It WAS a good segment! And that’s why Bernie is my favorite. His books are great (well, the first 3/4ths are great, the final 1/4 sometimes get phoned-in), and he doesn’t pull any punches. I wish the discussion could have gone on longer, names named, and examples given.

I just wish that Bernie’s transmission studio didn’t have phonebooth audio.

Well I see Steve misses the point again of the FNC ad:

Fox’s view is that the ad refers to the other networks’ missing the larger story, not failing to cover the demonstration itself — although the photos suggest that the headline refers to the protest. “Generally speaking,” Michael Tammero, Fox News’s vice president of marketing, said in a statement, “it’s fair to say that from the tea party movement . . . to ACORN . . . to the march on 9/12, the networks either ignored the story, marginalized it or misrepresented the significance of it altogether.”

As far as Bernie’s statements–if he is unwilling to name names and give specific examples then don’t bother bringing it up at all.

The main difference between FNC and the others– they don’t have Sean or Beck etc hosting political debates. MSNBC certainly does that using Chris and Olbynut. They also let Maddow, Chris and Olbynut host news coverage as well. Acting like its ok for their opinion hosts to do that. Now granted, most of the others ones at MSNBC are opinion hosts masquerading as journalists. David Shuster, Norah O Donnell, Tamaron Hall, Contessa Brewer etc–all extreme left wingers parading as “newsmen”.

CNN the same way whether its John Roberts, Rick Sanchez etc..

Brit Hume moderated Fox News presidential primary debates. He’s a conservative commentator who writes for the Weekly Standard. That’s no different than having William Kristol or Fred Barnes doing the same job.

Nice to see that you avoided that one, CaptainUnAmerica.

Bernie was willing to name names, but Bill stopped him. I knew he was referring to Beck and Hannity.

Why is the excuse always “everyone else is doing it”

Fox is not part of any solution, they’re just another part of the problem.

Brit Hume is a well respected, veteran journalist who demonstrated that he could separate his personal opinion, from delivering straight non-biased reports. His opinions were presented when asked, but not in the context of every comment or report.. Kristol or Barns (or Mort Kondracke, for that matter) were solely opinion guys, and editors of “The Weekly Standard”… not occasional article writers. Thusly, comparison is false.

Are you really suggesting that the personal opinions of Brit Hume were/are of the same level as Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann? Really? His commentary was fact based, not advocacy related, and never vitriolic to the “other side.” You simply do not have leg to stand on.

What are you talking about, Anthony?

The situation Bernie notes is somewhat unique to Fox because they’re the only ones with pure commentary in the evenings. Role confusion isn’t really limited to Fox or FNC viewers, but it has sort of become their problem because of (very profitable) programming choices they’ve made and as long as people don’t understand who is who, it’ll continue to backlash on the network.

“unique to Fox because they’re the only ones with pure commentary in the evenings” – You sure about that?

MSNBC: Matthews (opinion)/ Schultz (opinion) / Olbermann (opinion) / Madow (opinion)/ then the reruns start.
CNN: Dobbs (opinion mix) / Brown (opinion) / King (dead man walking – Fluff) / Cooper (Opinion – mostly news – Fluff)

I’ve been hearing about this eminant ‘backlash’ coming to FOX News for years now. Any idea when that is coming?

The “backlash” is that most people can’t tell an anchor from a commentator, so it’s easy for them to paint Fox with a wide brush because of their primetime line-up. I’m not saying that anything is going to happen to Fox because they made a profitable choice. I’m just saying that because the public doesn’t separate roles, then it’s easier for people (Fox viewers and non-Fox viewers alike) to be confused and as Bernie notes, even the some of the personalities may not be aware of the line.

Otherwise, as to your list: Most of the flagship shows on Fox evenings are built around talk radio personalities. These are hosts who give their opinion on air, something like four to hours a day. Dobbs has been venturing into this territory and King used to have a balanced, non-political show on the radio all night, but the others are different animals.

I’d really hate to go there, but…

I’d say Matthews hosts a political talk show; Olbermann and Maddow have “flavored” news and I consider Brown and Cooper as being as close to a straight, prime-time news program (with personality), as you can get this side of the BBC or old Headline News. Sure, they talk to people, so some of their opinion may seep through, but they don’t have Olbermann’s editorials or his listicles and they don’t just sit there, stare into the camera and tell you what they think.

PS) I don’t really watch any of these shows, all that much.

I have seen them all a few times and as a disclaimer: I’ve easily watched more Hardball over the years than the other programs, but I don’t generally watch news in the evening and when I do, I’m probably least likely to watch Olbermann and have seen more O’Reilly than Brown.

And none of this changes my original point about confusion over media roles.

“I’d say Matthews hosts a political talk show” – it’s his opinion on politics just like Hannity , Beck or O’Reilly.
So when FOX does it, it’s commentary but when MSNBC or CNN does it, it’s “flavored’ news? Umm… ok?

And only two of the 5 Fox shows have radio shows. If I remember correctly, Dobbs has a radio show, and Maddow and Schults each had one that failed. So 2 out of 4 MSNBC primetime folks are associated with failed radio. 1 out of 4 CNN folks are associate with radio and 2 out of 5 FOX people are associated with successful radio.

I know you’ve heard me make this complaint before, and I do love to sound like a broken record, but did the content of this story REALLY need to be broken up and spread over THREE pages?

“And none of this changes my original point about confusion over media roles.” – I guess I just give the American people more credit than you do. I don’t think they are idiots who can’t tell the difference. That comment goes to Bernie as well.

@Zakk: I really don’t want to mar Steve’s excellent post by venturing too far from the original subject, but just a quick glance at the comments attached to a TVNewser interview with Shep Smith shows that several of those posting an opinion aren’t sure of his role.

And, when Bernie started talking, O’Reilly and the rest of us, knew who he meant.

If you’ve ever seen Hardball with Chris Matthews, you’ll know that you basically never get hear any of his opinions. It’s not an advocacy show like Beck or Hannity. He does brief analysis, but lets his guests do most of the talking. I’ve watched the show extensively and you hardly (if ever) hear any of his own politics on the show.

If anything what ImNotBlue said about Brit Hume applies more to Chris Matthews. Brit Hume, actually, is exactly what Bernie Goldberg was talking about: a self-described newscaster on Fox News who’s really not balanced at all – yet claims to be independent when he’s actually a partisan commentator.

I’ve tried to sit through Hardball and his Sunday morning show. But the one sided conversations get old, quick. I’ve noticed on FOX that they bring in both sides of the argument whereas MSNBC brings in 3 Dems and 1 Repub. What I’ve noticed with FOX is they enjoy the argument, the understand that opposing points of view create ratings.

Covering the Primaries- As an ‘Objective Reporter’
February 13, 2008
CHRIS MATTHEWS: I have to tell you, you know, it’s part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama’s speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often.

–Yes, your right – very fair commentary.

November 6, 2008:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yeah, well, you know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work, and I think that –
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist!
MATTHEWS: Yeah, it is my job.

–Sounds like he is a straight shooter, right up the middle. With comments like that I can’t imagine him not being totally straight with the tens upon tens of people who are watching.

Speaking about John McCain criticizing Obama:
“What is that about? Is that an inferiority complex? Is that embarrassment? Is that guilt? Or is it contempt?” Sounds like good impartial reporting there, on Hardball.

–If YOU ever watched Hume when he was doing the nightly news, he basically just read the news. When it came time for the Panel, he would pose a question and let the panel discuss. Rarely would he interject anything into the conversation that would be construed as an opinion. When he is not hosting and is on a panel, as in the Sunday panel, then he does give his opinions and he is clearly a conservative. But when he was running Special Report, he was pretty up the middle. I know he was labeled a ‘right wing’ guy because of his network and the fact that he didn’t sweep every Dem misstep under the rug. But he also came after the Republicans just as hard.

To be honest with you, I don’t know why we are even discussing MSNBC, other than you, no one is watching. Other then when they run their documentaries. Which are so much more popular than any of their actual ‘news’ shows.

Chris Mathews show is purely his opinion . Theres no straight news at all going on there. And Countdown is by far further out there than Beck or Hannity. Not only can Keith not have anyone on the show who disagrees with him (because of his inability to debate). Keith is locked in with one of the biggest political hate organizations on the planet- Daily Ko’s.

Brit Hume is like Tim Russert. Brit Hume’s show was straight news. And as shown by the research, FNC was the most fair covering the last election. It because of people like Brit Hume.

When Fox did political coverage, they didn’t use their opinion hosts. They used their news people like Brit Hume, Shep Smith and others.

MSNBC on the other hand, used their prime time lineup of opinion flacks.

Oh my God, sanity is spreading on Fox. First, Glenn Beck admits that McCain would have been worse that Obama and now another Fox insider conceeds that they don’t report news but cheer on anarchy and sow distrust. Mostly, they don’t transmit the truth or the news. Maybe I’ll start watching FOX?? NOT!!!!

NewsBusters — Bill O’Reilly and Bernie Goldberg Debate Fox News and Conservative Bias
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/09/30/bill-oreilly-bernie-goldberg-debate-foxs-conservative-bias

Magister says:
September 30, 2009 at 12:52 pm
The situation Bernie notes is somewhat unique to Fox because they’re the only ones with pure commentary in the evenings.

The “only ones?” Huh? What about MSNBC’s line-up? Matthews, Schultz, Olbermann, Maddow… that’s pretty much “pure commentary,” isn’t it?

“I’d say Matthews hosts a political talk show; Olbermann and Maddow have “flavored” news”

You can’t possibly be serious… can you?

PS) I don’t really watch any of these shows, all that much.
And none of this changes my original point about confusion over media roles.

Well, it does change your point because you don’t know what you’re talking about. If that’s what you really think, the only way you could is by not watching the programs you’re talking about… which is apparently what has happened. Otherwise, it would be impossible.

m says:
September 30, 2009 at 3:53 pm
If you’ve ever seen Hardball with Chris Matthews, you’ll know that you basically never get hear any of his opinions.

No, “Mr.”Thrill-up-my-leg” is right down the middle. Yikes! You only need watch his show for about 30 seconds to figure out where he stands, and how the show is slanted to promote HIS opinions, over everyone else’s.

“If anything what ImNotBlue said about Brit Hume applies more to Chris Matthews.”

Yes, except for the “veteran journalist,” and the “well respected” part. Matthews was a speechwriter for Tip O’Neill… it was pretty obvious from the start where his belief’s lay.

Brit Hume, actually, is exactly what Bernie Goldberg was talking about: a self-described newscaster on Fox News who’s really not balanced at all – yet claims to be independent when he’s actually a partisan commentator.

Well… not it’s not. Show me some “partisan chatter” from Hume, when he’s in the role of “newscaster.” Wow me. It’s amazing how you’re able to see offensive from “the other side” so clear and frequently… but can’t see anything when it’s one of “your guys.” That’s hypocrisy, my friend. And you’re swimming in it.

Studson Zik says:
September 30, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Maybe I’ll start watching FOX?? NOT!!!!

No, but please… keep telling us what “really happens on there,” without watching it. You’re “well informed opinion,” really adds to the discussion.

(PS- A “not” line… really? Is this 1990 again? Really?)

@ImNotBlue: My point was that because Fox is known for opinion during primetime and because most people can’t separate the opinion shows from the overall network, Fox’s public perception has been affected.

I guess because it was perceived that I was attacking Fox by saying something about them in response to a post about Fox, somehow MSNBC got put into the mix.

Personally, I believe there’s a slightly wider variety of headlines and more minutes of news (not talk, but news) during the two main MSNBC shows in comparison to those on Fox, but I may be mistaken and because MSNBC has recently hitched their star to the liberal mantra, I’m sure the perception has started to change.

But, let’s see… Back during the Clinton administration, John Gibson held court every afternoon on MSNBC with Paula Jone’s spokeswoman and a roundtable of people analyzing every detail of every investigation; Olbermann quit because he felt that the whole “America Held Hostage” thing was bad for his soul.

Then, there was a period up until a short while ago, primetime on MSNBC meant Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson and Dan Abrams. At some point Phil Donahue had a show and I can’t remember if Bay Buchanan ever had one on her own, but she was one of the co-hosts of “Equal Time”.

IOW: We’re now on at least the third, if not the eighth MSNBC and though they have been adding more opinion, the majority of people don’t necessarily associate it with a specific ideology yet and there are some who still thinks of it as NBC on cable.

And, none of this has anything to do with what Bernie Goldberg said about Fox, while on Fox.

Magister says:
September 30, 2009 at 10:51 pm
“…the majority of people don’t necessarily associate it with a specific ideology yet and there are some who still thinks of it as NBC on cable.”

Here comes the big rebuttal…
Ready for it…
Buckle in…
And…
Here…
We…
Go………………………

Prove it.

Prove that “the majority of people” don’t know MSNBC’s bias, and think of it as “NBC” on cable. What is your evidence for that statement?

If your statement was something more like, “Most people don’t know MSNBC’s bias because they don’t know where MSNBC is on their television,” you’d be closer to correct. But lets not kid ourselves. When MSNBC is getting propped up by the likes of Media Matters and the KOS kids, their alliances become pretty well known.

It sounds like you’re living with the MSNBC of a few years ago. And while I too remember the days before Olbermann (my favorite MSNBC show was “Connected: Coast to Coast” with Monica Crowely and Ron Reagan), you have to live in the “now.” Their line-up has moved solidly left, with four major left-wing advocates. Add in knuckleheads like David Schuster (who pretends to be unbiased in the afternoons, and then guest hosts Olbermann’s Ego at night), and a whole bunch of other left leaning “journalists,” and you have exactly what you’re complaining about… just in reverse.

Now this whole discussion came about from your initial statement that, “The situation Bernie notes is somewhat unique to Fox because they’re the only ones with pure commentary in the evenings.” Your statement is false, and thusly the conclusion you’ve drawn about Goldberg’s point is wrong. It is not unique to FOX; And IMO, the thin line between commentary and straight-news has always been fuzzy… across all media platforms, across all sides of the spectrum, and it has been happening for as long as “journalism” has been around.

@ImNotBlue: Why do Fox fans insist on bringing MSNBC into everything? It’s like there’s a football game and MSNBC is the cross-town rival.

Most people don’t know where MSNBC (or Fox News for that matter) is on their dial and the overwhelming majority of people know nothing about the “Daily Kos” or “MediaMatters”. They’re just a couple of websites out of millions, if not billions and yes, people who closely follow politics or who participate in opinion media can probably define one or the other, it’s no where near being “most people”.

While, I feel it’s pretty safe to say that because Fox News has stayed steady to their original programming; I can still remember Bill O’Reilly describing to Tom Snyder the new network and what he planned to do, pre-launch; The consistency over the years and the way the “Fox News brand” has permeated into pop culture, yes, I guarantee you that most people are under the impression that the entire Fox programming day is dictated by one political party and the two guys at night.

It’s funny that the anti-FOX crowd not only doesn’t watch FOX themselves, they laughably try to convince others not to, too. So how’s that all working out for you? LOL. Just like I’ve eliminated MSNBC from the channel lineup on all my home TVs (you can’t even tune to it), you can do the same with FOX and be done with it!

Magister says:
October 1, 2009 at 12:03 am

@ImNotBlue: Why do Fox fans insist on bringing MSNBC into everything? It’s like there’s a football game and MSNBC is the cross-town rival.

I hate to do this again, but from your FIRST POST:
“The situation Bernie notes is somewhat unique to Fox because they’re the only ones with pure commentary in the evenings.”

YOU brought up the comparison to other networks… not me! I brought up MSNBC because it disproves your thesis. Complain to yourself that you brought up other networks, but don’t blame me!

As for what you’ve said… you’ve offered no evidence, just your opinion. You can’t “garuntee” anything, if you don’t have proof for it. You can have an opinion, but an opinion based upon nothing other than your “feelings,” isn’t much of anything at all!

So answer my question… WHY do you believe that? What has lead you to think as you do? Or is all just an assumption based upon nothing at all?

@ImNotBlue: According to the ratings, three million people watch Fox News and the other news networks add-up to something around two million. So, the cable news audience is approximately the same size as Atlanta metro.

There’s still what, roughly twenty-million watching the networks? And, occasionally one of the networks might mention one of the websites as background to a story and the Kos site usually gets a story during some kind of convention, so… Even if everyone watching news and news-related programming from all sources were familiar with some website that just a handful ever visit, we’re talking roughly ten percent of the population.

Most people don’t watch news. Most people don’t know a news organizations bias and most people don’t know the Daily Kos from a hole in the ground.

Magister says:
October 1, 2009 at 1:53 pm

Okay, Magister… we’re getting warmer, however I think you’re still using false positives to draw your conclusions.

First of, here is a convenient chart from yesterday by the folks over at TVByTheNumbers.com which illustrates the average evening ratings for FNC, MSNBC, and CNN. Now that’s helpful in television terms… but less helpful in the area we are currently discussing.

Your assumption seems to be that only people who watch those stations, know or are aware of its bias. That’s false… and here’s why:

First off, there are many other media outlets which talk about these media outlets and personalities. For a recent example, Beck on the cover of Time Magazine… even people who don’t watch the news networks, will at some point pass a copy of the magazine (waiting for a train, on line at the supermarket, etc), so awareness goes up. Also, factor in “media critics” from newspapers around the country, and the audience continues to grow.

Secondly, a lot of pundit-hosts also distribute within other media outlets, not just cable news. A TV hosts who also has a radio program, may retain some of their radio audience on the television, but not necessarily ALL of the audience… again, widening the pool.

Thirdly, many of these hosts get mention on the daytime and evening chat shows, are occasionally mocked by comedians on SNL or “The Daily Show,” or featured in a long-format piece on a “60-minutes” type program. This again, spreads the audience.

And this says nothing about word of mouth, educational institutions, and other modes of communication. And with every story about a host or personality, one often draws an opinion about that networks bias or direction.

But perhaps I’ve gotten too far away from the point. A LOT of people know about these networks, and have their opinions, even if they don’t actually watch them themselves. Clear evidence of this is from the recent PEW study, which evaluates “Press Accuracy” in the media. The important bit of information is the “Partisan View Of Leading News Outlets” chart, specifcally the difference between the “Favorable/Unfavorable” opinion, and the “DK/Can’t Rate” opinion. If your theory that “most people don’t know,” was true, the “don’t know” percentage would be higher than those with an opinion… but it’s not (except in the NYTimes and Wall Street Journal, oddly enough). That proves that a majority of people ARE aware of these networks, and maintain opinions about their biases.

As for KOS and the like, I think you’re making the same mistake. Just because someone doesn’t visit the site, doesn’t mean they don’t know what the site is, or what they stand for. KOS sponsored a Democratic debate, and the MoveOn folks have bumper-stickers all over the place. People may not visit those sites, but that isn’t evidence that they don’t know what they stand for.

@ImNotBlue: We’re really going to have to end this discussion because we’re the only ones who care, but…

You link appears to have some statistics about how persons polled, who identified their party label, view the various news outlets. It doesn’t say that the news outlets favor one particular party or that people only watch things with which it agrees, it just says that more people view CNN favorably and fewer people have an opinion of MSNBC.

And, perhaps I should’ve said “more so” in my first comment because maybe the current MSNBC line-up has become more than “flavored”, but my original point was that Fox had hitched their primetime to the opinion media wagon and because pop culture has been talking about them for so long, it has colored the view of the general public about the bias of their network, as a whole.

Oh, and nobody knows anything about the Daily Kos. Most people are concerned with taking care of their families, checking a little email and doing catalog shopping. I’m not going to find any stats because I’m not getting paid for this discussion, but very few people visit internet forums and while Kos might have half the name recognition of the Huffington Post, neither of them amount to much.

Magister says:
October 1, 2009 at 4:26 pm
We’re really going to have to end this discussion because we’re the only ones who care, but…

Eh… who cares about everyone else? This is par for the course for me… I’m wordy. :)

The link (and specifically the chart) breaks up people into Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. The way I interpreted it, is “Favorable” correlates to “Fair or Biased-My-Way” coverage, while “Unfavorable” is the opposite. That’s seems to be the “human nature” way of interpreting those results.

my original point was that Fox had hitched their primetime to the opinion media wagon and because pop culture has been talking about them for so long, it has colored the view of the general public about the bias of their network, as a whole.

Ahh… now that makes more sense. Yes, FNC’s longevity and popularity (and subsequent reportage from other media outlets) certainly has colored people’s opinions (rightly or wrongly) about them. That is true.

As for KOS… according to Alexa.com it is in the top 1000 sites in America, which IMO, is pretty impressive. For comparison: KOS 967, Mediaite 6,321, HuffingtonPost 55, FOXNews.com 37, and WhiteHouse.gov 808. I think the last one is the most important… the White House is only about 150 positions higher than KOS, not a huge difference. And again, to suggest that “page views” relates to “awareness,” IMO, is a false assumption.

@ImNotBlue: Alexa gets their rankings from people who install their toolbar, which isn’t isn’t really reflective of the general population and even if they were right, the stats for none of the listed sites would can accurately be considered awareness among the general population. You might be able to extrapolate something relative to the internet population, but I even think that’s a longshot because “most people” never go to those sites.