-b285-a7735f459b72.html

Comcast employees are one of the top Obama donors so far

Comcast employees have donated nearly $200,000 to the fund, according to an Open Secrets analysis. They top out a list that includes Goldman Sachs employees (No. 4), law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, & Flom (No. 2), and Dreamworks (No. 8).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

so just what does this say about MSNBC? and what does it mean for them to be The Establishment? to what degree does power and money control the media and our government? is real, honest criticism even allowed in a way that isn't marginalized?

After watching the video it seems to me that you are making more of this than he did. Note the context of him being referred to as an "outsider" and how he has an obvious and admitted desire to rail against "the establishment". It would seem that the person was simply making example of where he stands versus where they stand. Where the "outsider" with the "leather jacket" is "anti-establishment" and derides the "straights" and "squares" who are part of "the establishment".

Most any news source wants to be an "insider". They want to have good relationships with the people who are "in the know" on the subjects that they are reporting on whether its politics, sports, or entertainment. You can not make and maintain such relationships when you are railing against these people. And its harder to get the juicy information and the high profile interviews if you don't have those relationships.

 

[DoggerDan]

No.

Error: The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 4 characters.

Ok: Oh, my goodness, no.

 

[ThomasT]

so just what does this say about MSNBC?

It's 'corporate media', and all that that entails.

and what does it mean for them to be The Establishment?

It means that the people who own and run it are part of and in line with the interests of the status quo and have a vested interest in not rocking the oligarchical boat.

is real, honest criticism even allowed in a way that isn't marginalized?

No, but the control is generally subtle and behind the scenes enough that it doesn't really offend the general population (which has it pretty good compared to the rest of the world -- eg., the Belarus dictator, Lukashenko recently banned clapping - next is smiling).

Non democrat and republican candidates who might direct a marked change from the status quo will always be marginalized by the mainstream (ie., corporate) media.

 

[Proton Soup]

i found this fascinating. look at who MS/NBC hires: Jenna Bush, Chelsea Clinton, & Meghan McCain. bipartisan, deeply established children of politicians. and look who Chelsea married - a Goldman Sachs guy (apparently CNN likes Goldman-Sachs, too).

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/14/americas_meritocratic_watchdog_news_media/singleton/

 

[russ_watters]

Um, do we know for sure the political affiliations of these kids matches their parents? Or is this just a gimmick?

 

[DoggerDan]

Um, do we know for sure the political affiliations of these kids...

What in the world do four kids have to do, statistically speaking, with the several thousand folks who work these institutions?

Or is this just a gimmick?

Bingo. I'd call it a smoke screen.

 

[Proton Soup]

Um, do we know for sure the political affiliations of these kids matches their parents? Or is this just a gimmick?

i'm not sure what the question is. is the idea that the network wants them because of their brand?

and I'm not even sure political affiliation really means that much anymore. at least to politicians. politicians do switch parties to stay in the game.

 

[russ_watters]

You said they are bipartisan, though. Are they?

 

[Proton Soup]

You said they are bipartisan, though. Are they?

MSNBC? their schtick leans far left. but they are apparently courting favor with the power establishment on both sides there by hiring children of both republicans and democrats.

 

[russ_watters]

MSNBC? their schtick leans far left. but they are apparently courting favor with the power establishment on both sides there by hiring children of both republicans and democrats.

Ugh. What you said implied to me that hiring the children of people on both sides makes them bipartisan. I'm asking if the children are bipartisan. Do you really know? Perhaps they are all Democrats? Either way, seems like a silly gimmick to me.

 

[daveb]

One thing I've found interesting about MSNBC, as it compares to FOX, is the type of advertising of the two stations. On occasion, I've seen political ads for both sides of the aisle on MSNBC. For example, political advertisements during the health care debate had ads both for and against it on MSNBC during their "liberal" opinion shows (Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, etc.), but I didn't see similar competing ads on FOX. Not to say it didn't happen, but I wonder if the advertising of both sides on (at least) MSNBC means they're just opportunists looking to make the most money they can?

 

[Proton Soup]

Ugh. What you said implied to me that hiring the children of people on both sides makes them bipartisan. I'm asking if the children are bipartisan. Do you really know? Perhaps they are all Democrats? Either way, seems like a silly gimmick to me.

i don't know where their children stand politically.