Washington Post Pimps MSNBC

Photo of Noel Sheppard.

If you were to write an article about how the three cable news networks are covering a story, would you address the one with the highest ratings first, or the also-ran?

At the Washington Post, the answer is "the also-ran."

On Tuesday, in a piece about how political pundits are "overpopulating the news networks," staff writer Paul Farhi first highlighted what was going on at third-place MSNBC, and even gave Keith Olbermann the first crack at commenting on the matter (emphasis added throughout):

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann says that when he introduces his network's lineup of analysts and commentators on primary and caucus nights these days, it conjures up the long-winded introductions on an old variety show. "I am reminded of the way 'Hee Haw' opened," Olbermann says. "I am sorely tempted to finish [the list] with 'Joe Scarborough, Rachel Maddow, Gene Robinson and Pat Buchanan -- Grandpa Jones! . . . Junior Samples! . . . the Hager Twins!' "

Not to mention the rest of MSNBC's prime-time punditocracy -- the Buck Owenses and Minnie Pearls, as it were: Tucker Carlson! Chuck Todd! Howard Fineman! Richard Wolffe!

After a brief interlude, the worst to first coverage continued:

During the week of Super Tuesday, 75 percent of available airtime on MSNBC, CNN and Fox News was dedicated to dissecting the campaign, according to the Washington-based, nonprofit Project for Excellence in Journalism. That was more than 10 times the amount the cable news networks spent on the next most heavily reported story that week: the tornadoes in the Midwest and Southeast (the war in Iraq didn't make the top five).

Almost like doing an article about this Sunday's Daytona 500, and spending all your time talking about Tony Stewart instead of Ryan Newman, dontcha think?

Alas, this bizarre transposition wasn't done yet:

"We're devoting as much coverage to the primaries as the networks gave to NASA in the 1960s, only we're covering two or three moon shots a week," says Olbermann, who on Super Tuesday co-hosted the coverage with Chris Matthews for eight straight hours.

Add it all up, and in the first seven paragraphs, MSNBC was the focus of four of them, with Olbermann actually being quoted twice.

In fact, he would be quoted two additional times in the piece; not one person from ratings leader Fox News was quoted.

Not one.

In reality, this article was more about MSNBC's coverage than anything else, for out of the 31 total paragraphs, eleven addressed that network or one of its representatives. By contrast, CNN was mentioned or alluded to nine times.

Meanwhile, ratings leader Fox News came up only four times.

To top this off, MSNBC representatives were quoted six times in this piece; once again, not one quote from ratings leader Fox News.

It's almost like Ryan Newman didn't win the Daytona 500 at all, isn't it?

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The world today

It's the world today---ignorant assess telling the ignorant masses how and what to think. Lambs to slaughter. Sad.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

Back to the future!

The United States Main Stream Media, "Creating reality as we go".

So what?

The Post's half-a-dozen readers are reading about crazy Olberman's half-a-dozen viewers. That's like residents of an asylum taking among themselves. The more they speak, the dumber and crazier they sound.

Noel, Your link goes to

Noel,

Your link goes to an item about Huckabee.

Maggie

Maggie,

No it doesn't...now! Thanks. ns

maggie,

LOL-That's because Noel is a, psst., closet Huckabee supporter. :-^)

Which bothers me not at all, as Huck at least supports and actively promotes my favorite tax plan, and I would vote for him over McCain any day.  

1% or 2%?

1% or 2%? Will MSNBC's next election coverage be watched by 1% or 2% of
the population or less? GE ought to shut down this money losing
network. All MSNBC is, is an unpaid publicity agent for the DNC.

Same parent company

Aren't WAPO and NBC/MNBC owned by the same parent company? Maybe not. I have a vague and not quite certain memory that they are.

Liberal's Basic Rule For Discourse: I don't care if you agree with my premises, but I demand that you agree with my conclusions.

Grampa Jones or Louis Marshall Jones to those who loved him

Right now here am I attempting to not loose my composure as I'm close to furious over the slap this ass Fahri has taken at a great American citizen in Grampa Jones.

It is reprehensible to toss Louis Jones into this mix as some sort of Hee Haw bigotry. Louis Jones is an American hero if people would care to know the real gentleman and not a character which he crafted to entertain millions.
I could not expect Fahri to be able to know the difference between reality and fact, but fortunately I do.

Louis Jones was a multi talented comedian and muscian who was a mainstay at the Grand Ole Opry. He also WAS HANDICAPPED and for this Fahri OWES THE JONES FAMILY AN APOLOGY AND THE POST SHOULD FIRE HIS ASS.

Mr. Jones was a life long NRA member who enjoyed high powered rifle target sports. During one session in his handloads, Mr. Jones did not notice a shell he removed was leaking powder and a bullet had become lodged in the barrel. He loaded another round and fired his 220 Swift in which the gun exploded.
Louis Jones had his ear drum burst from that accident which almost cost him his life.

If you do not understand that the hearing impaired speak differently, the Fahri should be educated and not lump Louis Jones in with screaming trash of MSNBC.

Louis Jones served as an MP in World War II and organized a band which played on Armed Forces Radio to lift troop morale called the Munich Mountaineers.

He was inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame and died in 1998 from complications of a stroke.

Mr. Jones is a wonderful gentleman, family man, God fearing Methodist. He gave so much to America and never asked a thing in return. He never once in his life used his handicap as a crutch.

He amounted to something while Fahri, Olberman and Matthews do not ever deserve to be in the story with him.

I loved that old man.

 

 

 

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

Grampa Jones

LC: thanks for the nice words about Mr. Jones, I always enjoyed his comedy. However, it was Olberman that brought his name into the article, not Fahri. And he didn't say anything about him, he only included his name on a short list of Hee Haw performers that he tied into a list of PMSNBC talking heads as if they were equals. Personally, I'd take the Hee Haw folks over the others any day.

Chai

“...Bury me on my face,” said Diogenes; and when he was asked why, he replied, “Because in a little while everything will be turned upside down.”

Oh I see talk to death

Oh I see talk to death msnbc in last place with ratings...and ignore Fox.

....that'll fix 'em.

Hasn't worked so far...has it Keithie. 

Am I missing something?

The headline "Political Pundits, Overpopulating the News Networks" has a negative connotation, so why would a negative column revolving mostly around MSNBC be a bad thing? If the negativity was focused on Fox News wouldn't that be an example of liberal bias, instead it's article complaining about overpopulation of pundits and then using MSNBC as the prime example of punditry out of control, at the expense of actual news. I'm not sure what your problem with that is? You are acting like overpopulation of pundits is a good thing and Fox should get more credit?

Toom

Toom,

I would agree with you if the headline read "Overpopulating MSNBC." But it doesn't.

Furthermore, the article wasn't bashing the overpopulation, just pointing it out. ns

I read it again

and I still can't see how you are interpreting it to not be bashing the overpopulation. I'll admit it's very subtle, but the author clearly peppered the article with negatives related to pundits. Do you think the author is pro-pundit? Or was the article really an attempted lamentation on the state of our news when "opinion slinging" trumps true news analysis? I believe he intended the latter, although his point was poorly expressed, and I still think the article is more about the number of people who "speculate wildly" rather than him trying to say it sure is great all these pundits are getting work and that MSNBC is hiring them, which is what you seem to be implying the article is really about.

Apples and Oranges

Kudos - If I ever consider growing apple trees you have thoroughly convinced me to consult you about growing oranges. 

Toom... Huh?  Set the

Toom...

Huh? 

Set the GOP back on the right course. http://gopteaparty.com/

Toom

Toom,

So, tell me, was this article subtly bashing MSNBC, and Keith Olbermann? Was that the author's goal, to appear as if he was praising this network, but way down inside, if you read between the lines, he was being derisive?

And that's why he didn't interview anyone from Fox News, because THAT's the network he really respects since it's not overpopulating its coverage with pundits?

Of course, if that's the case, why didn't he say that rather than being so subtle? And, why didn't he say in his title "Some networks" are overpopulating their coverage with pundits?

Please, Toom, explain for us how these nuances work? Pretty please? With sugar on top? ns

My opinion

is that he was attempting to bash the population of pundits, regardless of what networks they are on. That is based on his use of the word "overpopulation" in the headline, which has a negative connotation. Last I checked the definition of headline was "a heading in a newspaper for any written material, sometimes for an illustration, to indicate subject matter". Therefore, your statement that he was "just pointing it out" is silly.

My opinion is that he was attempting to be clever (and failing), and trying to bash pundits without coming right out and bashing them. My opinion is that he is probably buddies with Olbermann who also thinks he's clever. I get the impression that the author is bitter about the success of pundits and depressed about his own declining career. He says "Post reporters receive $100 for daytime appearances and $300 for prime-time segments" then goes on to say some of the pundits make over $200k a year, sounds like sour grapes to me.

"Was that the author's goal, to appear as if he was praising this
network, but way down inside, if you read between the lines, he was
being derisive?"

My opinion is that you are the one reading between the lines, since he was being derisive in the HEADLINE, and you somehow interpreted the article to be praising MSNBC.

"And that's why he didn't interview anyone from Fox News, because THAT's
the network he really respects since it's not overpopulating its
coverage with pundits?"

How do you know he didn't interview anyone from Fox News? Just because he didn't put anyone in the article doesn't mean he didn't interview anyone, or attempt to interview anyone. Maybe no one from Fox would talk to him. Who says Fox isn't overpopulated with pundits? He clearly included them in the article.

"Of course, if that's the case, why didn't he say that rather than being
so subtle? And, why didn't he say in his title "Some networks" are
overpopulating their coverage with pundits?"

Because that's not the case, and his point was that they are overpopulating all three.

"Please, Toom, explain for us how these nuances work? Pretty please? With sugar on top?"

Wow, sarcasm, too bad you can't defend your position with logic instead. Sad.

Actually, I think Hee Haw was more intelligent TV than

Actually, I think Hee Haw was more intelligent TV than Olbermann's nightly foray into intellectual depravity could ever hope to be.
This also explains the Washed-up Post giving MSNBC priority over less-radical news networks, which reflects rather poorly on them.