The 2008 Presidential Campaign: What Happened and Why?

[Primula Baggins]

I don't think anybody would be likely to sit through the same broadcast twice, so in terms of new content they're equal. Rachel Maddow is MSNBC's highest-rated show ever, with Olbermann close behind, so it's no surprise they run each of them twice.

If there's political news, we usually watch Rachel Maddow for an hour. She's wry and intelligent and easy to watch. Matthews is a strange guy and has a sexist streak a mile wide, and Olbermann is fun to watch when something angering is going on but has a tendency to be full of himself. Sometimes I suspect that he thinks he's the second coming of Edward R. Murrow.

Rachel doesn't shout at people. Nor do they shout at her; she's quite capable of delivering a devastating argument with a pleasant smile on her face.

I should say that none of these shows are anything but analysis as entertainment, nor do they pretend to be.

[Holbytla]

There is little "hard news" left, but it isn't non-existant.
Jim Lehrer is one of the better news reports.

[halplm]

First of all, It's not Hannity's show, it's Hannity and Colmes, who does just a fine job of spouting off liberal talking points.

And Oreilly is not conservative, or I'd agree with him a lot more.

And neither of thier shows are "news" so they are in fact completely irrelivant to this discussion.

But, this discussion is pointless... you all can't stand that conservatives actually have a place to get undistorted news.

Hey, if Obama gets elected, you can shut them all up for good!

[nerdanel]

I don't think anybody would be likely to sit through the same broadcast twice.

Right. I guess I was getting at a different point - the number of hours per day a liberal or conservative perspective is aired. IOW, more voters are likely exposed to a perspective that is broadcast for 30 hours per week, as opposed to a perspective that is broadcast during a narrower window of 15 hours per week. That's all I was saying. Not a huge point.

[Primula Baggins]

I don't get news from TV at all unless there's something visual about it that I want to see. When I'm looking for hard information, it's infuriating to sit through the time-wasting puff pieces and the endless commercials, while being "teased" for the story I want for twenty minutes or more before they deign to run it.

I like what NPR is turning into: an Internet-based news source where you can listen only to the stories you're interested in, or even download them onto your iPod. I'd bet that's where video news is going, too.

Edit: Hal, has someone told you Obama's going to censor the media if he wins?

[River]

Hey, if Obama gets elected, you can shut them all up for good!

You aren't the first to spout this or something similar off and I've got to wonder where this idea even comes from. Can you tell me? Or is it just some sort of emotional, late-election-cycle response to the opposing candidate?

[sauronsfinger]

Hannity and Colmes???????

Colmes might as well be an emasculated eunech for all of his ability and gravitas on that show. If they titled it properly it would be

HANNITY & colmes

and that size font is only half of what it should be.

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

O'Reilly is not a conservative? That's kind of surprising.

River, if we want to prove that Obama isn't going to censor the media then we need to find the prove..... I'm just assuming.

[River]

You can't prove a negative, TED. I'm not asking anyone to prove Obama won't do it. I'm asking for proof he will. I'm wondering where the idea even came from. What's the basis for it? Where's the extraordinary evidence to back this extraordinary claim?

[Erunáme]

If there's political news, we usually watch Rachel Maddow for an hour.

I really miss getting to watch Countdown and I'm also sad I'm missing Maddow's new show. I always liked her as a commentator on Countdown. Stupid sky (our cable provider) only has Fox News, CNN International, and CNBC in regards to American news channels. Why the heck they chose CNBC over MSNBC is beyond me.

I can watch Olbermann and Maddow on MSNBC's website, but the show is broken down into segments so I'm not sure if I'm getting it all, plus the shows are posted online a week after they air. By that point it's a bit late to be watching them.

And Oreilly is not conservative

.
.

Mods, how much longer is hal going to be allowed to make blanket statements such as "you all can't stand that conservatives actually have a place to get undistorted news" and others I pointed out in a post yesterday in the other thread? It's getting really frustrating being painted with such a broad, false brush.

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

River, I wasn't asking you specifically. I was being sarcastic. Sorry if I didn't make it clear. I agree with you, though.

[River]

You know, you were probably clear and I was just being dense. It happens.

However, I'm not being sarcastic with my questions. I really do want to know.

[Primula Baggins]

I think there's been talk of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, which would mean radio stations couldn't run right-wing opinion shows all day without providing equal time to the "other side." This is seen as an attempt to muzzle right-wing opinion in broadcasting. Nancy Pelosi is one Democrat who favors it.

Obama does not favor restoring the Fairness Doctrine. Link

[yovargas]

Obama does not favor restoring the Fairness Doctrine. Link

Eek. Glad he doesn't. That thing sounds awful.
(As a side note, it intrigues me that it's seen as an anti-Republicans thing, as if such a thing couldn't oh-so-easily be turned against just about anybody in the future. Short-sighted.)

[sauronsfinger]

Just how profitable is the income redistribution scheme in Alaska? You know - the one where Governor Palin fought for higher taxes on some corporations, collects the money because they are making just too darn much, and then gives it to the citizens of Alaska because they do not have as much.

Some would call that spread the wealth.
Some would call that income redistribution.
Some would call that socialism.

Sarah Palin called it on her 2006 & 2007 income tax returns to the tune of $5,522.00. That is money made by corporations, taxed and siezed by the Alaska state government, and then redistributed to the people of Alaska in terms of a check.

[Holbytla]

The Fairness Doctrine wouldn't work in the case of Rush Limbaugh. There isn't anyone on the planet who could offset him.

[sauronsfinger]

Holby - did you ever hear of Ed Schultz of Air America? He is a Limbaugh sound alike with almost the same voice. He hunts and fishes and lives up somewhere in North Dakota or Montana. And he is a liberal democrat. He could give Limbaugh a good run for his money.

http://www.bigeddieradio.com/

[Cerin]

The Fairness Doctrine used to exist. I believe it was repealed in the Reagan era. I see nothing wrong with requiring a balance of views. The radio waves belong to the public, not to corporations.

[vison]

The Fairness Doctrine is one of those things that sounds good in theory but is terrible in practice, isn't it?

One of the things it does is, by its very existence, give equal weight to opposing views. Anyone who has ever been in a court room will know that's not always a good thing.

I don't, as a rule, watch much TV, particularly American TV. I honestly could not BEAR, really could not BEAR my brief exposure to Fox News. Not so much for its obvious bias, because one can set bias aside, but because it is so incredibly DUMB. I don't like to come across as anti-American, because god knows I'm not, but you guys are not at all well served by your TV news. It is really mostly "infotainment" and it turns real news into meaningless drivel by giving the latest info on Britney Spears the same coverage as the invasion of Iraq.

I believe I am very, very fortunate to have CBC radio. It is my main "MSM' source.

[yovargas]

I'd rather not get into this debate here, but the idea of the government forcing any person to say things they may not believe is extremely distasteful to me and, while I am no lawyer, also sounds pretty damn unconstitutional.