Posted on 01/22/2010 9:52:23 AM PST by big black dog
Watching coverage of the Massachusetts senatorial election Tuesday night, I wondered if MSNBC was getting ready to cut off its cable signal to the state. Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, positively enraged that Massachusetts dared to elect a Republican, delivered two hours of nonstop bilious rage toward the state's voters, calling them "irrational" and "teabaggers," engaged in "a total divorce from reality," and hinting that they're vicious racists to boot.
If you watched CNN or Fox News last night, you got a balanced analysis of how Republican Scott Brown pulled off the political upset of the century (or, if you prefer, how Democrat Martha Coakley blew a dead solid electoral lock). Yes, I said Fox News, without irony. To be sure, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity made it clear they were rooting for Brown. But their shows also included a steady parade of liberal-leaning guests -- former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown, former Dukakis campaign manager Susan Estrich, Democratic party strategist Mary Anne Marsh, NPR commentator Juan Williams and radio host Alan Colmes. And pollster Frank Luntz interviewed a panel of two dozen or so Massachusetts voters, most of them Democrats, about how they voted and why. Practically every conceivable perspective on the election was represented.
And on MSNBC, you got practically every conceivable expression of venom against Brown and anybody who voted him. From Maddow's dark suspicions that the election was rigged -- she cited complaints about a grand total of six ballots out of about 2.25 million cast -- to Olbermann's suggestion in the video up above that the same Massachusets voters who went for Barack Obama by a 62-28 percent margin had suddenly realized they helped elect a black guy and went Republican in repentance, the network's coverage was idiotic, one-sided and downright ugly.
Olbermann was simply outraged by the vote. "The teabaggers may have elected their first guy tonight," he declared as Brown rolled up a commanding lead. Just in case the connotations of the word teabag might be lost on his audience, he clarified his feelings: "I wanted to apologize for calling Republican Senate candidate, Scott Brown, an irresponsible homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees. I`m sorry -- I left out the word 'sexist.'"
Maddow added dirty campaigner to the charges. Her sense of fair play was violated by a Brown campaign ad in which his daughter complained about Coakley's attacks on her father: "Martha Coakley`s new negative ad represents everything that discourages young women from getting involved in politics, and as a young woman, I`m completely offended by that," the daughter said in the ad. Sniffed Maddow: "It`s like using your kid as a human shield." Oddly, Maddow made no mention of the Coakley TV ad that started the exchange, which began: “1,736 women were raped in Massachusetts in 2008. Scott Brown wants hospitals to turn them all away...”
MSNBC's idea of "balancing" these rants was to interview former Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean. (His main insight: Coakley's loss was, honest to God, George W. Bush's fault.) When a third MSNBC host, Chris Matthews, timidly raised the possibility that Massachusetts voters were concerned about high government spending, Maddow snapped that such thinking was "irrational" and added: "To say it`s fiscally responsible to not reform health care is insanity... It`s a total divorce from reality."
(To be perfectly fair, I wouldn't have believed anything Matthews said, either, after he insisted that Richard Nixon's presidency crumbled not over Watergate but the recession of 1974.)
It may be too much to expect NBC, these days reduced to a national wisecrack, to be embarrassed over the frothing lunacy that passes for news coverage at corporate stepchild MSNBC. But both networks are part of the same news division. If news boss Steve Capus thinks his reporters can continue to appear with Olbermann and Maddow without suffering credibility contamination, he's dumber than whoever was behind the Leno/O'Brien late-night shuffle.
I truly think that as much polarized as we were in 2009, it’s going to be worse, MUCH WORSE in 2010. We are going to see solid conservatives on one side and ultra, ULTRA left wing on the other side. The moderates on both sides and many of the independents and tea partiers will be coming over to the conservative side, because they realize that ULTRA left wing is truly NOT what this country needs or wants for that matter.
I could be wrong of course.
If someone in Massachusetts started a simple campaign to boycott MSNBC it would amplify things.
Massachusetts Should Ban Nutball Channel.
Got to hand it to CNN. When they finally, eventually, got around to removing their ticker which said, “Brown catches up to Coakley” (in fact Brown never trailed Coakley) but when they did break in to Larry King Alive John King played it very straight. I was impressed.
Olbermann, Maddow and Matthews - the three morons of the apocalypse.
LOL good line but the S.S. Credibility sailed from the NBC dock years ago.
Good, MSNBC just killed 25% of their viewers.
I bet all 10 viewers were positively energized by PMSNBC’s subjective coverage.
Although CBS called it a very close election after Brown won and never actually reported the margin of victory,
They didn’t tear into Mass voters for the results. They at least tried to analyze why voters revolted against “teddy Kennedy’s” Seat.
I'm just sayin'...
I have to say, the nastiness has even surprised me, and I already thought they were nasty, but they’re even worse. Also I have to say, I’m 1 of those people who posts at the DU just to stir the pot and make them more paranoid, but I think I need to hang up my user name there, they’re the most vulgar people I’ve ever seen, and the way they treat their fellow posters, fellow Democrats, is unbelievable. They’re literally crazy most of them and they’re just alienating their fellow citizens, so good, let them do that.
MSNBC and NBC: the new Air America.
May they suffer the same fate as Air America.
Wonder how much demo fraud there was in the Mass Election?
I’ve been checking the DU site for a few days now, and you are absolutely correct. They are some of the most rude, foul mouthed and down right mean people I’ve ever come across. I made one post on there and within minutes my posting rights were suspended. Go figure, liberals and there “open mindedness” and all.
One slight correction. When I turned onto the tv, one precinct (probably in Cambridge) had reported and Coakley was ahead at that point. The next report had her behind. So she can take some solace that for a few microseconds she was winning. Too bad for her the counting took a couple of hours. Hooray!!
One thing people need to consider is that elections are often like sports games on a psychological level, people identify with their candidate and their party in the same way they identify with a team, and so the reactions to victory or loss are similar. We all know people that can get extremely vitriolic when their team loses a big game, the vitriol is worse knowing that the fans of the opposing team are cheering and gloating, and pwning the losers.
If this were ONLY about politics on a psychological level the reactions would be a lot more sedate in most cases.
Apparently, if you drive a pickup truck you’re a racist.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2010/01/19/massachusetts-olbermann-cries-racism
Olbermann, Maddow and Matthews - the three morons of the apocalypse.
HAHAHA! Very good!
e.s.
PS: Did you take your FR moniker from the scotch or vice-versa?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.